The earth is flat and we never went to the moon--Part II

[Lighthouse]

It doesn't say either way.

Exactly

 

[DFT_Dave]

Not the best picture, but taken personally with my cell phone.
View attachment 26883
Note the curved shadow on the left hand side (the sun was setting to the right).

This clearly demonstrates that the moon is not flat, but a globe. Why would anyone think that the earth in any different?

The moon, sun, and stars have no trees, no water, no life, no atmosphere to support life, etc. Why do you think the earth would be the same? The sun, moon, and stars appear to move over us. We see and experience a motionless flat earth. In the heliocentric model our experience and perceptions are wrong.

Why would God created us with perceptions that did not conform to reality.

Not only does the Bible say the earth is flat and motionless, the whole ancient world believed the same.

The Greek philosophers gave us a globe. They also gave us a God who did not create the world, who could not enter the world, and who could not communicate with man--natural theology: knowledge of God based on observed facts and experience apart from divine revelation.

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

The moon, sun, and stars have no trees, no water, no life, no atmosphere to support life, etc.

This is a straw man, Dave.

No one has argued that the moon, sun and stars can support life. What has been argued is that each have an atmosphere.

Why do you think the earth would be the same?

Why do you assume that we think that the Earth is the same as the moon, sun, and stars?

The sun, moon, and stars appear to move

That they do.

Keyword "appear."

over us.

Once again, ALL MOTION IS RELATIVE TO AN EXTERNAL FRAME OF REFERENCE.

We see and experience a motionless flat earth.

Question begging.

In the heliocentric model our experience and perceptions are wrong.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Why would God created us with perceptions that did not conform to reality.

Why do you assume He created us with perceptions that do not conform to reality?

Not only does the Bible say the earth is flat and motionless,

It doesn't say either way, but the perspective it gives is consistent with a spherical earth.

the whole ancient world believed the same.

Sorry, but apart from being historically revisionist, it's just conjecture on your part.

The Greek philosophers gave us a globe.

Rather, Eratosthenes was the first person to accurately MEASURE the circumference of the earth.

Which means that the Greeks didn't give anyone a globe earth, they simply understood the earth to be a ball, and one guy measured its circumference, because it was understood throughout the world that the earth was spherical.

They also gave us a God who did not create the world, who could not enter the world, and who could not communicate with man--natural theology: knowledge of God based on observed facts and experience apart from divine revelation.

Which has nothing to do with this topic, and the argument you are making is a logical fallacy called poisoning the well.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Belief in a flat earth is a symptom of mental illness.

You need to get your head checked out, because no rational person would even consider that the earth is flat.

In my opinion, we should have shut down the original thread when you started it, because allowing someone to spread such idiocy inherently lends credence to the idea that such idiocy might be true.

Dave, the earth is not flat. You have been shown multiple witnesses that attest to this fact. Yet here you are, still saying that your arguments have not been sufficiently addressed.

God said "two or three witnesses shall establish a matter."

We have given you far more than two, and shown your arguments to be invalid more times than we can count.

If none of the above convinces you that the earth is not flat, but spherical, then there's not much else anyone can do, but simply ignore you, because you are so dead-set in your belief that the earth is flat that you won't allow ANYTHING to convince you.

Dave, you have destroyed your reputation simply by arguing in favor of such nonsense.

There is nothing more that can be said.

This thread, and any other debate, is not about asserting one position over an other. It's also about refuting the other position.

I have stated many times that there are good arguments and evidence for the heliocentric model. But there are also good arguments and evidence for flat motionless earth. My problems is reconciling both and I am not satisfied that some evidences for flat earth have been refuted or that all evidences for a spinning globe have been proven.

But if that you think every one that shares my view is a lunatic then I simply hope that you will then stop posting on this thread. If, as you say, "nothing more can be said", then why say anything more?

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

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 observations that anyone who honestly has a question about it can do for themselves in about 16 minutes.

All of this time spent precisely and ONLY because of the reputation of intelligence and intellectual honesty that had been previously earned by you, David! If you hadn't displayed an ability to think clearly and a willingness to accept the verdict of sound reason, I'd have never spent the amount of time that I've spent on this thread. Flat Earth theory is genuinely ludicrous and I'm not kidding. It is the lowest form of abject stupidity that has cropped up in the last 200 years. Nazi Fascism has a firmer philosophical and rational base than does the idea that the Earth is flat.

