The earth is flat and we never went to the moon

[DFT_Dave]

Did you not happen to notice the "" I put around shell? Dave, you're becoming more and more of a numbskull the more you dig in. This is EXACTLY why God tells us to guard our thoughts. Dave, by not guarding your mind you're sinning. And because of it, you're getting stupider and stupider.

As Pastor Bob Enyart would say, "Stupid doesn't make you sin, sin makes you stupid."

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

I've heard of sins of conscience but not sins of cosmology. This is a debate not an inquisition. Lighten up.

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

As we compare pics and video from both sides we see inconsistencies and contradictions. There will be distortions in some cases for sure and no "one" pic or video will determine the globe or flat model to be correct. I think one side is being, over all, fraudulent and the other is not.

So far, from my personal experience, when flying from NY to MN the plane is flying over a flat stationary earth with a straight horizon as far as I can see.

In my head I believed the in globe model and then began to question it after seeing a flat earth presentation. I had to ask myself if my senses were correct or was my science correct? That both my senses and my global cosmology were correct no longer seemed possible, one contradicts the other.

--Dave

So instead of addressing the fact that SpaceX just landed a rocket from orbit (an impressive feat), you go and say, "well because there are some things I don't understand, and because I think there's some massive conspiracy that I still haven't provided any sound reason for, I'm going to dismiss everything you say and stick with my own theory."

Dave, that's the nail in the coffin. You are officially stupid. Both your senses and what little science (or lack thereof) you have done are incorrect, and Dave I think you're an ok guy, but you've officially gone off the deep end.

I may have mentioned this before, but God, when he was laying down the law for Israel, he said that we should have two or three witnesses to determine a matter. That doesn't mean that God was indecisive about how many pieces of evidence we needed, He was telling us to weigh the evidence to determine it's value. This is something you have very clearly failed to do in this entire thread.

I've heard of sins of conscience but not sins of cosmology. This is a debate not an inquisition. Lighten up.

--Dave

No, Dave. I'm not going to lighten up. I'm rebuking you as a friend for letting your mind be corrupted by false theories. You need to really examine here the evidence presented by us, and stop looking up conspiracy theorist videos. They're part of the problem. The earth is a globe. We have shown that multiple times, and your rebuttals have nothing to stand on but shaky definitions and hopes. We have shown you empirical evidence of the truth, and over and over you reject it why? Because you are wilfully ignorant of reality. And you're ignorant of reality because your mind is filled with things that you should have dismissed as inane as soon as you heard them.

So Dave, snap out of it. Please.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[DFT_Dave]

So instead of addressing the fact that SpaceX just landed a rocket from orbit (an impressive feat), you go and say, "well because there are some things I don't understand, and because I think there's some massive conspiracy that I still haven't provided any sound reason for, I'm going to dismiss everything you say and stick with my own theory."

Dave, that's the nail in the coffin. You are officially stupid. Both your senses and what little science (or lack thereof) you have done are incorrect, and Dave I think you're an ok guy, but you've officially gone off the deep end.

I may have mentioned this before, but God, when he was laying down the law for Israel, he said that we should have two or three witnesses to determine a matter. That doesn't mean that God was indecisive about how many pieces of evidence we needed, He was telling us to weigh the evidence to determine it's value. This is something you have very clearly failed to do in this entire thread.

No, Dave. I'm not going to lighten up. I'm rebuking you as a friend for letting your mind be corrupted by false theories. You need to really examine here the evidence presented by us, and stop looking up conspiracy theorist videos. They're part of the problem. The earth is a globe. We have shown that multiple times, and your rebuttals have nothing to stand on but shaky definitions and hopes. We have shown you empirical evidence of the truth, and over and over you reject it why? Because you are wilfully ignorant of reality. And you're ignorant of reality because your mind is filled with things that you should have dismissed as inane as soon as you heard them.

So Dave, snap out of it. Please.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

I have shown that there exists much evidence that supports flat stationary earth and disproves the globe model. Did you look at that evidence or not. If you did not then you should not be making any judgments on the matter. Space X may favor one view over the other, but it's not the final word.

