The earth is flat and we never went to the moon--Part II
- Thread starter DFT_Dave
- Start date
- Status
Doesn't work if the stars are light-years to billions of light-years away. And we know that space is big enough for that to be true.
The furthest stars would be moving at millions of times the speed of light if that were so to be able to get same amount of movement across the sky, and that's just not possible.
No, David it is not nonsense. It has been PROVEN!
Because we are moving right along with it!
If you get into a jet and go twice the speed of sound, once you've stopped acceleating you would feel that either and you could look down at the instrumments and they'd appear to be totally motionless relative to you and you've have no wind in your hair because the atmosphere in your plane is also moving right along with you as well.
This is childishly simple stuff to understand. CHILDISH!
Gravity is not pull the atmosphere in the direction of Earth spin. That's being caused by friction. Again, eighth grade level stuff here.
You are either lying or are delusional and I'm finished being ignored.
Good bye David. Have a good life. I no longer give a damn what you think or believe or why. It clearly has nothing at all to do with reason or the truth or anything else I care about.
I'm out!
:wave2:
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
I’ve spent a number of years doing extensive authentic research of both heliocentricity and geocentricity, and all other attendant factors (including fixed earth, etc.); and I remain unconvinced of ANY of the views being absolutely “proven”. I’m less inclined to seriously consider flat earth, but there are compelling arguments for both “sides”.
I don’t really care one way or the other, honestly.
Right Divider
Body part
I disagree that there are "compelling" arguments for FE.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
As I understand the geocentricity position (after a number of years of inquiry and research), they posit that space is a “something” rather than a “nothing” as a vacuum; so the “fabric of space” is what they call the luminiferous aether, and it is the densest thing in the cosmos with a Planck density of 10 to the 93rd power.
With this “model”, it is the “firmament” of space that is turning around the fixed earth, and all celestial bodies are carried by this luminiferous aether (like apples being swirled in a large round tub of water wherein the apples are not moving and are fixed in their position in the water). Because of this, no celestial feature ever exceeds the speed of light because they are fixed and not orbiting anything. It’s the luminiferous aether that is turning around its fixed axis centered upon the Earth.
I’m sure there’s more to the basic argument, but that’s how I understand their position (or the position that some hold; I’m not really sure).
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
I understand, and I also understand why. There are many FE proponents that are waaaaaaaaaaaay “out there”.
I see some unresolved issues for all views of cosmology (and particularly cosmogony).
I have a number of acquaintances who aren’t nutjobs who have strong traditional science backgrounds, and they insist geocentricity is very plausible and that flat earth is possible (though much less likely than geocentricity).
No offense to anyone taking either position, I’m really not all that concerned with this topic directly. I’m more concerned about the potential for deception and manipulation by “the powers that be”, so I remain skeptical that we now know or even can know the cosmological truth of these things.
Right Divider
Body part
Indeed they are waaaaaaaaaaayyyyy out there and it seems that Dave has joined that crowd.
This thread doesn't really touch on cosmogony.
By "geocentricity" do you mean that all objects orbit the earth?
I, personally, have not seen a single compelling argument from Dave in this thread. He has beaten many a death horse even though his "arguments" have been thoroughly destroyed time and time again.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Yes, I’ve encountered plenty on social media.
I didn’t think so, though I’ve not read the thread. It was merely my own mention.
Not the Ptolemaic model, so “sorta”. The Neo-Tychonian model has the sun and (fixed) earth inverse, though with all other bodies in the local system orbiting the sun a la heliocentricity; and the remainder of the cosmos also orbiting either the earth or sun (or a fixed point between them).
(Some of the finer details escape my remembrance. My inquiry and research were several years ago.)
I wasn’t referring to Dave and this thread’s content, as I haven’t really read it.
Interesting. I should read more of the thread. I was just tossing out a few things that I’ve noticed heliocentrists either aren’t aware of or mistakenly represent.
A Neo-Tychonic model for Geocentricity is usually something I don’t see Heliocentrists being familiar with. That was my reason for posting, not to distract from the thread.
Then you need to read this thread because I have flat out proven that the Earth cannot possibly be flat.
Further, if your claim is true that you've "spent a number of years doing extensive authentic research of both heliocentricity and geocentricity", you're an idiot.
It wouldn't take two days for anyone doing honest research to figure out that the Earth is not and cannot be the center of our solar system. Anyone spending years on the topic is either stupid or doesn't want to be convinced (same thing).