And yet you simply will not be moved. No matter what is said or how elegant the proof, you flat out will not be convinced - period. That isn't rational, that isn't honesty, that isn't anything other than ridiculous stupidity that borders on evil, frankly.

So, it isn't the flat Earth theory that has landed you in a place where ridicule and derision is all you deserve. Anyone can be taken in by a clever argument from time to time. No, it isn't that at all! It is your intentionally suborn clinging to stupidity no matter what it said by whom that has earned you the opposite reputation that you came to this discussion with.

Not only that but you started this thread trying to convince us all that you were simply playing devil's advocate, which I believed! I then went about trying to debunk every argument you'd find on the internet only to discover after months and months of this that you were lying even then! So you began this thread with a lie and now you want to lie again and act like all you've gotten here is "horrible treatment and verbal abuse". Pathetic!

So, don't sit there and blame us. You're a proven liar, David. You have made the bed that you find yourself lying in (pun intended). If you want our respect again, you'll have to earn it back. Otherwise, get used to being made fun of, and derided because that's what you deserve.

Clete

I play Devils advocate because I have doubts about the heliocentric model.

I've said all along that there are good arguments and evidence for both model's and I have not been able to reconcile these differences.

I hope you're not beyond understanding that this is a "genuine dilemma" for many Christians, not just myself.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Rocketman and myself have worked in the aerospace industry for decades. We have both posted about the work we do. I've have designed and built large geosynchronous telecommunications satellites. I posted pictures of such satellites and explained in great detail how these satellites work (propulsion, communications, attitude control, etc.) and how they are designed assuming a global Earth. They would not function otherwise. They would not function if the Earth was not spheroid shaped. My information was mostly ignored. That's when I realized this ongoing debate was pointless.

I would like to know more about your and Rocketman's work. What satellites have you worked on.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

This isn't true Dave. Not only did I begin with civil dialog and reason and no name-calling, even with name-calling the arguments we provided against FE have been logical and on topic. You have simply chosen to ignore direct responses. Just get a little thicker skin and you could be having a fruitful discussion on the internet. And, by the way, I DID watch the videos you directed me to and you proceeded to ignore my responses - do you see how that could be considered rude on your part?

I haven't seen this pointed out yet, but Dave seems to use the word "relativity" as if it comes from the devil. But that's not true. To have relative morals, or to say that truth is relative, is a bad philosophy. And if one wants to argue against the theory of relativity, there are some valid arguments for that. But Newtonian physics has not been infiltrated by "relativity"! Newtonian physics uses the word "relative" to make things clear. Just like in math we can say that on a whole-number line "10 is two steps away relative to 8 and 4 steps away relative to 6", that doesn't mean that math has been infiltrated by relative morals or that truth is relative or that the whole-number line can now be refuted by arguments against the theory of relativity.

Yes, I have ignored your posts. My apology. You certainly have been respectful. This thread has not flowed from a beginning point toward a goal and therefore has been all over the place and at times hard for me to keep up with. I didn't know from the outset this thread would become so popular.

You're quite correct that relativity in physics is a problem for me.

1. The absence of standards of absolute and universal application.
"moral relativity"

2. The dependence of various physical phenomena on relative motion of the observer and the observed objects, especially regarding the nature and behavior of light, space, time, and gravity. "physics"

One would think that relativity in morals is different than relativity in physics. But I would argue that physics is not grounded in rational thought, therefore relativity. Antithesis have been abandoned in favor of the dialectic. I think this needs to be explored and is an important aspect of this debate.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Yes, 50 miles each- relative to the road, in 30 minutes. (50 miles/0.5 hours)= 100 miles per hour, relative to the road. Yet they cover the 100 miles between the two cars in 30 minutes. (100 miles/0.5 hours)= 200 miles per hour, relative to each other.

But you can't establish a speed of 100 miles an hour without the road.

You have no reference point to say the cars are traveling at 100 miles and hour without the road.

Relative "only" to each other they are not traveling at 200 miles per hour or at any knowable speed.

Two cars passing each other without a motionless road to provide a speed of movement have no way to establish how fast each one is going or how much distance each has traveled.

This is not to say I don't understand your point. The cars in relativity are travelling at 200 mph, but in reality they are both travelling at 100 mph.

Relativity is not reality

I'm I wrong?

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

I don't see how someone can realize that the Earth isn't flat, but still can't figure out why evolution works.

Or vice versa. They used to call them "paradoxers." Sounds like a useful word.

