[_ Old Earth _] the sun orbits the earth?

[Strangelove]

was Joshua a man of science or a warrior for the lord.

we know the answer to this
a warrior, so last time i checked joshua wasnt known to have studied plants or the things around him.

so FROM his knowledge and he told his scribe to write what Joshua told him.

Joshua didnt know the operation of the heavens so he wrote what he OBSERVED.

So lets take your logic and roll with it Jason. IF Joshua was a man of Science and not a warrior at the time this was written, what would he have told his scribes to write down?? Would it be different to what he clearly observed?

it would help to actually have the h.s in you to understand., this is why a pastor and chruch is for. as men are called to expound on verses.

How.........dare.........you.

and that is the function of the church.

The function of the church (building) is to foster and encourage aposatacy using mob rule. And its working a treat! As evidenced by the complete lack of faith in God's Word shown by people today.

homechurch isnt you alone reading the word and on the internet learning the bible.

most homechruches arent in proper exegesis or are done with anger at the parent church they left , not a good reason to start a movement.

It's a perefect reason. People leave churches cos they are teaching the wrong Gospel. So they go out into the wilderness. You should try it for 40 days. See what happens.

i will ask you this, do you need to understand the innerworkings of your disease to be healed.?

Nope. the Dr. does. And he uses real practical science which I have no problem with.

I disagree with evolution on two bases.

one the entire theory of learning(skinners law) has serious holes as we learn not in random chance
two because how bible is to be properly exegised.

So the entire theory of heliocentricity you have no problem with even though no-one has brought any science to confirm it? You see no holes there?

How does your exegesis work exactly? I havn't seen you critically examine and analyse any texts regarding the topic in this entire thread>>?

ok now then. is the bible a science book to you?

It lays down the fundamentals very well.

would you consult the genesis account for the disease you have?

First yes. Then I'd consult a Dr. then compare my findings and use the H.S. (which you are convinced I dont have) to make a decision on how to procedd.

would you let a doctor work on you if he only had the bible and didnt have the faith to heal you but rather said that in genesis this bone is there and you have an extra rib?

Of course not. He wouldn't be a real Dr if that was the case would he?

 

[lordkalvan]

Who said the furthest stars were 8 billion miles away? Thats the probable extremety of the universe not the starry realm. After the last stars you then have God's throne room and the waters above the firmament.

'Probable extremity', 'starry realm', 'God's throne room', 'waters above the firmament'. Way to go with the precise terminology and the 'true science'. So how far away are the furthest stars then? What allows you to determine the 'thickness' of the Universe at 8 billion miles.

1) The Earth is the focal point of everything......

The Anthropic Principle runs riot.

The second part of the structure of the universe is the space--and its components (the atmosphere where birds fly, the clouds, magnetosphere, Van Allen Belt, ozone layer, etc.)--between the Earth and the limit of its gravitational and/or electromagnetic influence. This distance is said to be 216,000 miles, just 5000 miles short of the Moon at perigee or 36,000 miles at apogee.

And according to who is this the 'second part of the structure of the universe'. Looks like a lot of arbitrary divisions to me. The extent of Earth's gravitational influence reaches further than the Moon, by the way. Technically, it's infinite.

The third part of the structure of the universe is the one that starts where the Earth’s influence ends, i.e., basically the Moon, and also includes the sun and all the way to the end of the accepted accepted influence of the sun (the heliopause)...which is the (recently demoted) planet Pluto.

And you know this how? I think most cosmologists put the heliopause at around 100 AU. Pluto averages about 40 AU from the sun.

This third part of the Biblical structure of the universe is the second of three regions or zones of what the Scriptures call the "Firmament" and the "Heavens". Scripturally, there are three "heavens" (II Cor. 12:2), i.e., three parts to the "firmament". This part--the moon, sun, and planets--constitute the second part of the firmament...or the second heaven.

You seem to have very little on which to base such an imaginative conception. How do you know there isn't a fourth 'heaven'?

The fourth part of the structure of the universe is the realm of the stars. Scripturally, as we shall see, the stars are in the 3rd Heaven of the firmament.

The fifth part of the structure of the universe according to the Scriptures is a zone above the stars where God’s temporary Throne and all His activities are located (Is. 66:22; 65:17; Jn. 14:2; Rev. 21:1, 3; etc.). This is still the 3rd heaven (II Cor. 12-2), i.e., it is still the 3rd part of the firmament where the stars are located... but is it is above and beyond the last star in that zone.

