The earth is flat and we never went to the moon

[1Mind1Spirit]

Hey fellas... lets not get too far off topic. Thanks!!

It would help if he was right more than his usual 30 fold.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

No, Jeffy, you/they employ the same argument.

Been known to.

The difference is, atheists are usually not high, not stoned, and on purple microdot, like you are, fat, bald little junkie, when they argue.

True nuff, care to share whether I was arguing or reasoning, and how you arrived at your conclusion?

Now-sit.

Already am.

You are largely quite irrelevant on TOL.

Interesting word largely.... :chuckle:

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

 

[Nathon Detroit]

It would help if he was right more than his usual 30 fold.

I have banned you from this thread because you seem to be intentionally trying to derail it.

 

[Clete]

Dave,

I last asked you just what it was about gravity that you considered to be self-contradictory. Did you ever answer? If so, can you tell me the post number, I seem to have missed it.

Clete

 

[Clete]

Wikipedia on Polar flight plans...

Antarctica

Few airlines fly between cities having a great circle route over Antarctica. Direct flights between South Africa and New Zealand would overfly Antarctica, but no airline has scheduled such flights. LATAM Airlines flies nonstop between Auckland, Sydney and Santiago de Chile, Air New Zealand flies nonstop between Auckland and Buenos Aires-Ezeiza and Qantas flies nonstop between Sydney and Santiago de Chili, the most southerly polar route. Depending on winds, these reach 55 degrees south latitude, but other times 71 degrees, which is enough to cross the polar ice cap.

Depending on the winds, the Qantas flight QF 63 from Sydney to Johannesburg sometimes flies over the Antarctic Circle to latitude 71 degrees as well and allowing views of the icecap.

Incidentally, I almost didn't post the above because it concedes ground that isn't justified. Let me explain...

The fact that very few (or even none - if there were actually none at all) flights go directly over the South Pole only proves that there is no demand for planes to do so. It isn't even evidence that the Earth is flat.

Put another way, if the flat Earthers want to point to the lack of great circle routes over the south pole as evidence that the Earth is flat, then what do they do with all the great circle routes that airlines fly every single day all over the rest of the world? Orthodromic (great circle) flights ARE NOT even close to being the shortest route between two points on a flat plane. Are the airlines all over the planet spending the millions and millions of fuel dollars flying way out of their way just to perpetuate a worldwide fraud designed to trick the world's population into thinking that the Earth is a sphere?

View attachment 25147

So, just to reiterate, the reason I went ahead and posted that portion of the Wikipedia article is because it gave a few examples of routes that do in fact go over Antarctica, if not directly over the pole itself. The point being simply that such routes do in fact exist. But as I said, even if they didn't exist, other orthodromic routes do exist. Thousands of them all over the world all day, all night, every day and every night.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[john w]

It would help if he was right more than his usual 30 fold.

Oh. Put the bong down, baldie, fat little Jeffie.

 

[john w]

Been known to.



True nuff, care to share whether I was arguing or reasoning, and how you arrived at your conclusion?




Already am.




Interesting word largely.... :chuckle:

Stumped me, again, junkie.

 

[DFT_Dave]

This video in two minutes says more about fake videos from NASA than any other I have seen.

No one can refute this!!!

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Dave,

I last asked you just what it was about gravity that you considered to be self-contradictory. Did you ever answer? If so, can you tell me the post number, I seem to have missed it.

Clete

You also seemed to have missed my post that explained your error about evolution and natural selection.

--Dave

 

[Clete]

You also seemed to have missed my post that explained your error about evolution and natural selection.

--Dave

Yes, I did.

I really don't like the format on this new version of vBulletin. The habits I've formed on it cause me to miss quite a lot of posts, I suspect. Basically, because of the limited time I have to do this - usually in the mornings just before work - if you don't quote my post or mention me by name, there's a strong possibility that I won't ever even see your post because I get no direct notification that it's there and usually don't spend the time to read through the thread looking for something I may have missed. Most of the time, people use the quote button and quote my post and everything's fine but there are times where that doesn't happen and I end up missing posts.

I'll find it and respond as soon as I can. Sorry.

 

[User Name]

This is the first in a series of videos that show how anyone can prove to themselves that the earth is not flat. It is a spherical spinning ball. In this segment, I discuss how flat earthers are confused about the horizon, and I demonstrate how the horizon perfectly fits the globe earth model, and shows the curve of the earth when you know what to look for:

Search YouTube for the subsequent videos.

 

[DFT_Dave]

FLIGHT PATHS REVEAL FLAT EARTH

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

TIMELAPSE OF THE SUN PROVES FLAT EARTH

--Dave

 

[Clete]

You're changing the argument about air, from what is moving and not moving to how it moves, which is irrelevant. When I blow into my brothers face it is the air that moves and his face does not. The wind, as an aspect of the atmosphere, moves over the face of an earth that is not moving.

