The science of evolution is anything but science. (Page 35) BelgianStrider: What really strikes me is the fact that only religions pretend to have the exclusive truth !!! Psst pretending science and/or evolution is a religion might encounter some problems: it is clear that deep devoted "religious scientisms" ever could be in worschipping the " 'religious' scientismistic dogma" as creationists tend to with even blatant lies to defend their 'religious exclusive truth' is as good as non existent in 'scientism'!!!! (Edited by BelgianStrider)  Blackshoes: No! The truth is also available to those that just think they know. It's often right before their eyes! They're often just so arrogant they reject and deny it. Thinking themselves wise  For example; Abiogenesis is naturalistically impossible! Yet many will say they BELIEVE it is possible! Without any reason nor logical evidence other than their faith" that they somehow " know, " that which they clearly do not know! In other words, their imagination and assumptions, have deceived them. I'm sure many Lie. However, the truth Is you've never witnessed or spoken to, or heard from any witness, or scientist, that they have observed one kind has morphed into another kind! Yet, you will go to your death, believing that you are as right as rain! 'Evolutionists and atheists have far more faith in assumptions, imagination, and believeth than any religion or person, I have ever met. If you back it up far enough? It all comes down to the old saying" which came first the chicken or the egg " Everything we see in the universe, on earth, including life, proves beyond any reasonable doubt! That God created all things. Nothing can come from nothing! (Edited by Blackshoes)  TheismIsUntenable: "I'm just stating a fact, that anyone that rejects and argues against the truth is a fool." You just punked yourself. Blackshoes: That only depends on what you don't know and only assume. You'll see enough, the truth cannot disappear, just because you deny and reject it ! Creation is a fact! Nothing can come from nothing. Code does not develop on its own naturally. You've never observed one kind becoming another kind. Everything we know of the universe is too finely tuned to have come about by chance. We are far and above too different to be the product of your fairytales of evolutionary faith. There is no genetic avenue to allow for Macroevolutionary imagination. (Edited by Blackshoes)  zeffur: re: "BSr: ...pretending science and/or evolution is a religion might encounter some problems:" There is no need to 'pretend'. Your kind promotes the myths of abiogenesis & bio-evolution all the time to anyone who is foolish enough to accept it. It's obviously a false religion, with nature as its god & irrational, delusional, & dishonest 'me too' 'scientists' as its idols. (Edited by zeffur) TheismIsUntenable: Well I follow logic and evidence...and actually have an education worth sharing... You...err, had a book read to you by mommy that you were gullible enough to believe and continue to believe it 60 years later... zeffur: No you don't. You believe in irrational rubbish to support an irrational worldview...You have NO sound case for your beliefs & it is obvious to anyone who looks at the real evidence & the absurd misinterpretations of that evidence that your kind peddles in vain to promote the bio-evo cult con... (Edited by zeffur)  TheismIsUntenable: It's hilarious to me that a clown who believes in magic is talking to me about rationality. Bro you believe in talking snakes, donkeys, parting seas, plagues, zombies, angels, devils, faith healing, and a load of other crap that I don't even care to learn about. You can't fix stupid.  zeffur: I don't believe in zombies. And a perfect God that can speak the universe into existence certainly wouldn't have any difficulty producing a talking serpent & a talking donkey. As for the rest, God is capable of producing miracles, as well. You certainly cannot disprove any of them, so I will trust in God's Word on the matter--not your worthless disbelief, which isn't important in any way at all. You can certainly continue to irrationally, delusionally, & dishonestly believe in the absurd & indefensible bio-evo cult fiction that has never been & can never be proven true or having ever occurred. Your delusions are not proofs--they are just a sad reality of how corrupt you are & how weak, gullible, & deluded that your mind truly is. (Edited by zeffur)  (Post deleted by Blackshoes ) zeffur: Resurrection doesn't produce zombies. It's restored life. Zombies are unliving fictional entities--very much abiogenesis & bio-evolution are fictional rubbish.  