And of course, I've forgotten what it was I wanted to talk about, but I'm sure I'll think of it eventually.
The earth is flat and we never went to the moon
- Thread starter DFT_Dave
- Start date
- Status
I have been going over my thread, from the beginning, this morning in order to review all the arguments made.
I had to laugh at one of the first comments I received back in 12/18/16.
From Chair: "The site is so overloaded with nut-cases that I can't tell if the OP is meant to be taken seriously, or is just a joke."
My response: "The only way to know is to proceed with arguments for or against this proposition. That nut-cases exist on this site may be true indeed, and you may be one of them for all we know.
Chair: "I've found that nut cases can never be convinced that they are wrong, no matter what the evidence. I end up wasting time trying to get them to see reason. If I give up- they figure they've somehow won. In short- I am not even going to start on this one. Have a nice day.
Chair is still here, and even I am surprised this thread has gone this long.
So far I see four categories to this whole debate:
1. Biblical model, flat vs sphere?
2. Curvature vs perspective, what we see from the ground to the horizon.
3. Nikon vs NASA, how the P900 video camera has brought a challenge to NASA from the moon landings to ISS.
4. Thought experiment vs empirical evidence, re-evaluating theories and observations through the history of cosmology and physics from Pythagoras to Einstein.
I want to start new threads for each of these categories for two reasons. First so that we can get into more depth on each one and secondly so we are not jumping back and forth from one to the other.
--Dave
I had to laugh at one of the first comments I received back in 12/18/16.
From Chair: "The site is so overloaded with nut-cases that I can't tell if the OP is meant to be taken seriously, or is just a joke."
My response: "The only way to know is to proceed with arguments for or against this proposition. That nut-cases exist on this site may be true indeed, and you may be one of them for all we know.
Chair: "I've found that nut cases can never be convinced that they are wrong, no matter what the evidence. I end up wasting time trying to get them to see reason. If I give up- they figure they've somehow won. In short- I am not even going to start on this one. Have a nice day.
Chair is still here, and even I am surprised this thread has gone this long.
So far I see four categories to this whole debate:
1. Biblical model, flat vs sphere?
2. Curvature vs perspective, what we see from the ground to the horizon.
3. Nikon vs NASA, how the P900 video camera has brought a challenge to NASA from the moon landings to ISS.
4. Thought experiment vs empirical evidence, re-evaluating theories and observations through the history of cosmology and physics from Pythagoras to Einstein.
I want to start new threads for each of these categories for two reasons. First so that we can get into more depth on each one and secondly so we are not jumping back and forth from one to the other.
--Dave
The importance of Cosmology
All of the three basic cosmologies are integrated into a theology/philosophy.
1. Flat earth model: The Bible and all Ancient cosmologies share a variation of flat earth covered by a dome with sun, moon, and stars circling it. They also shared a belief in a supernatural realm that interacted with the natural realm of earth. The nature of that supernatural world was filled with beings that make appearances on earth.
2. Heliocentic spherical earth model: Pythagoras (500 B.C.) and his later followers of the School of Samos, originate the earth is a globe circling the sun. They rejected the existence of God, the creation and a supernatural world of beings that interacted with it. This is the beginning of atheism and evolution.
3. Geocentric globe model: Heliocentrism was rejected by Plato and Aristotle who favored a spherical earth at the center of the universe with sun, moon, and stars circling it. The School of Athens believed in the existence of God but he was not the Biblical creator of the world. Instead God is an eternal, immovable, immutable, and timeless being who moved an eternal, moving, mutable, world in time. For Plato and Aristotle a supernatural God (perfect being) could not interact with the natural (imperfect) world on earth. Both the cosmology and nature of Aristotle and Plato's God were incorporated into the church via Augustine giving us an irrational theology of God refuted by modern open theism.
4. Heliocentric revival: Geocentrism lasted until 1543 A.D. when Copernicus published his sun centered cosmology after the Pythagorean School of Samos. The church kept the Perfect Being and Unmoved Mover of Plato and Aristotle but accepted the Copernican model, both as compatible with scripture then rejected geocentrism.
Heliocentrism, as the bases for atheism in it's origin, has become the foundation of evolution of the universe and everything in it today. All of you here believe that heliocentrism is correct and Biblical while rejecting the timelessness of God and atheistic evolution. But the origin and logical consequence of a globe earth and heliocentrism cannot be so easily dismissed in my opinion.
Historic cosmology and theology.
Flat earth = Creator God
Geocentric Globe earth = Perfect Being/Unmoved Mover
Heliocentric Globe earth = No God
--Dave
All of the three basic cosmologies are integrated into a theology/philosophy.
1. Flat earth model: The Bible and all Ancient cosmologies share a variation of flat earth covered by a dome with sun, moon, and stars circling it. They also shared a belief in a supernatural realm that interacted with the natural realm of earth. The nature of that supernatural world was filled with beings that make appearances on earth.
2. Heliocentic spherical earth model: Pythagoras (500 B.C.) and his later followers of the School of Samos, originate the earth is a globe circling the sun. They rejected the existence of God, the creation and a supernatural world of beings that interacted with it. This is the beginning of atheism and evolution.
