The earth is flat and we never went to the moon

[DFT_Dave]

Dear Daft Dave,

If the Earth is not a globe, why does the rainbow reflect a half circle? Why does the moon and sun light up one side of the Flat Earth? Why always a 180°, half of 360°?? We can tell by the satellites that we send up to revolve around the Round Earth!! Where are you coming up with this Flat Earth stuff? Dave, I thought you must know better. You always seemed to be so smart to me. But you aren't, evidently. C'mon!! Are you serious??!

May God Show You The Truth,

Michael

I once thought the entire Bible was myth and that everything evolved and God did not exist. I decided early on to investigate both sides of every issue. Take some time to research the flat earth model and see what evidence they present and compare the two models from every issue. The distance and size of the sun and moon are different on a flat earth compared to the globe model for one thing.

--Dave

 

[chair]

I once asked a Russian colleague what he thought of the moon landing hoax theory. he looked at me as I was nuts. "If it was a fake, the Russians would know, and they would not have kept quiet about it- believe me!"

Dave- how about relativity and quantum mechanics? A conspiracy as well?

 

[DFT_Dave]

I would really suggest that you familiarise yourself with Newtonian Physics. Your comments uniformly avoid any discussion of forces, which is essential for this thread. Many of the comments intended to clarify things for you make use of force concepts, but they have all gone over your head, as you respond using some ideas around motion vitalism.

Would you like me to find some Newtonian Physics resources so you can get to a level where you can understand the arguments?

Can any one disagreed with Newton? Copernicus? Einstein? Hawking? Tegmark and Guth?

Which cosmological theory do you fully understand and accept? Steady state, big band, relativity, string, bounce, quantum, multi universe.

How about creation and intelligent design?

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

I once asked a Russian colleague what he thought of the moon landing hoax theory. he looked at me as I was nuts. "If it was a fake, the Russians would know, and they would not have kept quiet about it- believe me!"

Dave- how about relativity and quantum mechanics? A conspiracy as well?

All cosmological theories require a presupposition that may or may not be true. No human was present at the beginning of the universe and life, no one can say with absolute certainty that the universe and life have a beginning.

No one has been in a black hole, no one has seen dark energy or seen God or say with certainty that he does not exist.

We all have minds capable of rational thought, we can create logical and coherent arguments and theories that can still be absolutely wrong if we start with a false premise.

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

Can any one disagreed with Newton? Copernicus? Einstein? Hawking? Tegmark and Guth?

Which cosmological theory do you fully understand and accept? Steady state, big band, relativity, string, bounce, quantum, multi universe.

How about creation and intelligent design?

--Dave

If the scientist is in conflict with what the Bible says, then yes, I disagree with them. But everything you've said so far about the earth being flat comes from a rejection of reality. The Bible tells us to guard our thoughts, yet you've looked at hundreds of conspiracies, and started to believe them without testing them to see if they match reality, if they fit the way things actually work.

Question for you:

Have you ever been outside the US? If so, have you been to the other half of the world? For example Australia? If the Earth is truly flat, then one should be able to see all the constellations in the night sky at the same time. If the Earth is NOT flat, however, only half of them should be visible at night, and the other half blocked by the earth. So, next time you go outside the US and travel to the southern hemisphere, look up at night, and tell me if you see the same constellations at night, the same stars, that you can see in the northern hemisphere.

That is a relatively simple test to see if the Flat Earth theory is correct or incorrect. Performing that test is called science.

More in a bit.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[JudgeRightly]

All cosmological theories require a presupposition that may or may not be true.

So let's start with the assumption that God exists and that He created the heavens and the earth, which He hung on nothing. Good place to start, no?

No human was present at the beginning of the universe and life, no one can say with absolute certainty that the universe and life have a beginning.

The problem with this is that your argument completely disregards forensic science. If a man rapes a woman in the middle of nowhere, with no one around but them, and then kills her, and leaves, can we know who raped and murdered the woman? It may require some investigating, but it is possible to discover who did it.

The argument that "No human was present at the beginning" has the problem of which it completely disregards God's account of his-story. It also disregards everything we've discovered about the universe so far.

For example:
We can know that the Big Bang did NOT happen because of the first and second laws of thermodynamics, which boil down to
1) a rock cannot create itself, and
2) a fire cannot burn forever
Therefore, the only other possibility is that the Universe was created by a supernatural creator. Who or what that creator is is a philosophical discussion, and not a scientific one, though there is scientific evidence for God.

See
http://kgov.com/ken-ham-bill-nye-debate-analysis-by-real-science-radio
http://kgov.com/ham-nye-debate-rsr-analysis-part-2
http://kgov.com/ham-nye-debate-rsr-analysis-part-3
rsr.org/forensics
rsr.org/predictions
rsr.org/technologies

No one has been in a black hole, no one has seen dark energy or seen God or say with certainty that he does not exist.

No one will ever be able to see a black hole (let alone survive being sucked in by one) because not even light can escapes a black hole. We can see because light reflects off of objects into our eyes. If there's no light coming from an object, we cannot see it.

As for dark energy, that's a rescue device used by atheists to try to save their secular theories, which fall apart when considering all the evidence for God.

God exists. See Battle Royale 7 on TOL.

We all have minds capable of rational thought, we can create logical and coherent arguments and theories that can still be absolutely wrong if we start with a false premise.

--Dave

This is true. Let's not get caught up in false teachings and conspiracy theories. Let's look at fact, not fiction.



Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[DFT_Dave]

Back to our subject.

Astronauts who kick up dust, dirt, or what ever is supposedly on the surface of the moon, and a lunar modal landing that did not is a clear contradiction and evidence that the event was staged and no one went to the moon.