And if I sound too harsh, well that just to bad for you. I'm sick to death of people calling themselves Christians and then doing idioticly ridiculous things that make themselves and the whole Chrisitian faith look like a bunch of crack pot conspiracy theorists. You ought to be ashamed of yourself and I for one would love it if all you morons who question the ENTIRE history of scientific progress that, by the way, makes it possible for you to even be on this website in the first place, would please, by all means, remove any reference from your profile that would give anyone the idea that you're a Christian. It's shameful and embarrassing.
Clete
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Yikes! What a frightfully, bitterly hostile tirade you wrote against PneumaPsucheSoma over something extraneous to Christianity.
What (if anything) would you say proving is? Would you say that something can be proven without being proven TO someone?
To whom have you "flat out proven that the Earth cannot possibly be flat"? To those who agree with your claim? To those who do not agree with your claim? What (if anything) would you say it is for you to have proven the proposition, P, to someone who (after you have (as you say) proven it to him/her) does not believe--to someone who is skeptical regarding--the proposition, P?
Would you say that you have proven, to PneumaSucheSoma, "that the Earth cannot possibly be flat"? Obviously, we can read where you have stated, to him, "that the Earth cannot possibly be flat". People state things all the time. In fact, one of the things people very often state (and, more often than not, with loud, thundering pomposity) is that they have proven this or that.
If you say that you have proven, to PneumaSucheSoma, "that the Earth cannot possibly be flat", then, I ask, what MUST, now (since that instance of proving) be the case in regard to the relation of your "proven" proposition to PneumaSucheSoma's mind; what must now be the case that was not the case prior to that instance of proving?
What (if anything) would you say it is for someone to be convinced "that the Earth cannot be the center of our solar system"?
What (if anything) would you say is the difference between proving the proposition, P, to someone, and convincing them of the proposition, P?
Would you say you've proven, to PneumaSucheSoma, "that the Earth cannot be the center of our solar system", but that you've not convinced him "that the Earth cannot be the center of our solar system"?
I'm sure he's all tears by now.
What (if anything) would you say proving is? Would you say that something can be proven without being proven TO someone?
To whom have you "flat out proven that the Earth cannot possibly be flat"? To those who agree with your claim? To those who do not agree with your claim? What (if anything) would you say it is for you to have proven the proposition, P, to someone who (after you have (as you say) proven it to him/her) does not believe--to someone who is skeptical regarding--the proposition, P?
Would you say that you have proven, to PneumaSucheSoma, "that the Earth cannot possibly be flat"? Obviously, we can read where you have stated, to him, "that the Earth cannot possibly be flat". People state things all the time. In fact, one of the things people very often state (and, more often than not, with loud, thundering pomposity) is that they have proven this or that.
If you say that you have proven, to PneumaSucheSoma, "that the Earth cannot possibly be flat", then, I ask, what MUST, now (since that instance of proving) be the case in regard to the relation of your "proven" proposition to PneumaSucheSoma's mind; what must now be the case that was not the case prior to that instance of proving?
What (if anything) would you say it is for someone to be convinced "that the Earth cannot be the center of our solar system"?
What (if anything) would you say is the difference between proving the proposition, P, to someone, and convincing them of the proposition, P?
Would you say you've proven, to PneumaSucheSoma, "that the Earth cannot be the center of our solar system", but that you've not convinced him "that the Earth cannot be the center of our solar system"?
I'm sure he's all tears by now.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
My take, based upon my understanding of (ministerial) forensic psychology, is that Clete is doing as many of us have done when frustrated with online rhetoric topics that seem maddeningly obvious to us on a subject we’re highly invested in. There’s always strong, and often too extreme, emotion attached after exchanges with others.
I’d prefer (even considering how strongly he regularly speaks) to just take all of that into consideration, and that it would likely be different in person if there were a chance to have some relational rapport beyond a single topic.
Maybe he’s right and I should read the thread to be convinced of one position over the other. Maybe not. Nothing in my life stands or falls based on this subject; nor upon anyone’s perceptions of me from this perspective alone.
I appreciate Clete posting whatever he’s provided. That makes me want to take some time at some point and potentially read the thread; though I do think there are many more pressing theological issues to discuss. Everyone’s priorities differ.
No tears here. LOL.
A significant percentage of the idiot flat earthers are so in the name of Christianity. It is anything but extraneous. It's making us all look like idiots and pushing people away from their only hope of avoiding an eternity apart from their Creator.