It does indeed seem inconsistent to believe in the heliocentric universe without the "big bang" and the subsequent "evolution of the cosmos" that is followed by the "evolution of biology and man".

Sadly, to many "Evangelical" Christian theologians and apologists today are turning to evolution and away from creationism.

--Dave

 

[Right Divider]

The moon, sun, and stars have no trees, no water, no life, no atmosphere to support life, etc. Why do you think the earth would be the same? The sun, moon, and stars appear to move over us. We see and experience a motionless flat earth. In the heliocentric model our experience and perceptions are wrong.

FALLACIOUS reasoning again Dave.... why can't you even think logically?

I was referring SPECIFICALLY to ONE attribute of the objects.... the SHAPE, which you ignore and create your silly straw-man.

Why would God created us with perceptions that did not conform to reality.

He didn't.

Not only does the Bible say the earth is flat and motionless, the whole ancient world believed the same.

Entirely wrong on BOTH counts.

The Greek philosophers gave us a globe. They also gave us a God who did not create the world, who could not enter the world, and who could not communicate with man--natural theology: knowledge of God based on observed facts and experience apart from divine revelation.

Baloney.

 

[Right Divider]

But you can't establish a speed of 100 miles an hour without the road.

You have no reference point to say the cars are traveling at 100 miles and hour without the road.

Relative "only" to each other they are not traveling at 200 miles per hour or at any knowable speed.

Two cars passing each other without a motionless road to provide a speed of movement have no way to establish how fast each one is going or how much distance each has traveled.

:duh:

How many times to you have to be told? Motion is, BY DEFINITION, based on choosing an arbitrary reference point.

This is not to say I don't understand your point. The cars in relativity are travelling at 200 mph, but in reality they are both travelling at 100 mph.

Not meant to be offensive Dave, but you are dumber than a two year old.

YOU have chosen the ROAD as YOUR reference point to say that they are both going 100 MPH

Relativity is not reality

I'm I wrong?

Yes, you are wrong... almost all of the time.

 

[Right Divider]

It does indeed seem inconsistent to believe in the heliocentric universe without the "big bang" and the subsequent "evolution of the cosmos" that is followed by the "evolution of biology and man".

That statement is pure and utter nonsense.

 

[DFT_Dave]

All you gotta do is show me where scripture presents the earths as a spinning globe propelling through space.

I want to thank you for all your great posts.

The spinning globe certainly has a number of inconsistencies that defy logic.

Your plane circling Dallas was a good example for a motionless earth. Why is Dallas not moving away from the circling plane?

Planes are said not to be effected by the spinning earth because they are being pulled by gravity in the direction of the spin along with all the molecules in the atmosphere. One wonders then how they can fly in the opposite direction?

What Would Happen If The World Stopped Turning?
"If the earth stops spinning suddenly, the atmosphere will continue to spin. This means very high speed winds, i.e., approximately 1,670 Km/hr which is earth's rotational velocity."

--Dave

 

[Right Divider]

The spinning globe certainly has a number of inconsistencies that defy logic.

Constantly repeating lies does not make them magically become true.

Your plane circling Dallas was a good example for a motionless earth. Why is Dallas not moving away from the circling plane?

INERTIA Dave... you've been told MANY times about this simple physical phenomena.

Planes are said not to be effected by the spinning earth because they are being pulled by gravity in the direction of the spin along with all the molecules in the atmosphere. One wonders then how they can fly in the opposite direction?

That is just showing your stupidity again.... the plane reacts to ALL OF THE FORCES applied to it.

What Would Happen If The World Stopped Turning?
"If the earth stops spinning suddenly, the atmosphere will continue to spin. This means very high speed winds, i.e., approximately 1,670 Km/hr which is earth's rotational velocity."

So what?

 

[DFT_Dave]

This is a straw man, Dave.

No one has argued that the moon, sun and stars can support life. What has been argued is that each have an atmosphere.

Why do you assume that we think that the Earth is the same as the moon, sun, and stars?

That they do.

Keyword "appear."

Once again, ALL MOTION IS RELATIVE TO AN EXTERNAL FRAME OF REFERENCE.

Question begging.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Why do you assume He created us with perceptions that do not conform to reality?

It doesn't say either way, but the perspective it gives is consistent with a spherical earth.

Sorry, but apart from being historically revisionist, it's just conjecture on your part.

Rather, Eratosthenes was the first person to accurately MEASURE the circumference of the earth.