The sixth and final part of the structure of the universe according to the Scriptures (explained just ahead) is called "the waters above the firmament". (This sixth part is the outer limit beyond which the existence of no other entity is indicated).

That’s it. That is a verbal description of a static cut-away view of the physical structure of the universe from the Earth outward, according to the Bible.

Really? And you accuse others of posting bunkum and horswaggle?

Lolz. I choke on the Earth even moving at 1mph.

Choke away.

I dont push any orbital speed because the Earth isn't orbiting anything and you nor anyone else has brought an iota of scientific evidence to prove otherwise.

I know you deny anything and everything that doesn't conform with your idiosyncratic interpretation of the Bible. I was just amused by your reasons for quoting a figure that is at variance with that calculated from evidence by astronomers and supposed that it had some deep significance for you because it contained three sixes in a row. Maybe I was wrong.

 

[lordkalvan]

And also entirely avoiding the issue of bringing documentation forward relating to the comical issue of high speed movement going completely unfelt on Earth.

Please feel free to continue denying what you cannot understand.

Um...nah.....I handwave it becasue it's got nothing to do with detecting movement on Earth and everything to do with movement in weightless space. You are dodging the issue...not surprisingly because you have no answers

Apparently you didn't even read the article. In fact your only comment was 'snore' (resonant with reasoned argument) and a complete absence of a reply to the relevant parts of the cited article which apply whether you are in space (there is no such thing as 'weightless space', by the way, certainly not as far as this article is concerned anyway).

More deflecting and dodging the issue. you should be a politician.

I think it's clear who is deflecting and dodging issues here. If I was going to be a politician, I would sign up for your correspondence course straight away.

Nope. My heads way above water on that front. The only obvious conclusions to be gleaned from any scientific evidence brought forward up till this point is that the Earth is not moving as shown by Michelson-Morley.

Except that they neither showed nor claimed any such thing.

Interesting how you let our exchange regarding aether die out so quickly. Did you ever acknowledge that space is made up of stuff? Stuff that in its most general of terms was described (a century ago) as lumineforous aether in that experiment?

I think your memory is failing you.

Yes this is always the battle cry of assumption based theoretical science (guesswork). "Dont believe your God given senses or Bible. They are lying to you. Believe our occult mathematics. Believe the faulty musings and words of men"

No battlecry, just an observation. I would be happy to see you show how it is incorrect other than by inveighing and pulpit-pounding.

Lol. You tell me that what I'm really seeing is an illusion. Lolz. Lets check the dictionary again shall we?

Congratulations on your expert skill with a dictionary. How does your ability to find a definition of illusion that you like (and can add to to suit your theological needs) demonstrate that the referred to sensation is not, in fact, an illusion?

It is you who is under the spell of mankind.

No, I just prefer sound reasoning to specious reasoning.

Take the theoretical blinkers off and it will widen your view.

Nope, still can't see the reasoned answer in the relevant post. Sorry.

Baiting? Evangelizing to the unsaved is not baiting my friend.

I have no wish to be saved by yourself. Please keep your evangelizing to yourself. I am doing my best to respect your wishes concerning the Bible. Please show me the same respect and consideration.

Oh you would love me to ignore you eh? Sorry bud.

Don't flatter yourself. I couldn't care less whether you reply or not. After all, we're just two internet forum nerds with more time on our hands to indulge in this rather esoteric debate than we should have.

As long as you are spouting contra-Biblical material I will fight you for the benefit of the flock.

I rather think you're only 'fighting' me for the benefit of your own ego, but whatever floats your boat.

The simple fact that I am Christian and you are not and that I can more than match you in the debate is enough for my brethren to see the light of the Word of God.

Simply posting specious nonsense, ignoring reasoned argument, dodging and evading questions, stooping to ridicule and snide remarks isn't much of a match. I think you flatter yourself again.

I will continue to evangelize to you as is my right. If you dont want to comment then fine. You have read the Gospels and deny that Jesus is the Son of God. Please dont take offence to this but that means you have the spirit of antichrist residing in you. As a Christian I must do what I can to help you. In the eyes of God it is my duty...and I pray for you.

And again I ask you to refrain from doing so. There is no antichrist and its spirit most certainly does not reside in me. Your imaginary fantasies are of no interest to me in this respect. If there is a God and s/he wants to attract my attention, I am sure that s/he can do it without benefit of your intervention.