I have posted absolutely unassailable proof that the Earth cannot possibly be flat many times. It is derived from direct observational data and math simple enough for an eigth grade child to understand and perform.
To anyone who is intellectually honest enough to know that math works.
I am not stupid. It is not a claim. It IS proof - period. If 2+2=4 then the Earth is not flat.
Again, it is not merely a claim or proposition. It is PROOF! To deny it is to deny the veracity of 8th grade level math and simple plain reason.
I have posted the proof during the time he has been active on the thread. Whether he's read it or not - I don't care. The proof is there for anyone to read. All one need do is skip everything in the thread aside from my posts and you'd find it in less than an hour.
I am not a flat earther. I do not make such claims. I have proven it - period. Not one syllable of it has been refuted nor has anyone even attempted to refute it. There's nowhere for them to even begin to start to refute it. All I did was some simple math. What is someone going to do, prove that the Pythagorean Theorem doesn't work? Good luck with that!
You're describing the idiot flat earthers, not me.
Read the thread.
English please.
This question makes no sense.
Only about 90% of our technology wouldn't work if science was so far off the mark as to have failed to realize the the Sun goes around the Earth.
That depends on the person. Stupid people cannot be convinced of anything that they don't want to believe.
Dishonest people are worse. They knowingly choose to ignore proofs against their position.
Intellectually honest people are convinced by the only means the human mind has for understanding anything, that being sound reason.
Christians are particularly without excuse in this regard. They have no reason to fear the truth and yet these asinine flat earthers refuse to allow sound reason to persuade their minds and they do so in the name of Christianity! It is foolish to the point of being sinful.
I've made no effort to argue such an asinine question, nor would I do so. It is far beneath the dignity of any thinking mind in the 21st century. I meant what I said, if he has, in fact, spent years studying this question, which I very much doubt, then he is very simply an idiot. There is no possible way that any honest investigation into the topic could take two weeks, never mind several years.
As if I'd care about that!
Since I seriously doubt that you or he will lift the index finger on your computer mouse that it would take to find my post, I'll do that strenuous work for you and post it for what is probably the tenth time.
Clete
Proof That the Earth Cannot Be Flat
The last few days I've been playing around with some math and thought I'd post some of it here to see if it might move some of the flat earthers maybe an inch or two back toward reality...
Let's put some of the sunset images we've taken to good use and see if what was observed can be made to fit with the FET (Flat Earth Theory).
FET claims the Sun is approximately 3000 miles above the Earth and they do not dispute well established distances between points on the surface of the Earth. I'm going to be using these two presuppositions in my calculations and you'll want to refer to the following diagram to keep track of the variables...
View attachment 26417
Side a is the distance from the ground to the Sun (3000 mi).
Side b is the distance from an observer to a point on the Earth where the Sun is directly over head.
Side c (a.k.a. the hypotenuse) is the distance from the observer to the Sun itself.
Angle A is the height of the Sun above the horizon in degrees as seen from the observer.
Angle C is always 90°
Angle B is not relevant to this discussion.
Note from the start that if the Earth is flat and the Sun is 3000 miles up (or any number of miles up for that matter) that angle A can never ever get to 0°. The Sun would never set because no matter how long you make side b of that triangle, angle A is always a positive number. The only way for the Sun to set on a flat Earth is if the Sun dipped below the plane of the flat Earth. If that were to happen, then it would be night everywhere on Earth at once, which we know does not happen. It's always noon somewhere on the Earth and not only that but the Sun is directly over head at some point on the Earth (this is called the subsolar point - look it up).
That, by itself, ought to be enough to convince anyone that the Earth cannot be flat but there's more. Let's take a look at some of these photos we took last week...
So, since we're assuming a flat Earth, I'm going to focus on just a couple of photos that both show the position of the Sun in degrees above the horizon. I should point out that you don't have to trust the numbers generated by the app on the phones used to take these photos. The numbers can be confirmed by anyone by simply fashioning a simple sextant from a cheap plastic protractor.
I'll use these two photos...
View attachment 26418 View attachment 26419
On the left is the Sun's position as seen from my house on May 8th, 2018 at 01:00 UCT (8:00:01pm central time)
On the right is the Sun's position as seen from Knight's house on the same day just 38 seconds later (7:00:39pm mountain time).