Which means that the Greeks didn't give anyone a globe earth, they simply understood the earth to be a ball, and one guy measured its circumference, because it was understood throughout the world that the earth was spherical.

Which has nothing to do with this topic, and the argument you are making is a logical fallacy called poisoning the well.

You should answer my whole point instead of breaking it up.

First I did not say that there was no atmosphere on heavenly bodies, I said they have no atmosphere to support life.

The question I was answering was, if the sun, moon, and stars are a globe or ball, then why not the earth. My answer is that spinning moving spheres cannot support life, water, trees, etc.

That we perceive a flat motionless earth is absolutely true. That heliocentism contradicts our perception is also absolutely true. This is why I said, why did God created us with perceptions that do not conform to reality of a spinning globe? This is not an assumption, it's a logical conclusion.

Flat Earth
"The flat Earth model is an archaic conception of Earth's shape as a plane or disk. Many ancient cultures subscribed to a flat Earth cosmography, including Greece until the classical period, the Bronze Age and Iron Age civilizations of the Near East until the Hellenistic period, India until the Gupta period (early centuries AD), and China until the 17th century."

"The idea of a spherical Earth appeared in Greek philosophy with Pythagoras (6th century BC), although most pre-Socratics (6th–5th century BC) retained the flat Earth model. In the early fourth century BC Plato wrote about a spherical Earth, and by about 330 BC his former student Aristotle provided evidence for the spherical shape of the Earth on empirical grounds. Knowledge of the spherical Earth gradually began to spread beyond the Hellenistic world from then on."

That you have no knowledge of basic flat vs globe history is not surprising to me since you don't know what the Bible says about it either.

That the Greek philosophers contradict the Biblical nature of God is quite clear and that their view of God was as important to them as their cosmology is also clear. Cosmology and theism work together. The nature of God cannot contradict a cosmology of the world without the sacrifice of reason.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

FALLACIOUS reasoning again Dave.... why can't you even think logically?

I was referring SPECIFICALLY to ONE attribute of the objects.... the SHAPE, which you ignore and create your silly straw-man.


He didn't.


Entirely wrong on BOTH counts.


Baloney.

See my answer to JudgeRightly

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

:duh:

How many times to you have to be told? Motion is, BY DEFINITION, based on choosing an arbitrary reference point.

Not meant to be offensive Dave, but you are dumber than a two year old.

YOU have chosen the ROAD as YOUR reference point to say that they are both going 100 MPH

Yes, you are wrong... almost all of the time.

We must establish a stationary reference point is what you mean.

Something in motion is meaningless without the existence of something that is not in motion.

The earth is God's immovable reference point for everything else in the cosmos that is in motion.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Constantly repeating lies does not make them magically become true.

INERTIA Dave... you've been told MANY times about this simple physical phenomena.

That is just showing your stupidity again.... the plane reacts to ALL OF THE FORCES applied to it.

So what?

A plane moving at 700 mph and less is no match for a gravitational pull that moves the atmosphere at a speed of over 1000 mph in one direction.

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

You should answer my whole point instead of breaking it up.

You just don't like it because it completely destroys your arguments.

I break it up because you make so many different assumptions and claims and conclusions all in one sentence or paragraph that it is extremely difficult to address any of it.

In other words, you obfuscate so that it makes it seem like what you're saying is rational.

The fact that I can pick your replies apart and tear each piece to shreds just shows how weak your position truly is.

First I did not say that there was no atmosphere on heavenly bodies, I said they have no atmosphere to support life.

Which is saying absolutely nothing at all.

The point is that things that are massive enough will have an atmosphere, from the moon (and even smaller) to the stars, regardless if they're spinning or if they're sphere shaped or space station shaped.

The question I was answering was, if the sun, moon, and stars are a globe or ball, then why not the earth. My answer is that spinning moving spheres cannot support life, water, trees, etc.

Which is a non-sequitur.

Good grief, Dave, when are you going to stop relying on logical fallacies to support your position.

That we perceive a flat motionless earth is absolutely true.

This is not only false, it's also question begging.

That heliocentism contradicts our perception is also absolutely true.

False, and repeating your position, no matter how many times you do so, doesn't make it any more true.

This is why I said, why did God created us with perceptions that do not conform to reality of a spinning globe?

God didn't. Your perceptions are just broken.

Or rather, your paranoid, and the symptoms are that you can't accept reality.

This is not an assumption, it's a logical conclusion.

Saying it doesn't make it so, Dave.