 

[jasoncran]

So lets take your logic and roll with it Jason. IF Joshua was a man of Science and not a warrior at the time this was written, what would he have told his scribes to write down?? Would it be different to what he clearly observed?



How.........dare.........you.



The function of the church (building) is to foster and encourage aposatacy using mob rule. And its working a treat! As evidenced by the complete lack of faith in God's Word shown by people today.



It's a perefect reason. People leave churches cos they are teaching the wrong Gospel. So they go out into the wilderness. You should try it for 40 days. See what happens.



Nope. the Dr. does. And he uses real practical science which I have no problem with.



So the entire theory of heliocentricity you have no problem with even though no-one has brought any science to confirm it? You see no holes there?

How does your exegesis work exactly? I havn't seen you critically examine and analyse any texts regarding the topic in this entire thread>>?



It lays down the fundamentals very well.



First yes. Then I'd consult a Dr. then compare my findings and use the H.S. (which you are convinced I dont have) to make a decision on how to procedd.



Of course not. He wouldn't be a real Dr if that was the case would he?

the bible isnt a science book though at times it has accurate statements on science.

oh so a telescope like hubble isnt an extension of the human eyes.

really?

why would the holy spirit lead you to use news sensationalism? that isnt how he works.

prophecy is already written in the bible, done its not necessary to see the news to know what will happen.

that is why i seldom am suprised at the way the church is.

senses like lk says can be deceived. learn to fly and you will see.

if I take you up in an aircraft and you veer right for a few minutes(hard) and ask you to fly to straight without instruments you cant do it.

so those barometers and other flight instruments are needed to keep the bird straight despite what the PILOT senses tells him. He has to ignore that urge to correct when he has that going on and look at the readings.

you, my friend are on a tangent meaning that theres no one to show you that you are wrong except here. its happened to me and others, you arent an exception.

 

[Strangelove]

Star trails tell us what is going on in the universe. What we see and photograph has to be explained by the naturalists with an assumption that the Earth is rotating. This assumption necessitates the further observation-denying reality that the Earth is orbiting the Sun. That assumption in turn demands that the Earth be tilted in its orbit in order to account for the seasons, etc. Assumptions are, by definition, ipso facto not “science” (scire: to know). Accepting the first assumption has several immediate effects: It negates repeated Biblical geocentrism verses and necessitates a non-Biblical explanation for observed phenomena. It elevates a mathematical model which must assume not only that what is seen is not true, but that a reversal of what is seen is true; namely that the Sun is standing still and that the direction of the Moon is reversed and assigned new speeds to answer undeniable phase and eclipse phenomena (which is all answered very nicely by a stationary Earth, thank you). And on it goes until everyone agrees that the Earth is just one example of gravitationally captured flotsam going around a hum-drum star in a universe with billions of galaxies, trillions of stars, billions of other “planets”, all billions of light year distant.

[FONT=arial,sans-serif]What we now KNOW—and what heliocentrists and geocentrists alike are both choosing to ignore—is that every concept in this textbook Big Bang Evolutionary Paradigm (billions of years, relativity, heliocentricity, big bang, expanding universe, and lately, parallel universes and superstrings) constitutes an alternate “creation scenario” derived from the Talmud/Zohar/Kabbala holy books of the ruling Pharisee Sect of Rabbinical Judaism. There is no “secular” science involved between these two models about the Origin of all that exists. Period. The Biblical Creation Model of six literal days with no evolution needed is a Religious Model, AND the Kabbala Creation Model of 15 billion years with evolution needed is a Religious Model.​

The indispensable keystone of the Christ-hating, Bible-destroying Pharisee Religion’s Big Bang Evolutionary Paradigm is the heliocentricity model. That first assumption of a rotating Earth makes all the rest possible. The Copernican Revolution paved the way for the Darwinian Revolution with its subsequent rationale for the Marxian and Freudian and Einsteinian and Saganian/Gould/Wickramasinghe Revolutions. That historical progression is undeniable, and so is the fraudulent use of technology in telescopes, redshift lies, virtual reality software, etc., which has produced this Pharisee video-game universe disguised as “secular science” now in the textbooks.​