bonzono: Oh I just noticed the idiocy by zeff last page. can helium balloons reach orbit altitude? Zeff says yes - wrong, they currently cannot. "The majority of satellites orbiting the Earth do so at altitudes between 160 and 2,000 kilometers. This orbital regime is called low Earth orbit, or LEO" https://aerospace.csis.org/aerospace101/earth-orbit-101/ There have been no balloons ever recorded at this altitude. "The current highest altitude achieved by a NASA balloon is about 160,000 feet" That's Just under 50 km - less than 1/3 of the altitude of orbit. Zeff's stupid because he thinks the edge of atmosphere is the same as 'orbit altitude'. duh. As a side note, in case zeff decides to plunge yet further down his rabbit hole of ignorance, simply getting to 'orbit altitude' isnt the same as 'being in orbit' - I only point this out because zeff is likely to say something stupid about it. Anyhow, zeff, talked with your doctor yet? HE thinks you're a mammal. Yeah, that's right, the doctor you think is correct oops zeffur: Actually, you only point this out "I only point this out because zeff is likely to say something stupid about it" because orbital velocity for a spacecraft & orbital altitude for a balloon aren't the same things--which is the exact reason that I used 'altitude' not 'orbital velocity', but you weren't intelligent enough to clearly make such a distinction--which doesn't really surprise anyone. Not having achieved such an altitude doesn't mean that it is impossible, actually--you just aren't smart enough to realize that... As usual, nothing that you post matters in the slightest... bonzono: hehe, now now, you dont have to be all butthurt and wounded simply because you faffed your primary school level googling skills . zeffur: Orbital velocity can be achieved at many different altitudes--it just won't last very long at lower altitudes, due to atmospheric resistance. At 800 km orbit can last for ~100 yrs. Here's some more about it: " most experts say that space starts at the point where orbital dynamic forces become more important than aerodynamic forces, or where the atmosphere alone is not enough to support a flying vessel at suborbital speeds. Historically, it’s been difficult to pin that point at a particular altitude. In the 1900s, Hungarian physicist Theodore von Kármán determined the boundary to be around 50 miles up, or roughly 80 kilometers above sea level. Today, though, the Kármán line is set at what NOAA calls “an imaginary boundary” that’s 62 miles up, or roughly a hundred kilometers above sea level. The Federation Aeronautique Internationale (FAI), which keeps track of standards and records in astronautics and aeronautics, also defines space as beginning a hundred kilometers up. It is, after all, a nice round number. But the Federal Aviation Administration, the U.S. Air Force, NOAA, and NASA generally use 50 miles (80 kilometers) as the boundary, with the Air Force granting astronaut wings to flyers who go higher than this mark. At the same time, NASA Mission Control places the line at 76 miles (122 kilometers), because that is “the point at which atmospheric drag becomes noticeable,” Bhavya Lal and Emily Nightingale of the Science and Technology Policy Institute write in a 2014 review article." bonzono: "Orbital velocity can be achieved at many different altitudes" and a helium balloon can reach none of them. sorry. your answer was flat out wrong. lol bonzono: strictly speaking, you can orbit a mass at any distance from it, just that our atmosphere tends to pull out too much energy - suffice to say, nothing is, or ever will be in orbit at 50 km up - which is the highest a helium balloon has reached. soz kid, you faffed it. suck it up. move on. BelgianStrider: "Here's some more about it: " most experts say that space starts at the point where orbital dynamic forces become more important than aerodynamic forces, or where the atmosphere alone is not enough to support a flying vessel at suborbital speeds. ..."  what is the difference with "aerodynamics will not be applicable anymore but astrodynamics" ?????  Though z did clearly claimed I did not know what I was speaking about !!!!! And boring to death !!!!!! OOOOOOH we know already I will be lying and he never asserted that !!!! Yeah for sure he never did !!! 𝐈 𝐝𝐢𝐝 "aerodynamics will not be applicable anymore but astrodynamics" !!!! 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐒𝐄𝐐𝐔𝐄𝐍𝐓𝐋𝐘 𝐆𝐈𝐕𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐔𝐍𝐃𝐄𝐍𝐈𝐀𝐁𝐋𝐄 𝐄𝐕𝐈𝐃𝐄𝐍𝐂𝐄 𝐁𝐀𝐋𝐋𝐎𝐎𝐍𝐒 𝐀𝐁𝐎𝐕𝐄 𝐓𝐇𝐄 "𝐯𝐨𝐧 𝐊𝐀𝐑𝐌𝐀𝐍" 𝐋𝐈𝐍𝐄 𝐈𝐒 𝐁𝐘 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐏𝐑𝐈𝐍𝐂𝐈𝐏𝐋𝐄 𝐎𝐅 𝐀𝐑𝐂𝐇𝐈𝐌𝐄𝐃𝐄𝐒 𝐈𝐌𝐏𝐎𝐒𝐒𝐈𝐁𝐋𝐄 𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐢𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐬𝐮𝐛𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐜𝐥𝐨𝐮𝐝𝐬 !!! pssst and not only Mr Archimedes but it will be also technically an extreme hard nut to solve due to Mr Boyle Physics 1001 It has already been demonstrated when confronting him in front of physiscs 1001: he becomes extremely tired and starts to yawn (Edited by BelgianStrider) zeffur: I haven't been wrong about anything that I've posted, dummies. The fact is that orbital velocity of spacecraft are maintained by thrust. Even the ISS space station's orbit decays & it orbits at ~250 miles (~400 km). The fact is this: atmosphere causes resistance (drag) on fast moving objects & it slows their velocity. That reduction in velocity causes its altitude above sea level to decrease. That is the reason that they boost the velocity of the ISS occasionally to keep it in orbit. The germane factors that matter in the question about a properly engineered balloon are: What is the atmospheric density at 100 km? What is the density of H & He at 100 km?? Figure out those properly & then you will know whether there is a difference that will cause a properly constructed ultra-thin balloon to rise or fall or remain stationary. Otherwise, you morons are doing what morons typically do--spewing mostly useless rubbish. (Edited by zeffur) bonzono: yup, the question was ' can helium balloons reach orbital altitude' - you said yes. you're wrong. | Science Chat Room 2 People Chatting Similar Conversations |
Your endless stupidity bores everyone who wastes the time to read it, once again..