The earth is flat and we never went to the moon

[Greg Jennings]

Except that there are real rational arguments that can be made in support of that contention that neither you nor anyone else can answer.


Don't attempt to highjack the thread on this topic. If you want to debate the age of the Earth, start another thread.

Didn't try to. Pointing out your own hypocrisy on a subject in comparison to another is commonplace on this forum. Don't whine just bc I'm not on your "team". It's not a good look

In reality, I have a soft spot for Christianity. I like it. I thing overall it's a good thing. But you will destroy it by perpetuating inane nonsense. That's all I'm saying

 

[JudgeRightly]

That seems fair


Most scholars find Moses writing the whole thing somewhere between unlikely and impossible. But he did almost certainly pen a bunch of it


A person is born with both a penis and a vagina. Which are they? Man or woman?

If a person has an X and a Y chromosome, the person is male. If the person has two X chromosomes, the person is female.

Anything else is a mutation and is not natural.

It is lacking. We certainly don't have proof. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. But there is hardly any smoking gun out there, unless you want to point me to one

I said evidence, not proof, but it hardly matters.

Do you want to know what that evidence is?

Request a free copy of this. They will send one to you.

Then you either don't understand or (I think more likely) have never studied the Earth in detail. Go out in the field and see God's wonders yourself, and it will become apparent that He made them in far more than 6000 years, because most are the results of accumulations of events

For all of the above, this is not the place to have this discussion. The only reason I answer you is to show that there are answers. Please, if you want to discuss this, then go start another thread on the topic.

 

[Clete]

Didn't try to. Pointing out your own hypocrisy on a subject in comparison to another is commonplace on this forum. Don't whine just bc I'm not on your "team". It's not a good look

No one is whining but you. I understood your point and responded to it directly, which you missed entirely proving my contention that you could not answer a single argument that I might choose to present in defense of a young earth paradigm.

In reality, I have a soft spot for Christianity. I like it. I think overall it's a good thing. But you will destroy it by perpetuating inane nonsense. That's all I'm saying

I have built my entire life - my entire life - upon rejecting inane nonsense. I despise anyone who is unwilling to do the same, whether they call themselves a Christian or not.

No lie is rational and no truth is irrational. This is the motto of my life, of what I believe, of what and who I am. This is the cause of my Christianity, not the result of it. It is the foundation of my faith, which will undoubtedly ring in your ears as a contradiction. That's not my problem.


Now, as I said, not as an accusation but merely to preempt what you might otherwise be tempted to do, please do not hijack the thread. If you wish to discuss something other than flat earth-ism then, by all means, start another thread. If you don't wish to do so and you've made the point you came here to make, then consider your point made, understood and directly answered.

Clete

 

[Clete]

If a person has an X and a Y chromosome, the person is male. If the person has two X chromosomes, the person is female.

Anything else is a mutation and is not natural.

I haven't been following your discussion very closely and am not certain just what you meant here so forgive me if I'm jumping to unfounded conclusions here but, "not natural"?
Just what do you think you mean?

I don't intend to start a whole discussion on this, I just thought you might want to clarify the comment.

Clete

 

[JudgeRightly]

I haven't been following your discussion very closely and am not certain just what you meant here so forgive me if I'm jumping to unfounded conclusions here but, "not natural"?
Just what do you think you mean?

I don't intend to start a whole discussion on this, I just thought you might want to clarify the comment.

Clete

E.G. XXy or Xyy

 

[Clete]

E.G. XXy or Xyy

Those are not "not natural". They aren't even mutations.

 

[Clete]

I will watch it.

--Dave

Cool! I'll be anxious to see what you think of it.

Incidentally, have you ever noticed that the craters on the Moon and elsewhere are almost universally round? Do you suppose that every meteor hit the Moon's surface at or near a 90° angle? Doesn't sound right, does it?

Also, why are there so many craters that form right on the edge of another crater? Is there any other phenomenon that produces such features besides impacts? :think:

Clete

 

[Greg Jennings]

I laughed rather hard when I saw this thread was approaching 250 pages. You'd think this would've wrapped up by now

 

[DFT_Dave]

Flat Earth Stream If a Picture is Worth a Thousand Words

One of the best videos made about the sun sets and rises.

--Dave

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Flat Earth Stream If a Picture is Worth a Thousand Words

One of the best videos made about the sun sets and rises.

--Dave

:rotfl: My favorite comment on this YouTube video was....

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Flat Earth Stream If a Picture is Worth a Thousand Words

One of the best videos made about the sun sets and rises.

--Dave

Dave can you tell me specifically what you thought was good about this video??

I watched it in amazement.

In your own words tell me one or two points that you feel made the movie good.

 

[oatmeal]

Here is a short list of observable proofs for a flat earth:

1. There is no visible curvature.

2. All bodies of water are absolutely level.

3. All aircraft move over a stationary flat plain.

Arguments against these facts contradict sensory perception.

--Dave

I heard that one of the supporters of the flat earth theory once said regarding the flat earth theory, if people are foolish enough to believe in the trinity, why can't we believe in a flat earth?

other than that and what I spent reading online about it for about 30 seconds, I do not know much more about it.

Are you a member?

