Search results

I'm saying that there is no rational reason why I need to do that. That's right and if anyone attempted to get you to prove biblically that the Earth was a round spinning ball orbiting the Sun, you'd be right to tell them that there is no reason for you to do that. Why? Because of the portion...

No, it doesn't make sense STP. Not everyone is lying to you about almost everything, which is precisely what one must believe in order to maintain for more than an hour that large percentages of people who work in any airospace, aviation, weather forcasting, astronomy, physics or government...

Obvious unless you're delusional and you think that almost everyone is lying to you about almost everything.

The curvature of the Earth is gradual enough at the human scale that it is below our sensory threshhold and so it looks and feels flat to us. So, simply thinking the Earth is flat out of shear ignorance isn't the problem. The problem stems from the fact that it doesn't take all that much to...

No, I do not have to show that! The bible is not a science text book. The point is that it does not teach that the Earth is flat, which is a good thing because if it did I could prove that the bible was false. Now, let's try again and see if we can give a straight answer to a really simple...

Tambora, If one could prove that the Earth could not possibly be flat and do so in a way that you could verify for yourself, would that be sufficient to persuade you that the Earth is not flat and that the bible does not teach that the Earth is flat?

Something tells me that such threads won't live as long as this one has! :chuckle:

This entire post is one gigantic lie. It's a lie and Dave knew it was a lie when he wrote it. I, and several other have spent countless hours not only refuting the UTTER stupidity that most flat earth arguments represent but also proving that the Earth cannot be flat because of simple...

I don't disagree with that but how many times do we intend to refute the exact same arguments? This utter stupidity about water flowing up hill on the southern hemisphere was refuted before the thread was a month old. Now, here was are years later refuting the exact same stupidity all over again.

This post is not addressed to Dave but to those of you who are engaging him here. David is not merely spouting lunacy, he has lost his mind. He can no longer see up from down, left from right or right from wrong. Nothing - and I mean literally nothing you will ever say will have any effect on...

Okay, so my question is, "So what?" How does making that observation move our side of the debate forward? (At this point I'm not in disagreement with you, I'm just poking around and thinking it through with you.) Clete

As I said, it bore clarification and did so without injury. You see! I think we're in complete agreement and then you go and say something like this that throws the whole point into doubt again. In what way would running experiments be fundamentally antithetical to an attempt to prove a one...

Well, don't be offended by my challenge. It simply seemed to me that you were relagating one time events to a category that would render them unfalsifiable, which would not be a desirable position to hold. I agree with you that unrecorded, one time events cannot be studied directly in the same...

Your implication, it seemed to me, was that a one time event is somehow super-scientific and is outside that which science can study and understand anything about. And while a one time event cannot be repeated, by definition, it's effects can be studied and we can thus form theories concerning...

I am arguing with the notion that one time events are some how outside the purview of science. What sort of one time event are you refering to?

One time events may be difficult to study but that doesn't put them outside the purview of science in any fundamental way. A physical event inside the physical universe that happens via the normal physical laws of the natural world cannot be said to be a super-scientific (i.e. super natural)...

I don't understand this argument. This sounds like you're simply stating that science can't explain the supernatural. How is that anything but a tautology? Anything supernatural would not fall under the purview of science, by definition. That isn't to say that there is no evidence for creation...

Okay, so you're just going to be stubborn fool. Good bye David. I don't ever want to speak to you again.

It's clear and obvious stupidity is what it is. When you go to the equator, there isn't a 1000 mph wind in your face. That's because the atmosphere is generally moving along with the surface of the Earth. In other words, the Earth is not moving at 1000 mph relative to the atmosphere but...

You don't seem to understand the point. First of all, we do not "see flat Earth as irrational" as though its merely our opinion. It IS irrational. The fact that we see it as it is doesn't turn the fact of it's irrationality into a mere opinion. Additionally, the act of calling theism...