The position of the Sun at my house is just .1° above the horizon while at Knight's it was 10.2° (This information is displayed just to the right of the Sun position indicator. It shows the Sun's heading and then it's elevation in degrees. On Knight's photo it's sort of hidden a little by the NW direction indicator but it reads "Sun 284.0 W 10.2°" The 10.2 is the elevation above the horizon in degrees)
So, let's look at Knight's first...
How far West (more specifically, in the direct of the Sun - in Knight's case 284° W) would you have to go from Knight's house (where sides b and c meet) to get to a place on a flat Earth where the Sun was directily over head (where sides a and b meet)?
It turns out that when dealing with right triangles if you have the length of any one side and either angle A or B, you can know everything about the whole triangle!
The math is boring and so I'm not going to show all that. Just go HERE and plug in the numbers for side b (3000) and angle A (10.2).
You get the following results...
Someone 16,700 miles (length of side b) to his west would see the Sun directly overhead.
There is no point on Earth 16,700 miles from Denver Colorado.
Still not convinced? Well just wait till you plug in the numbers from my house!
At my house the Sun was only .1 degrees above the horizon. So plugging in the numbers from my house (side b = 3000 and angle A = .1) we get the following results...
You have to go 1,720,000 miles to my West to find high noon beneath a Sun that was 3000 miles above the surface of a flat Earth.
That's One MILLION seven hundred twenty THOUSAND miles!
(That's more that 7 times the real distance to the Moon!)
Now seriously folks! What more proof could you possibly need? How are you going to possibly refute this?
Are you going to deny that the Sun is about 10° further above the horizon in Denver than it is in Houston? Even if you did that, the distance to noon calculations aren't dependent on that!
Are you going to challenge the validity of the Pythagorean Theorem?
It seems that's your only option! It's either refute the Pythagorean Theorem or you must reject the notion that the Earth is flat based on the mere fact that the Sun gets to within .1° of the horizon at one point on the Earth while at the same time being directly over head at another.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
So let's do some more math!
This time let's assume that the distances on Earth as reported by Google Earth are accurate but that the Earth is flat.
To make the numbers easy, lets assume a location on the equator on an equinox.
And we'll use the same diagram as before...
View attachment 26421
When it is Noon (90° over head (angle C) in one place it is Sunset or Sunrise 6225.25 miles away (side b).
For our Sunset angle (angle A) we'll stick with .1° because any angle below that produces numbers that are even more embarrassing for the FET.
So, plugging in the numbers HERE, we get the following results....
The Sun would have to be a mere 10.865122 miles above the surface of a flat Earth at point C.
If you use a smaller number for angle a, then the Sun has to be closer and closer to the surface. An angle of .01 would require the Sun to be just over one mile above the surface of the Earth.
Clete :Clete:
The last few days I've been playing around with some math and thought I'd post some of it here to see if it might move some of the flat earthers maybe an inch or two back toward reality...
Let's put some of the sunset images we've taken to good use and see if what was observed can be made to fit with the FET (Flat Earth Theory).
FET claims the Sun is approximately 3000 miles above the Earth and they do not dispute well established distances between points on the surface of the Earth. I'm going to be using these two presuppositions in my calculations and you'll want to refer to the following diagram to keep track of the variables...
View attachment 26417
Side a is the distance from the ground to the Sun (3000 mi).
Side b is the distance from an observer to a point on the Earth where the Sun is directly over head.
Side c (a.k.a. the hypotenuse) is the distance from the observer to the Sun itself.
Angle A is the height of the Sun above the horizon in degrees as seen from the observer.
Angle C is always 90°
Angle B is not relevant to this discussion.
Note from the start that if the Earth is flat and the Sun is 3000 miles up (or any number of miles up for that matter) that angle A can never ever get to 0°. The Sun would never set because no matter how long you make side b of that triangle, angle A is always a positive number. The only way for the Sun to set on a flat Earth is if the Sun dipped below the plane of the flat Earth. If that were to happen, then it would be night everywhere on Earth at once, which we know does not happen. It's always noon somewhere on the Earth and not only that but the Sun is directly over head at some point on the Earth (this is called the subsolar point - look it up).
That, by itself, ought to be enough to convince anyone that the Earth cannot be flat but there's more. Let's take a look at some of these photos we took last week...
So, since we're assuming a flat Earth, I'm going to focus on just a couple of photos that both show the position of the Sun in degrees above the horizon. I should point out that you don't have to trust the numbers generated by the app on the phones used to take these photos. The numbers can be confirmed by anyone by simply fashioning a simple sextant from a cheap plastic protractor.
