![](https://www.scienceforums.net/uploads/set_resources_1/84c1e40ea0e759e3f1505eb1788ddf3c_pattern.png)
![](https://www.scienceforums.net/uploads/set_resources_1/84c1e40ea0e759e3f1505eb1788ddf3c_default_photo.png)
Adamchiv
-
Posts
9 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Adamchiv
-
-
47 minutes ago, Lorentz Jr said:
No, there was an extinction event.
I think most mammals were relatively small back then. Lots of them, so I guess a few must have survived.
Ok, thanks for clearing that up, appreciate your time
1 -
28 minutes ago, Lorentz Jr said:
Placentalia existed at the same time as dinosaurs. They're mammals.
Apparently the fossil evidence is a bit thin, but if you start with primates (or humans) and work your way back, placentalia are our closest ancestors that were alive 100 million years ago.
Apparently the connection between mammals and dinosaurs dates back to amniotes, about 300 million years ago.
Hi, thanks for your response, that clears up most of it for me. But then what about the idea that a catastrophic event wiped out the dinosaurs? Doesnt the fact that we have lineage tracing back suggest that there wasnt a catastrophic event?
0 -
Hello, I have a question about evolution regarding humans, dinosaurs, and birds.
First of all please excuse my ignorance, I thought id come to a forum to get a more interactive answer to this.
I fully believe in evolution and am an atheist, but something I cant get my head around is tracing life back to dinosaurs.
For example, evolutionary biologists figured out that all birds trace back to dinosaurs, and are in fact dinosaurs.
But arent we related to birds and all other species? And therefore should also be related to dinosaurs?
But also I remember hearing for a long time that dinosaurs became extinct. Many believing it was an asteroid that wiped out life on earth..
So are humans and all other life descendents of dinosaurs?
Im confused
0 -
17 minutes ago, dimreepr said:
Thanks, glad I asked, shame I don't know any, sound's like it might be quite a laugh. 😆
Off the top of my head, you could mention the test track of one of the German car maker's, it's so long and level you can't see the end, until you climb up an ordinary step ladder.
Interesting, I know for a fact they will claim once again its atmospheric distortion, but i'll look into that one it sounds interesting.
One of my arguments, which I actually thought of myself is regarding polaris and the southern cross. Since timelapses show stars rotating around polaris, and then in the southern hemisphere they rotate around the southern cross...how can that fit into the concept of a flat earth with a dome over it? At the hemisphere you would have a very odd looking star rotation, it blows their model to pieces, im amazed more people dont use it.
No answer whatsoever, off any flat earther yet, it cannot work on a flat plane, and they know that. Which leads me to believe they are in serious denial, or are being disingenuous
0 -
31 minutes ago, studiot said:
This claim is not meaningless it is just plain wrong and arises from a basic misunderstanding of celestial navigation with a sextant, where the term 'arc of the sun or arc of other celestial body arises'
It is not the altitude (which is the arc measured in degrees) but the plane from which is it is reckoned that changes with altitude and with altitude and other factors which have to be corrected for.
This plane is called the true horizon and is not directly available to the observer so various 'observable horizons' are employed - marine navigators use the water horizon, aerial navigators use an 'artificial horizon' (yes aircraft still carry sextants for emergency navigation when the more modern electronic systems are broken).
Clearly these calculations are correct since navigators do arrive at their destinations using them.
The calculations and sight corrections can be quite complicated, here is a simple explanation.
Thankyou, sorry to sound uneducated but some of this stuff is above my knowledge. So I will have to take a little time to try to understand this, but I get the general idea 👍
1 hour ago, dimreepr said:I have never debated with a flat-earther, I've often wondered how they explain the fact that you can see farther, the higher up the observer?
Perhaps you could ask for me, I'd love to hear how they explain it. 😉
Actually they did explain that yesterday, they claimed that globe believers are obsessed with sea level observations because they "know" atmospheric blurring will occur.
They claimed that they (flat earthers) prefer to use altitude to view horizons because it removes the atmospheric distortion.
All of this I have not prepared for, I did however say that they must specify how high they are and how far away the target object is before they even dream of giving people a conclusion
0 -
22 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:
This doesn’t make any sense. The apparent motion of the sun through the sky in the course of a day is due to Earth’s rotation, not due to relative motion between Sun and Earth. So the Sun-Earth distance does not come into this at all.
The issue of course is that Flat Earth rejects the notion of a rotating planet, so pointing this out will just result in hand-waving dismissal.My advice: don’t bother. I’ve been there too, and all it ever resulted in was unnecessary grief. That particular community rejects not only basic scientific observations (such as gravity e.g.), but even the very scientific method itself; there simply isn’t any common ground to base a meaningful debate on.
I think what they are talking about is, say you are at sea level and the sun appears high in the sky.. you go up in a helicopter or go to the top of a mountain, the sun looks lower now. Thats what they were getting at, again not sure if this is even true, but the claim is that it shouldnt change perspective at all because its so far away.
Yes I have never had a reasonable conversation with a flat earther, they are completely divorced from reality
0 -
6 minutes ago, Phi for All said:
Not worth it. You're trying to use reason on a person who thinks NASA (and ESA and Roscosmos and JAXA and CSNA and ISRO) are hiding the truth about the universe. Their confirmation bias would only be triggered by any scientific explanation.
There's SO much fundamental misunderstanding going on with a flat Earther it would take complete reeducation to get through. Anyone who believes the Earth is flat doesn't understand gravity, or how stars and planets form.
I agree, and even if I answered it perfectly it would be unlikely to convince them. However it has intrigued me because its a good question really, nothing wrong with that. Well I say question, it was more of an assertion (as always 😄)
0 -
Hi, I am new to this so please bare with me. I am currently debating a flat earther, and I am unsure how to answer this question accurately.
The claim is that the sun cannot be 93,000,000 miles away, as when you view it from a high altitude, the suns arc changes too much. The conclusion is that this must mean the sun is much closer, otherwise its arc wouldnt appear to change to us.
I put this down to perspective and explained that if it were 93 million light years away our position would effect our perspective. (I might be wrong there)
But I would also like to know if or why this is the case, I havent observed this or been able to.
Thanks if anyone can help?
0
Question about evolution
in Evolution, Morphology and Exobiology
Posted
Thanks thats very interesting to learn