Search results

Curved horizon, non-fish-eye lens. Credit: NASA

What irks me is that the entire time we've used 3000 miles for the flat earth model, NOT ONCE have you said that it was incorrect or unreliable. Why now? Why all of a sudden do you imply that "3000 miles" is not the typical number used for the flat earth model...

Then how far away is it, Dave? That's something YOU need to provide. How far away, how big, and many other questions which YOU REFUSE TO ANSWER! Clete just showed you ABSOLUTE PROOF that the earth couldn't be flat, and you COMPLETELY IGNORED IT!!!

A photo from NASA's "image of the day". Soaring into Sunrise https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/iotd.html

https://r.tapatalk.com/shareLink?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftheologyonline%2Ecom%2Fshowthread%2Ephp%3Ft%3D130373&share_tid=130373&share_fid=4230&share_type=t

Of course he is. :)

Dave has started ignoring arguments outright, especially if "they're too long"...

Specs? OS? Here's where to talk shop about computers!

What are some of your favorite YouTube videos? Post them here! (Clean videos only please! If you have to question whether it's clean, it's probably not.)

In addition to all of that, I specifically asked Dave to provide a flood model that works with the flat earth model. He has not done so. DFT_Dave, I ask again. Could you outline, even just in general terms, how the flood occurred if the earth was flat. @ everyone reading this thread...

When you ignore arguments such as this one: you have lost the debate. I'm not trying to toot my own horn, nor am I saying that my arguments can't be shown to be wrong. I'm just saying that my argument is a clear rebuttal to Dave's, and the fact that he's ignoring it because "it's too long"...

` Of course it needs to be addressed Dave, because it goes against your position. I thought you were trying to examine both sides of this discussion. This post is proof that you're not.

So now you're ignoring arguments? Yeah, that REALLY doesn't bode well for your side.

The fact that you deleted most of my post does not bode well for you, Dave. Are you unable to come up with a response, Dave? or are you just unwilling? If you could, I would like you to at least try to respond to the rest of that post, and try to show how it is wrong. That is, after all, how...

Ah, that's what it's called haha. Couldn't have said it better myself.

http://kgov.com/bel/20180730 http://kgov.com/bel/20180731 Dave, there's a difference between debating theology and defending mental illness. Open theism is theology. Flat earthism is mental illness.

You need to put your glasses on and reread the passage again. Or just look at the pictures below. The firmament is not called the seas. The waters gathered into one (echad, meaning a unity of multiple) place(s) are called "Seas." There was no world-wide ocean like we have today. The firmament...

AMEN! I disagree. The earth is slightly off-center in the universe. If it was dead center, the universe would appear to be "center-less", or without a center. kgov.com/axis Correction. They are set in "the firmament of the heavens." There IS a difference. It not only has to fit Genesis...

No, Dave, because if you can't answer a single question, then there's no reason for me to even make my point. DAVE: IS IT EVEN POSSIBLE IN YOUR MIND FOR GOD TO HAVE CREATED A GLOBE EARTH, IN 6 DAYS, ~7000 YEARS AGO? Answer this question, then I will make my point.

Still not addressing my question, and now it seems you're squirming trying to deflect from what I'm asking. Dave: Is it even a possibility in your mind that God created in 6 days a globe orbiting a star in an entire universe of stars, galaxies, nebulae, etc? Put my question in your own words...