--Dave

 

[Town Heretic]

The lunar module was about 13,000 lbs.

The astronauts weight with suits would be about 200 to 300 lbs I would suspect.

The 300 lb astronauts kick up dust as they walk and run on the moons surface and leave deep clear footprints, but a 13,000 lb module descending at a greater speed than the astronauts can run slowed by the thrust of an engine so it does not crash leaves no mark of any kind on the moons surface.

I own a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell to anyone for a great price who believes we went to the moon.

--Dave

Not sure what marks you'd expect to see. There's not going to be a crater, as per the prior note. The module didn't walk around, so...I'm still not buying your bridge.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Back to our subject.

Astronauts who kick up dust, dirt, or what ever is supposedly on the surface of the moon, and a lunar modal landing that did not is a clear contradiction and evidence that the event was staged and no one went to the moon.

--Dave

You apparently didn't read the post earlier that directly answers this.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Town Heretic]

I once asked a Russian colleague what he thought of the moon landing hoax theory. he looked at me as I was nuts. "If it was a fake, the Russians would know, and they would not have kept quiet about it- believe me!"

Noted prior and more than once in trying to get Dave to consider the problematic nature of a world wide conspiracy. He's prophet of this thing, not a seeker after answers, so it appears when presented with a solid enough rebuttal or a consideration that doesn't allow him to raise the next point, he steps around it and continues.

If you want to be 100% accurate- the mass is the same of the earth as on the moon. The weight is different.

As the trip progressed the mass would diminish, but your point is taken on clarification. For Dave's concern, weight is the important consideration.

He tried to use it with his last to me. :thumb:

 

[DFT_Dave]

Not sure what marks you'd expect to see. There's not going to be a crater, as per the prior note. The module didn't walk around, so...I'm still not buying your bridge.

There would be some dust or dirt on the pads of the module and some hole or small crater under it.

About that bridge...

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

You apparently didn't read the post earlier that directly answers this.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

The answer is this module never went to the moon no matter who says it did.

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

The answer is this module never went to the moon no matter who says it did.

--Dave

Or perhaps you're wrong and it really did and you are just refusing to even consider that you're wrong.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[_rtz]

Here is a live feed of ISS traveling around a clearly spherical Earth:

http://www.ustream.tv/channel/live-iss-stream

 

[DFT_Dave]

Noted prior and more than once in trying to get Dave to consider the problematic nature of a world wide conspiracy. He's prophet of this thing, not a seeker after answers, so it appears when presented with a solid enough rebuttal or a consideration that doesn't allow him to raise the next point, he steps around it and continues.

As the trip progressed the mass would diminish, but your point is taken on clarification. For Dave's concern, weight is the important consideration.

He tried to use it with his last to me. :thumb:

The point is that the astronauts in comparison to the module kicked up the dust or sand, but the module that was much heavier, did not kick up any dust or dirt when it landed. It would be impossible for the men to do what the module could not do.

I thought you smart enough to understand this.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Or perhaps you're wrong and it really did and you are just refusing to even consider that you're wrong.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

Maybe the men went to the moon but the module did not? :rotfl:

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

TRW Incorporated's artist concept depicting the Apollo 11 Lunar Module (LM) descending to the surface of the moon.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/nasa2explore/9352710092/in/set-72157634767563484?ytcheck=1

 

[JudgeRightly]

TRW Incorporated's artist concept depicting the Apollo 11 Lunar Module (LM) descending to the surface of the moon.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/nasa2explore/9352710092/in/set-72157634767563484?ytcheck=1

You realize that an artist's conception of things doesn't really represent those things with 100% accuracy, right?

As in the post which answers your "problem," the LM would have been producing downward thrust FAR LESS than what a human foot would leave. Remember, gravity is 1/6th that of Earth on the Moon, so the rate of speed would have been a lot slower, requiring less downward thrust to keep the descent at a safe speed.

But you know, just disregard that post because it doesn't fit your perception of reality.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Town Heretic]

The point is that the astronauts in comparison to the module kicked up the dust or sand, but the module that was much heavier, did not kick up any dust or dirt when it landed.

Maybe you weren't standing in the right place to see it. lain: Is this the ol "Why aren't the lander feet covered with moon dust bit?

Simply put, the mass of the entire atmosphere of the moon is less than the amount of gas expelled by each Apollo descent engine.​

As a result, if you were to pick up a handful of lunar dust and drop it, it would fall straight down with an acceleration about 1/6th that in Earth’s gravity. It would land directly below where you released it.

But it would appear to fall faster than that when compared with actually dropping flour-like substances on Earth. This is due to Earth’s atmosphere, which adds a resistive force to the dust settling down. In addition to this resistive force preventing its downward motion, Earth’s atmosphere is not still – it moves around. This allows any light material to billow out, creating clouds of material, and rarely landing directly below the location you released it. - Exposing Pseudo Astronomy, July 15, 2009​

It would be impossible for the men to do what the module could not do.

You're assuming it didn't.

I thought you smart enough to understand this.

Well, I'm smart enough to see how you dodge rebuttal and refuse to consider, rationally, the irrational conspiracy theory at the heart of this faith of yours...so there's that.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Here is a 4 min video of astronauts kicking up moon dust. See it for your self and then try to tell me that the module did not do the same if not even more so.

--Dave

https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?fr=sfp&hsimp=yhs-001&hspart=omr&p=video+of+astronaut+walking+on+the+moon#id=2&vid=edaa7507d6d92cccd2ed036a439fa487&action=click