That you have no knowledge of basic flat vs globe history is not surprising to me since you don't know what the Bible says about it either.

Sorry, but I have to laugh a little.

You're using Wikipedia, a site known to be, if not outright Godless, one that resists truth when it comes to the Bible.

* UC History Prof. Debunks Myth of the Flat Earth: Dr. Jeffrey Russell, Professor of History at the University of California, Santa Barbara, has also taught history and religious studies at Berkeley, Harvard, and Notre Dame. His book, Inventing the Flat Earth, documents that in the 19th century a French archaeologist and an American essayist invented and spread the falsehood that educated people in the Middle Ages believed that the earth was flat. RSR notes that the anti-Christians spreading this fabrication allegedly include some of Darwin's promoters like David White, and that the targets of this smear included Christian scholars. Prejudice and myth die hard, and a small army of professional historians have been unable to correct this evolutionist libel against Christians. Toward that end, however, see Dr. Russell's brief article, The Myth of the Flat Earth. Russell there mentions the widespread false belief that in 1491 Christopher Columbus faced inquisitors and theologians who held that the Earth was flat, which mini-myth has been widely debunked and identified as a pure invention of the author Washington Irving. * Isaiah: God "sits above the circle of the earth": From above, and from every direction, a solid sphere can only be viewed as a circle. Dominic Stratham's article, Isaiah 40:22 the Shape of the Earth, provides many indicators that khûg, the ancient Hebrew word used 2,700 years ago, typically translated into English as "circle", also means sphere. In modern Hebrew both khûg and kaddar mean sphere, as do similar words in other languages, whether possibly coincidental or borrowed or cognate, as with Arabic kura (which word appears in this verse in the most popular Arabic Bible which was translated in 1865). An old German word kugel, the Polish word kula, and the Serbian/Croatian word kugla all mean sphere apparently from the Proto-Indo-European root gug? Also, the pre-modern era renderings of this word khûg as an orb include Bible translations in the 1500s, as sphaera.

From https://kgov.com/flat

It must first be reiterated that with extraordinary few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat. A round earth appears at least as early as the sixth century BC with Pythagoras, who was followed by Aristotle, Euclid, and Aristarchus, among others in observing that the earth was a sphere. Although there were a few dissenters--Leukippos and Demokritos for example--by the time of Eratosthenes (3 c. BC), followed by Crates(2 c. BC), Strabo (3 c. BC), and Ptolemy (first c. AD), the sphericity of the earth was accepted by all educated Greeks and Romans.

From "The Myth of the Flat Earth" link in the above quote from kgov.com.

And let's not forget Job...

And remember that in the most ancient book in the Bible, at Job 26:7, written almost 4,000 years ago in the time of Abraham's great-grandchildren, we read an amazing statement consistent with astronomy's latest models of the solar system, that God "hangs the earth on nothing."

(same kgov link)

That the Greek philosophers contradict the Biblical nature of God

... has nothing at all to do with measuring the earth's circumference, Dave.

In other words, you're making a non-sequitur. Your argument DOES NOT FOLLOW.

Because you missed it:

Eratosthenes made the first accurate MEASUREMENT of the earth's circumference.

is quite clear and that their view of God was as important to them as their cosmology is also clear.

So you're arguing that it is impossible to be correct in one's cosmology and incorrect in their philosophy?

Because that's the argument you're making about the Greeks.

Cosmology and theism work together.

Philosophy and physics are two completely unrelated topics.

The nature of God cannot contradict a cosmology of the world without the sacrifice of reason.

The nature of God has nothing to do with the shape of the earth, Dave.

And NO, one does not have to discard reason, to understand a round earth.

You've only done so because you're intellectually lazy at best, and intellectually dishonest at worst.

 

[JudgeRightly]

We must establish a stationary reference point is what you mean.

Arbitrarily, yes, BY DEFINITION.

Something in motion is meaningless without the existence of something that is not in motion.

Arbitrarily defined as such, yes.

The earth is God's immovable reference point

Why do you assume God needs a reference point for ANYTHING?

Why not let God Himself be the reference point, and go from there?

for everything else in the cosmos that is in motion.

Sorry, Dave, but geocentrism doesn't work.

If you define the earth as an absolute reference point (arbitrarily, I might add...) then the galaxies would be traveling as fast as 30 trillion times the speed of light, which violates the known laws of physics.

In which case, your only two options are to say that those stars are just a projection or they don't really exist, or to admit that your assumption doesn't work, and that you need to find a better model.