I'll use these two photos...
View attachment 26418 View attachment 26419
On the left is the Sun's position as seen from my house on May 8th, 2018 at 01:00 UCT (8:00:01pm central time)
On the right is the Sun's position as seen from Knight's house on the same day just 38 seconds later (7:00:39pm mountain time).
The position of the Sun at my house is just .1° above the horizon while at Knight's it was 10.2° (This information is displayed just to the right of the Sun position indicator. It shows the Sun's heading and then it's elevation in degrees. On Knight's photo it's sort of hidden a little by the NW direction indicator but it reads "Sun 284.0 W 10.2°" The 10.2 is the elevation above the horizon in degrees)
So, let's look at Knight's first...
How far West (more specifically, in the direct of the Sun - in Knight's case 284° W) would you have to go from Knight's house (where sides b and c meet) to get to a place on a flat Earth where the Sun was directily over head (where sides a and b meet)?
It turns out that when dealing with right triangles if you have the length of any one side and either angle A or B, you can know everything about the whole triangle!
The math is boring and so I'm not going to show all that. Just go HERE and plug in the numbers for side b (3000) and angle A (10.2).
You get the following results...
Someone 16,700 miles (length of side b) to his west would see the Sun directly overhead.
There is no point on Earth 16,700 miles from Denver Colorado.
Still not convinced? Well just wait till you plug in the numbers from my house!
At my house the Sun was only .1 degrees above the horizon. So plugging in the numbers from my house (side b = 3000 and angle A = .1) we get the following results...
You have to go 1,720,000 miles to my West to find high noon beneath a Sun that was 3000 miles above the surface of a flat Earth.
That's One MILLION seven hundred twenty THOUSAND miles!
(That's more that 7 times the real distance to the Moon!)
Now seriously folks! What more proof could you possibly need? How are you going to possibly refute this?
Are you going to deny that the Sun is about 10° further above the horizon in Denver than it is in Houston? Even if you did that, the distance to noon calculations aren't dependent on that!
Are you going to challenge the validity of the Pythagorean Theorem?
It seems that's your only option! It's either refute the Pythagorean Theorem or you must reject the notion that the Earth is flat based on the mere fact that the Sun gets to within .1° of the horizon at one point on the Earth while at the same time being directly over head at another.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
So let's do some more math!
This time let's assume that the distances on Earth as reported by Google Earth are accurate but that the Earth is flat.
To make the numbers easy, lets assume a location on the equator on an equinox.
And we'll use the same diagram as before...
View attachment 26421
When it is Noon (90° over head (angle C) in one place it is Sunset or Sunrise 6225.25 miles away (side b).
For our Sunset angle (angle A) we'll stick with .1° because any angle below that produces numbers that are even more embarrassing for the FET.
So, plugging in the numbers HERE, we get the following results....
The Sun would have to be a mere 10.865122 miles above the surface of a flat Earth at point C.
If you use a smaller number for angle a, then the Sun has to be closer and closer to the surface. An angle of .01 would require the Sun to be just over one mile above the surface of the Earth.
Clete :Clete:
This statement cannot be defended. It is too strongly worded. Are you sure you don't want to restate this with a little more humility?
If you really want to stand by this statement, it will be a reflection on you that you will not recover from.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
First, I was referring to Neo-Tychonian Geocentricity versus Copernican/Keplerian Heliocentricity, not Flat Earth versus Globe/Sphere Earth.
Second, I’m not really concerned about your doubts or your assertions. They’re uncharitable at the very least; and to the extent that such lack of charity is a far greater concern than any cosmological consideration.
And the Hebrew work sakal in Genesis 3 is also of far more concern for those of us who don’t focus upon calculations and measurements based upon human physical senses and the alleged knowledge derived therefrom (particularly from Atheistic Pseudo-Empiricism and Evolutionists, et al).
That’s an absurd claim. There are even far more cosmological and mathematical presuppositions than there are theological presuppositions.
But you do expect everyone to care about that on your own behalf. Your uncharitable nature is far worse than ANY insanity relative to proposed cosmological topics.
Why do you choose to be so and then attempt to justify it as concern for the effectiveness of evangelism, etc.?
I’ll read it if I get time, but why would anyone want to engage with someone so lacking in basic charity who obviously and literally hates this Dave guy who obviously professes to be Christian?
You vehemently hate anyone who dares consider any other cosmological view than is promoted by modern Atheistic science, including Christians. THAT’s definitely not compelling in any manner, even if your math is pristine.
