what makes you believe the world is round?, page 4

However, you just can't randomly turn a virus into a monkey by chance.

If you don't even have a basic working concept of what the hell you're talking about, then what in god's creation makes you think you could possibly have anything worthwhile to say on the subject?

I don't know what you think evolution is, or what the theory states, but it is not what you're attempting to describe. You might as well be giving me mechanical advice and suggesting that my car's acceleration is acting boggy because some of the miniature horses who live inside of the piston cylinder are sick.

Sorry but evolution is just a crutch used by people that cannot fathom the fact that we are not alone in the Universe, and that there are intelligences far beyond our pitiful imaginations out there.

And if you knew had a clue, you'd understand why Evolution has nothing at all to say about the possible existence of Alien Intelligences. To spout such ridiculous falsehoods and fallacies, yet you have the gall to promote and reiterate absurdities which I'm pretty damned well sure you HAVE been corrected on before at one time or another... and claim those that do display an accurate understanding and/or accept evolution are deluded or weak minded?

OOOOOhhhh ooohhhh oohhhhh ooooohhhhhhh BUT WHERE IS YOUR SCIENCE TO BACK UP YOUR CLAIM????? It got destroyed with most of the other good stuff, in the library of Alexandria.

Coincidentally enough, however, one of the works which did survive the Library's various assaults and eventual destruction was a comprehensive and highly promoted treatise on astronomical and mathematical theories written by Claudius Ptolemaeus titled Almagest. I happen to have a copy sitting right next to me. However.. there seems to be not a single reference, allusion, or inclusion of any of this "good stuff" you speciously allude to having once existed. Apparently, if it was contained in the Library, your "evidence" was not highly regarded or trustworthy even to the Hellenistic Scholars.

The Almagest is also profoundly wrong on some basic astronomical arguments. For instance, it promoted (and is partially responsible for the staying power) of the Geocentric model. A model that would not be usurped in academic circles until Copernicus and Galileo over a millenia later. Yet.. we also know that Heliocentric theory is not a new idea. It was proposed by Aristarchus of Samos several centuries before Ptolemy finished his "final word" on Astronomy. Unfortunately, most of Aristarchus's work was lost to the various Library fires and overall neglect. All we have left is an incomplete work of On the Sizes and Distances [of the Sun and Moon], and a reference to a later and more accurate model which Archimedes referenced to himself in his own work The Sand Reckoner.

Yet where, in any of these work or correspondences are direct references or mentions to that which you describe?