So, rather than continue to split hairs over a “philosophical choice” between geocentrism and heliocentricity, evolution or no evolution, etc., why don’t we reduce the whole “Origins” argument to its inescapable, basic options, viz., the Pharisee Model of the universe, Earth, and mankind based on the Talmud/Zohar/Kabbala…or the Christian Model of the universe, Earth, and mankind based on the Bible?? As all the above are unarguable facts, so is it an admitted fact that the Biblical God Who neither required nor used any evolution whatsoever to create everything in six days cannot be the same as the Pharisee g’d who required and used 15 billion years of evolution. We now know that the Talmud/Kabbala g’d of the Pharisee Religion is Satan [FONT=arial,sans-serif]We know that the Bible teaches that Jesus—under the Father’s tutelage—is the Creator (Col. 1:16; Eph. 3:9; John 1:3,10; Heb. 1:2.10). Savior, yes, but Creator too, Who used no evolution. We know that the Talmud teaches that Jesus was a liar, a bastard, and is boiling in feces and semen in hell[/FONT][FONT=arial,sans-serif]. The motivation for the incredible edifice of contra-scientific assumptions inherent in the Pharisee/Kabbalic universe resting on heliocentricity is plain enough. They had Jesus killed once. That didn’t work, so they have killed the credibility of the only Book that describes the creation we see everywhere we look. God is a jealous God who will end Satan’s “knowledge” ruling deception of the science falsely so called Evolution Idol. It is written that there is a “war” which the Lamb wins (Rev. 17:14) which unmasks and causes Babylon, Satan’s empire, to Fall (Rev. 14:8; etc.).[/FONT]​

[FONT=arial,sans-serif]It is also written that Jesus uses His “called, chosen, and faithful” to win this 2-3 month “war” (Rev. 17:14). Could there be a greater honor for anyone who professes to love the Biblical God and His Son Jesus than to be one of those called, chosen, and faithful followers?? I, for one, consider that a rhetorical question. But how can it be done? What can we do? Simple: Forget the hair-splitting. It’s not a philosophic choice. It’s a religious choice. It’s The Bible or the Talmud/Kabbala; Jehovah God and Jesus or Satan.; Eternal life or eternal death; Real observable science (knowledge, fact) or assumption based pseudo-science (false “knowledge”, deception). [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,sans-serif]Heliocentricity is the keystone and the Achilles Heel of the entire Satan-inspired Kabbalic universe of 15 billion years of evolution. It is the #1 assumption upon which the Pharisees have erected their knowledge-controlling deception. The time left for fence-sitting relevant to this demonstrable Achilles Heel of heliocentricity is summed up in Elijah’s ancient dictum: “How long halt ye between two opinions? If the LORD be God, follow Him; but if Baal, then follow him” (I Kings 18:21). [/FONT]​

From - fixedearth.com​

[/FONT]

 

[Strangelove]

Heliocentrists Claim that the Accelerations due to Earth's Supposed Translational Orbit Around the Sun
Cannot Be Detected:​

Thus, all the efforts and experiments done pertaining to relative verses absolute motion...... ever heard of Sagnac, Michelson Morley and Michelson Gale et al?...... it works no matter how many frames of reference you attempt to create or take away, or bundle or imagine...... the point is there is a difference between absolute and relative motion...... The point of reference is whatever is out there that orbits wrt the Earth at 23h56min4sec...... coz that is not the rotational rate of the Earth.​

All accelerations can be detected, at least any produced in any experiment or lab...... and yet the Earth’s ever changing accelerations cannot? (see also the inertial paradox and tides)...... It does no good to appeal to theories that are dependent on the very conclusions they try to show as being true...... That is not science that is called a circular fallacy, make believe and fables for educated men.​

The fact you have a blindfold on and can’t see the physical perimeter of the car does not mean you can't detect the cars motion...... Don’t assume the very thing you are trying to determine one way or the other...... to say there is no point of reference is to beg the question because again all motions and accelerations in any reference frame can and are detected...... in fact the only ones that are claimed to be undetectable are the very ones used to “exemplify” the “fact” that some accelerations are undetectable and thus there is no point of reference for absolute motion!?...... Gee whiz then, the fact you can't see my imaginary friends, proves they exist but are invisible!?...... And the fact you can't see the air you breath, proves it does not exist!?...... That is not science, that is called wishful thinking. True science is Logic, Observation and Experience (LOE); not assumptions, cherry picked data and imaginations (wishful thinking)...... The notions that the Earth moves are based on the latter set of unscientific "principles" I'm afraid......