Your brother's face is moving. It's in a moving car and unless the car is leaving your bother's face behind then his face is moving too, as is the air in the car. Your breath is inducing even more movement which is relative to the car and everything else in the car including your bother's face. When your brother's hair moves because of the wind you made with your mouth, it was already moving along with the car as well, relative to the street but the additional movement made by your wind was relative to your brother's head.

As I've said multiple times now, movement is only meaningful when discussed in relation to other things.

We can feel and see ocean and air currents, the spinning earth and atmosphere we cannot feel or see. The argument that gravity is an answer as to why we can't is not "air tight".

I've already responded to this point. Repeating yourself does count as a rejoinder.

And who has ever made the argument that it's gravity that prevents our being able to feel the earth move? No one! That's who.

The argument that all the particles of the earth and all the particles of the atmosphere as a whole move in one direction while at the same time particles of the atmosphere move in different directions as wind is an obvious contradiction

Saying it doesn't make it so, Dave. You do it a thousand times a day. Every time you take a breath inside your moving car, you add additional (supposedly contradictory) movements of air in an air mass that is already in motion along with your car. The analogy is perfect.

How can there be movement of the atmosphere if gravity is holding all the particles in place as it must if it moves it as a whole???

The exact same way you can breath in and out or turn on your air conditioner while in your closed and moving automobile.

Every particle of atmosphere cannot both be moved as a whole, in place by gravity, and at the same time move from place to place. If gravity were holding every particle in place, as it would have too in order to move it as a whole, there would be no wind, or movement of any kind on this so called planet.

--Dave

You simply are not capable of this level if mindlessness. I refuse to believe you're being serious.

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. I'm pretty sure I responded to this post twice. Sorry for the repetition. I keep losing my place on this thread for some reason.

 

[Clete]

Do you know what a synthesis is.

Do you understand the dialectic process.

Do you know the three laws of logical thought and can you tell when some one is violating one, or more, of them and committing a logical fallacy?

You know I do. Why do you ask?

Natural Selection
Nature does not, and can not, select for "hybrids". If you can't even understand this than what can you understand about the construction of contradictory concepts?

nature = without choice or purpose

selection = choice with purpose

If you are attempting to suggest that the theory of evolution beleives that nature makes decisions via some sort of thought process then, again, I have to wonder just what it is that you're up too here, David. I seriously reject the notion that you are this ignorant or stupid. There is nothing you could say to me that you make me believe that you actually do not understand what the process of natural selection is and that it has nothing at all to do with any thought process.

The phrase "natural selection" is a contradiction.

No, it isn't, Dave. Your convoluted understanding of it may be but you don't get to define terms for your own benefit.

The formal defintion of natural selection is the differential survival and reproduction of individuals due to differences in phenotype. "Phenotype" being the set of observable characteristics of an individual resulting from the interaction of its genotype with the environment.

In short, an individual (whether microbe or man) that can better survive and reproduce in a particular environment will eventually out number individuals who do not have his advantage. It isn't a decision that nature makes, it's just math.

The world is said to evolve because of natural selection. The word evolution means change, and there is nothing contradictory about things changing even in nature. Things evolve in nature but not in the direction of simple to complex, not from status quo to hybrid, not from bacteria to man.

I'll show the fallacy in entropy next. David vs Newton. I would say David vs Clete but Newton compared to me is more like Goliath then me vs you. :chuckle:

--Dave

No need to so such a fallacy. I agree that natural selection cannot over come entropy for long periods of time and even if it could, there is simply no evidence that evolution has occured. There's tons and tons of evidence that natural selection happens on a daily basis but that's not at all the same thing.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Dave,

What, specifically, do you find contradictory about the concept of gravity?

I emphasize "the concept" because I don't believe either of us are qualified to debate Einstein's theories and, even if we were, I think you and I are mostly in agreement in regards to the contradictory nature of purely mathematics based science. But the concept of gravity is nothing at all more than that objects with mass are attracted to one another. The mechanism of this attraction is not known (leaving asided Einstien's "space time" B.S.) but that doesn't change the fact that the attraction exists and can be not only observed but measured with a lot of precsision. In addition, Newton's ideas about how gravity works lead to very specific predictions that turned out to be exactly true, which is a primary aspect of any true science.

So I ask you again, what is it about gravity that you think is self-contradictory?

Clete

 

[User Name]

In this part, our view of the stars is perfectly explained by the heliocentric globe model, and all flat earth models fail to fit what we see. We see different stars in the Northern and Southern hemispheres, and they rotate around two points each night, called the north and south celestial poles, and they rotate in opposite directions:

 

[Clete]

In this part, our view of the stars is perfectly explained by the heliocentric globe model, and all flat earth models fail to fit what we see. We see different stars in the Northern and Southern hemispheres, and they rotate around two points each night, called the north and south celestial poles, and they rotate in opposite directions:

Excellent point.