I’m simply a passer-by who attempted to engage in basic conversation about the topic. I don’t think this is a very important issue compared to things like Christology and other major theological topics. There’s plenty of heresy and heterodoxy (including your own) on TOL to make scientific cosmology completely irrelevant and unmentioned.
From what I’ve seen, Dave is nothing BUT charitable (even if he’s egregiously wrong). I’d take that over hyper-emotionalized tyrades of actual hatred any day.
Do and say and think as you will. Your “how” is REpelling, not COMpelling”, and that alone would make any authentic Believer stop and think.
You guys enjoy your little battle here. Cosmological configurations are likely not constrained by apparent physical and temporal parameters. There are better answers.
Last edited:
The earth is not flat.
https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/earth/is-the-earth-flat/
https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/earth/is-the-earth-flat/
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Yes, I know. I can read, thank you.
What I said, stands. If you think that it is even remotely possible that the Earth might actually be at the center of our solar system and you have spent more than a day or two looking into it and still consider it possible then you are stupid as a box of rocks.
Of course you don't.
You don't care what I think of you but you think I'm going to care what an idiot thinks of me? Interesting.
:rotfl: You really are an idiot! :rotfl:
It is not absurd. Anyone with a properly thinking mind can know it intuitively, nevermind with even just a few hours of "extensive authentic research". Years of anything resembling such research is reserved for the pathologically stupid.
No I don't and no it isn't. The reason this society is going to Hell in a hand basket is because Christians believe that it incumbent upon them to suffer fools as though they're normal people.
Well I don't! Fools who aren't exposed as such will continue in their foolishness and encourage others to join them. The fact of the matter is that you ought to be ashamed of yourself and embarrassed of your willingness to entertain any asinine supposition that you come across on YouTube so long as someone quotes a word from the Hebrew in Genesis 3.
:chuckle: That Gen. 3 comments really does make me laugh!
As I said, fools who aren't exposed as such will continue in their foolishness and encourage others to do the same and in so doing will sully the reptuation of the bible, the church and even the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.
The "if you get time" phrase is what makes this comment a lie. You have no intention of reading it. How would you say liars effect "the effectiveness of evangelism"?
Read the thread.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
No, idiot! Wrong again.
I hate intellectually dishonest people who spread stupidity in the name of Christianity and who PRETEND to be "investigating" when what they really are doing is feeding their ego by joining the special underground group who claims to have the real truth and believe that nearly everyone around them is lying about almost everything.
It's nothing but idiotic, conspiratorial stupidity not to mention dishonest.
Yeah, go ahead and try to convince me, Mr. Study Geocentrism for Years, that it's my personality that keeps you from being convince by the simplest of sound reason.
Then read the argument(s) and be convinced.
I'd just about bet my house than neither will happen.
Within Christian circles, perhaps not but these idiot flat-earthers are out there presenting this stupidity as being biblical!
People do still go to Hell forever if they die without Christ. What do you say we not give them any extra excuses that aren't necessary, shall we? Flat Earthers are an enemy within our own gates and they ought to be confronted and even booted from our presence if they refuse to repent.
You can call me a heretic all you want. I happen to know for a fact that you saying that I'm a heretic doesn't make it so and I also know that you couldn't refute one syllable of my doctrine. Not one single syllable of it, nor would you be interested in attempting to do so, if you even know what it is.
Charitable? Really?
I asked him at least five different times to answer one question and he UTTERLY and intentionally ignored it even after I asked him why he thinks its okay for him to do so. Is that your definition of charitable?
He has NEVER, not one single time, offered anything resembling a rational refutation of any of the hundreds of different arguments I've made against his idiotic parroting of the latest YouTube video that YouTube's algorithm spit in his direction. What he has done is completely ignore every single argument presented to him and waited long enough for most people to forget what the argument was and then repeat that same stupidity all over again as though nothing was ever said. Is this what you call charitable?
Dave's mind has been poisoned and twisted, perhaps beyond all hope this side of heaven and I for one am not willing to sit by and let someone who, up until this thread, I respected more than perhaps any other regular contributor to TOL. He has destroyed himself in the eyes of one of his greatest allies. Imagine what his lunacy would do to people who don't know anything about him except that he's a Christian?
So says the moron who thinks the Earth might be at the center of the solar system.
I intend to.
Read the thread, hypocrite.
Contradict yourself much?
Lunatic!
Clete
- Status