3. Geocentric globe model: Heliocentrism was rejected by Plato and Aristotle who favored a spherical earth at the center of the universe with sun, moon, and stars circling it. The School of Athens believed in the existence of God but he was not the Biblical creator of the world. Instead God is an eternal, immovable, immutable, and timeless being who moved an eternal, moving, mutable, world in time. For Plato and Aristotle a supernatural God (perfect being) could not interact with the natural (imperfect) world on earth. Both the cosmology and nature of Aristotle and Plato's God were incorporated into the church via Augustine giving us an irrational theology of God refuted by modern open theism.
4. Heliocentric revival: Geocentrism lasted until 1543 A.D. when Copernicus published his sun centered cosmology after the Pythagorean School of Samos. The church kept the Perfect Being and Unmoved Mover of Plato and Aristotle but accepted the Copernican model, both as compatible with scripture then rejected geocentrism.
Heliocentrism, as the bases for atheism in it's origin, has become the foundation of evolution of the universe and everything in it today. All of you here believe that heliocentrism is correct and Biblical while rejecting the timelessness of God and atheistic evolution. But the origin and logical consequence of a globe earth and heliocentrism cannot be so easily dismissed in my opinion.
Historic cosmology and theology.
Flat earth = Creator God
Geocentric Globe earth = Perfect Being/Unmoved Mover
Heliocentric Globe earth = No God
--Dave
Dave,
You are mixing up cosmology with belief systems. The Earth is either flat or a globe. It makes no difference whether the people who claim one of these options are Christians, atheists, Zoroastrians or Martians. The Earth is either flat or a globe, irrespective of who thinks what or what the history of those thoughts are.
Sorry, you are historically and logically incorrect. Your simplistic view does not answer larger questions nor address the interpretations of what we see and don't see, curvature vs perspective, movement vs non movement, NASA's countless contradicts, video evidence for a flat stationary earth etc.
That there are three historical cosmologies and that they all incorporation a theology are historical facts you just don't want to deal with.
I think you will like it better if I divide this subject into four categories that will separate this from the other arguments and you can spend your time on the one that you think settles the whole thing.
--Dave
Dave,
Someone is logically incorrect here- but it isn't me.
Several times during this discussion you have pushed aside arguments as being "against the person", and not being related to the facts. By linking the question of a flat earth to the theological viewpoint of those who claim such a thing, you are doing exactly the same thing.
Pick some other arbitrary fact to argue about. "Is this table round or square?" Two people join the discussion. One is an atheist, the other a true born-again Christian. They take opposing sides of the argument. Does it make any difference who takes which side? Of course not. The table's shape remains its shape regardless. You can observe it or measure it, but to take these people's beliefs into account is not logical.
"You can observe it or measure it", I agree.
High powered cameras are showing us there is no curve.
Flying high in the sky we are not seeing any rotation of the earth.
We see flat straight horizons from the ground and the sky.
The case for a spinning globe is not in plain sight, the flat stationary earth is.
Has empirical evidence formed physic or has belief forming it?
Historically speaking, metaphysics comes before physics.
--Dave
P.S. Thanks for still being here. :cheers:
You apparently don't agree. If you did, you wouldn't say that gravity is made up, because we have observed and measured gravity for quite a long time now.
Low powered cameras have taken pictures of the earth from orbit and in transit to the moon and even from the moon itself. They clearly show that the earth is round. Oh wait, they must be faked, because we never went to the moon. Right...
We've gone over this Dave. I've even given you an image of the amount of the earth that can be seen from the peak of Mount Everest, and it's quite small compared to the rest of the earth.
Saying it doesn't make it so, Dave.
Dave, you are not being consistent.
I am here because I am a fool.. A fool for thinking it possible to drum some common sense into you.
Genesis 1:
14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so.
16 And God made the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth, 18 to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.
If we take Genesis literally, God made the moon to be a light and is therefore not merely a reflector of the suns light.
--Dave
14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so.
16 And God made the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth, 18 to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.
If we take Genesis literally, God made the moon to be a light and is therefore not merely a reflector of the suns light.
--Dave
So the choice is clear:
1. Don't take Genesis literally
2. Ignore inconvenient facts. And yes- they are facts!
The ancient world and the Bible agree here, the moon is it's own light. The stars are also their own light.
--Dave
The Bible is very clear, neither man nor the universe evolved over time.
The moon is it's own light.
--Dave
The ancient world thought there were 4 "elements". The ancient world thought Zeus and Hera were gods. The ancient world never heard of that poor Jew Jesus.
The ancient world did not have the internet and computer that you are using right now.
And the Bible is correct: but not in the completely literal sense that you insist on. The moon does illuminate the Earth. The Bible doesn't say where that light comes from.
The Bible is clear, the moon is it's own light, "16 And God made the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also."
--Dave
Right Divider
Body part
Why does only the side of the moon facing the sun light up?
I think that you are simply interpreting Genesis 1 with a poor bias.
The moon is not its own light.
- Status