 

[oatmeal]

I heard that one of the supporters of the flat earth theory once said regarding the flat earth theory, if people are foolish enough to believe in the trinity, why can't we believe in a flat earth?

other than that and what I spent reading online about it for about 30 seconds, I do not know much more about it.

Are you a member?

Do you really trust sensory perception?

Do rail road tracks meet at the horizon like the sensory perception indicates?

Do things literally become smaller in size the farther they are from you?

What causes the railroad tracks to meet?

Is there a law of gravity or something that causes more distant objects to become smaller the farther they are away?

 

[musterion]

If the sun is just a big lamp circling not far overhead, it should never be out of sight of anyone, if the world is in fact flat. It might get noticeably smaller as it moved away but it couldn't fall beyond a horizon, and out of sight, because a horizon wouldn't exist on a big flat plate. Meaning darkness/night would not be possible.

Also reminding flatheads that a rocket launched anywhere other than dead center of the plate (wherever that would be geographically) will indeed see the "edge" of the disc at closer proximity than whichever direction points to the center. The closer to the edge the launch point, the more clearly that edge would be seen. That's never what happens, whether you launch rockets, high altitude balloons or jets.

 

[musterion]

On a flat circular plane, the light of the sun lamp, if not the sun lamp itself, would still be visible if you were under "night" at the red dot, or even at the blue dot. The light would be more than bright enough to still be visible since there'd be absolutely nothing in the way to obstruct it...not curvature, not mountains, not atmosphere. SOME of the light would have to be visible to you even at the blue dot, the furthest extremity of night.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Dave??

Hey one more quick thing....

Last weekend I was up in Northern Colorado and I looked due east as the moon came up over the horizon. It was HUGE!! I mean... the moon looked MASSIVE as it crept up over the horizon. In fact it looked bigger when it came over the horizon than it looked when it was directly overhead.

Dave, why wasn't the moon really tiny as it came up over the horizon like you claim it should be? Why was the moon just as big as it came over the horizon as it is when it's directly overhead??

 

[Clete]

I love that this thread seems to have nine lives!

Hey Dave, I found a video of a presentation the Wal Thornhill gave a couple of years ago. It seems directly up the ally you wish to be on in regards to reevaluating modern cosmology. Some of it will be too technical but mostly not. If nothing else, it shows a terrific example of how people can be skeptical of modern cosmology without wearing a tin foil hat.


Wal Thornhill: An Electric Cosmology for the 21st Century | EU Workshop

Here's a recreation of one of the power point slides in his presentation...

The Real Meaning of E = mc2

• Energy, mass and the speed of light are all properties of matter.
• Electromagnetic energy is stored in the orbital structure of subatomic particles and manifests as their mass.
• The mass of a particle is a measure of how much energy is absorbed in orbital deformation of a particle instead of its acceleration.
• Energy requires the presence of matter. There is no such thing as "pure energy". (Goodbye Big Bang!)
• Electromagnetic radiation requires the presence of matter - the eather. There is no "total vacuum" anywhere.
• The speed of light is a measure of the inertial response of orbiting matter to an instantaneous external electric force. It is characteristic of the material medium.
• An 'instantaneous' electrical connection implies a universal time.

Like I said, some of that seems pretty technical but he doesn't go into great depth with any of it and explains the point in regular language. The video is well worth the time to watch for anyone who thinks modern physics and astronomy has gone around the bend onto Raving Lunatic Blvd.

Clete

 

[Clete]

On a flat circular plane, the light of the sun lamp, if not the sun lamp itself, would still be visible if you were under "night" at the red dot, or even at the blue dot. The light would be more than bright enough to still be visible since there'd be absolutely nothing in the way to obstruct it...not curvature, not mountains, not atmosphere. SOME of the light would have to be visible to you even at the blue dot, the furthest extremity of night.

What would be causing the shadow over exactly half of the Earth in the first place?

 

[Clete]

Do you really trust sensory perception?

Do rail road tracks meet at the horizon like the sensory perception indicates?

Do things literally become smaller in size the farther they are from you?

What causes the railroad tracks to meet?

Is there a law of gravity or something that causes more distant objects to become smaller the farther they are away?

Are you being serious? (not sarcasm - really asking)

 

[Clete]

Cool! I'll be anxious to see what you think of it.

Incidentally, have you ever noticed that the craters on the Moon and elsewhere are almost universally round? Do you suppose that every meteor hit the Moon's surface at or near a 90° angle? Doesn't sound right, does it?

Also, why are there so many craters that form right on the edge of another crater? Is there any other phenomenon that produces such features besides impacts? :think:

Clete

I got a good answer to the first of these questions by the way.

The reason impact craters are almost always round is because there is sufficient energy in the impact to rapidly melt and even vaporize portions of both the meteor and the impact site. This causes what is essentially a secondary explosion that occurs a tiny fraction of a second after the initial impact. It is this explosion, and not the impact itself, that is the primarily responsible for the crater which explains the crater's circular shape.

I can't say that I've confirmed the validity of that explanation but it seems plausible enough to me. I'm continuing to look into it because, from what I understand, scientists have been unable to recreate impact craters under laboratory conditions.

As for why impact craters seem to like to form right on the edge of other impact craters? :idunno:

Clete