- Allen Daves​

 

[Strangelove]

"The Copernican [ heliocentricity ] heresy so thoroughly reversed man's view of the cosmos, the social order and hierarchy of moral values, that it was as if a new species of being had arisen; no doctrine has had a more pernicious influence on the human spirit. The English, French and American revolutions stemmed from it, and it paved the way for Darwinism, Marxism, Nietzsche, atheistic existentialism and Einstein. But worse, it has led to the modern doctrine of MORAL relativism, that there are no moral absolutes, which results in anarchism, hedonism and despair; also meaningless, mechanistic impersonal materialism. 'Surely our fathers have inherited nothing but lies' (Jeremiah 7)".

- Amnon Goldberg

 

[jasoncran]

you ignored my comment on piloting an aircraft. that happens alot to pilots.

a pilot passes out in the f-16 during the hardest manuevers and the computers take over to complete the manuever. that jet doenst fly by direct links but by servos and computers.

 

[Strangelove]

you ignored my comment on piloting an aircraft. that happens alot to pilots.

Yes and I'll continue to ignore you until I recieve an apology for you saying that I lack the Holy Spirit.

 

[lordkalvan]

Yes and I'll continue to ignore you until I recieve an apology for you saying that I lack the Holy Spirit.

Well, let me repeat Jason's excellent point then: you have asserted that our senses are an excellent and reliable guide to what we perceive and understand in terms of absolute motion, effectively that 'what we see is what we get'. In this case, perhaps you can explain why air forces and airlines spend so much money training pilots not to rely on their senses of velocity, orientation and direction when flying at night or in bad visibility (fog, cloud, etc)?

 

[Strangelove]

Well, let me repeat Jason's excellent point then: you have asserted that our senses are an excellent and reliable guide to what we perceive and understand in terms of absolute motion, effectively that 'what we see is what we get'. In this case, perhaps you can explain why air forces and airlines spend so much money training pilots not to rely on their senses of velocity, orientation and direction when flying at night or in bad visibility (fog, cloud, etc)?

Yes excellent point indeed well done to the both of you.

Pilots are trained to not rely on their senses so that they can still fly when their senses are impaired and also cos they cant necessarily feel which exact direction they are going in even though they can still FEEL they are moving.

So the point of the point is what?

That I cant say we should be feeling the movment of the Earth? Lolz.

 

[jasoncran]

this is a real place and cars do this and i live less than a 100 miles from this place.

sl i will pm you tonight to clarify what i meant.i need to time to think how i should word it.

lk this defies all our senses.

Spook Hill

if the link doesnt work google spook hill, lake wales, fl.

 

[lordkalvan]

Yes excellent point indeed well done to the both of you.

Oh, the sarcasm; it's so rapier-sharp.

Pilots are trained to not rely on their senses so that they can still fly when their senses are impaired and also cos they cant necessarily feel which exact direction they are going in even though they can still FEEL they are moving.

The point is, they may not be moving in the direction they think or in any way relative to that direction at all:

After 10 to 20 seconds of constant angular acceleration of the inner ear's fluid, the sensation of motion transmitted to the brain can be false. The pilot can be in a turn and not know it. In addition, there is a fixed acceleration threshold, below which the semicircular canals cannot sense any rotation at all. This threshold is approximately 2 degrees per second; if the rotation is gradual enough, the pilot won't sense any change and will develop "the leans." The leans can occur in the same or opposite direction of the motion. Both will occur when movement is below the threshold of sensitivity for the semicircular canal.

First case, a roll to the left-below the threshold-is unnoticed until the pilot looks at the attitude indicator. The pilot's semicircular canal never registered the initial turn, but the senses now produce a right wing-down sensation, which can linger for a long time. Second case, leans that occur in the same direction. The initial movement is rapid, caused by gusty conditions or clear air turbulence. When the plane is gradually returned to wings level, the pilot still thinks he/she is leaning in the direction of the initial displacement.

Source: avstop.com/stories/spatialdisorientation.htm

So the point of the point is what?

That you have continually denied that the senses are not a reliable indication of whether or not we are moving in relation to something else.

That I cant say we should be feeling the movment of the Earth? Lolz.

Exactly; I'm glad you understand at last. There's no 'should' about it.

 

[lordkalvan]

this is a real place and cars do this and i live less than a 100 miles from this place.

sl i will pm you tonight to clarify what i meant.i need to time to think how i should word it.

lk this defies all our senses.

Spook Hill

if the link doesnt work google spook hill, lake wales, fl.

Yes, seeing definitely isn't believing.

 

[Strangelove]

The point is, they may not be moving in the direction they think or in any way relative to that direction at all:

Again the issue isn't knowing which direction your going in its whether you can FEEL movement at all.

There is never an example, never, when high speed movement cannot be felt by a human being.

((LOLZ!! Apart from we can't feel the Earth moving........thats the only example....

**Giggle**.......and thats not an example......

,..........................because it isn't moving))

Sorry whats your excuse again that we cant feel the movement of the Earth?

B'ermmmm Frame of reference??
errrrrrrrr Gravity! yeah thats it gravity!
uhhmmmmm errr....... Pilots! Airlines!

Lolz!

 

[lordkalvan]

Again the issue isn't knowing which direction your going in its whether you can FEEL movement at all.

Yes. And sometimes you think you can (when there is none being experienced in the direction in which you think you are moving). And sometimes you think you can't (when you are actually moving in a direction you are quite unaware of). That you keep denying this in spite of the numerous examples and references you have had given to you is instructive of your ideological commitment to maintain your argument no matter what the evidence against it.

There is never an example, never, when high speed movement cannot be felt by a human being.

Really? How do astronauts feel it then? Despite being in 'free fall', they experience a sense of weightlessness, i.e. no accelerative forces are acting on their bodies.

 

[Strangelove]

Yes. And sometimes you think you can (when there is none being experienced in the direction in which you think you are moving). And sometimes you think you can't (when you are actually moving in a direction you are quite unaware of). That you keep denying this in spite of the numerous examples and references you have had given to you is instructive of your ideological commitment to maintain your argument no matter what the evidence against it.

Ok bud, I get that humans can be fooled by temporary sensory illusions. Ya I accept that. I really do. I'm not denying it....see?But the fact remains when a human is travelling at high speed on Earth they can ALWAYS feel it.

What is the reason that we dont feel the Earth moving? Do you have an answer or are you still gonna desperately cling to your irrelevant weightless spaceman mantra?

Really? How do astronauts feel it then? (**sigh**) Despite being in 'free fall', they experience a sense of weightlessness, i.e. no accelerative forces are acting on their bodies.

Earth to Kalvan are you reading, over?

When you've finished fantasizing that your in Stargate you can come back down to Earth where we're talking about why humans standing on Terra-Firma cant feel the Earth move....

......check check 1....2........Ground control to Kalvan....come in.....

Kalvan??? Kalvaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnn......

 

[lordkalvan]

Ok bud, I get that humans can be fooled by temporary sensory illusions. Ya I accept that. I really do. I'm not denying it....see?But the fact remains when a human is travelling at high speed on Earth they can ALWAYS feel it.

What is the reason that we dont feel the Earth moving? Do you have an answer or are you still gonna desperately cling to your irrelevant weightless spaceman mantra?

Earth to Kalvan are you reading, over?

When you've finished fantasizing that your in Stargate you can come back down to Earth where we're talking about why humans standing on Terra-Firma cant feel the Earth move....

......check check 1....2........Ground control to Kalvan....come in.....

Kalvan??? Kalvaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnn......

Okay, okay, I get it. You're completely clueless about this, cannot support your assertions, have given up attempting to deny what even you cannot deny, but nevertheless you are still determined to stick to your bizarre ideas regardless of any and all evidence and explanations to the contrary. And you're really, really witty as well and I lack all appreciative humour in respect of your entertaining barbs at my expense. Let's just leave it at that, shall we?

 

[Strangelove]

What is the reason that we dont feel the Earth moving? Do you have an answer.......?

Okay, okay, I get it. You're completely clueless about this, cannot support your assertions, have given up attempting to deny what even you cannot deny, but nevertheless you are still determined to stick to your bizarre ideas regardless of any and all evidence and explanations to the contrary. And you're really, really witty as well and I lack all appreciative humour in respect of your entertaining barbs at my expense. Let's just leave it at that, shall we?

LOLZ. No answer then. ed!

 

[lordkalvan]

[/SIZE]LOLZ. No answer then. ed!

None required to a question that has been effectively answered many times with many different examples from several posters. Clearly nothing will shake you from your delusional insistence about this, so what's the point in trying to show you how and why you are wrong when you have already been shown the how and why over and over?