My thread is an acceptable topic for debate here. You should rebuke theology online not me. Argument to the man is a logical fallacy any way, not worthy of a response. I am presenting arguments and empirical evidence for one side while you all can present the other. I did not invent the evidence for flat earth any more than you or any one else here invented globe theory. We present what is out there, debate it, and let everyone come to there own conclusion. This topic is not a matter of life and death or eternal damnation for getting it wrong.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

To every one.

If I don't answer out right every question it's for one of two reasons. The first is I don't know the answer at this time the second reason is some points made for globe earth are good and I won't dispute it. I will at some point make a summary of those arguments and evidence that supports globe model and those that support flat earth model the best I can.

-Dave

 

[chair]

I have shown that there exists much evidence that supports flat stationary earth and disproves the globe model. Did you look at that evidence or not. ...

Dave,

Some of us have looked at some of your evidence. To put it bluntly- there isn't any real evidence.

You, despite your studies, do not understand basic physics, not even classical Newtonian physics.

Please take a class in physics and come back.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Dave,

Some of us have looked at some of your evidence. To put it bluntly- there isn't any real evidence.

You, despite your studies, do not understand basic physics, not even classical Newtonian physics.

Please take a class in physics and come back.

You are welcome to your opinion.

--Dave

 

[chair]

You are welcome to your opinion.

--Dave

You are not welcome to yours. If you are serious about wanting to consider different scientific theories about something, you owe it to yourself to understand the basics.

 

[DFT_Dave]

A short Dandelion weed is not a hybrid version of a tall one. It's simply a different expression of the Dandelion weed's genetic code. And yet, in spite of not being a "hybrid", the shorter one's have a survival advantage in my front yard because there are these crazy humans that come along with their tools and cut all the tall ones down before they can reproduce. Before long, there are no tall Dandelions in my yard! They're all short ones! This is natural selection at work.

And it makes no difference that humans were involved in the above example. The mechanism can be anything. If the flowers were edible then the tall ones, being more easily seen by birds, might get eaten before they can germinate. Regardless of the mechanism, if a particular version of an organism has a survival advantage over another then it will eventually be the predominant, if not the only, version of that organism within that environment.

This is what natural selection is, Dave. There is no point in making it into something it isn't in order to reject it based on the false definition.

Natural selection happens all the time and is not the same as evolution.

There is no one that believes that there is a thought process, Dave! My point is that your objection to the terminology is based on the notion that such a thought process exists. Since there is no such thought process then your objection to the term is not valid.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Natural selection

"To understand the origin of whales, it's necessary to have a basic understanding of how natural selection works. Natural selection can change a species in small ways, causing a population to change color or size over the course of several generations. This is called "microevolution."

But natural selection is also capable of much more. Given enough time and enough accumulated changes, natural selection can create entirely new species, known as "macroevolution." It can turn dinosaurs into birds, amphibious mammals into whales and the ancestors of apes into humans."

Your examples are considered micro evolution, so saying natural selection happens all the time is no different than saying everything is evolving.

Natural selection is mainly weather change, cold or hot, rain or snow, etc. A change in the weather is hardly a selection process. Species have a diversity of characteristics with in it's gene pool that determines what is better suited in various weather conditions. DNA is information provided by intelligence/God, not by chance/mutations, not by weather change.

Diversity in DNA in the genetic code of a species gene pool causes a limited variety of characteristics that results in migration to various habitats.

Natural selection is also nothing more than the "food chain". Obviously being eaten or being the eater does nothing to alter the DNA of either. Diversity of characteristics determines only what one can and cannot eat.

There are two types of evolution, atheistic and theistic. There are two distinctions within theistic evolution.

1. Atheistic evolution: process/progress without plan or purpose

2. Theistic evolution: process/progress with plan and purpose

A. Pantheistic evolution: God is nature and evolves with it.

B. Monotheistic evolution: God is outside of nature and is not evolving.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

You are not welcome to yours. If you are serious about wanting to consider different scientific theories about something, you owe it to yourself to understand the basics.

You are welcome to your opinion that I am not welcome to my opinion. :angrymob:

--Dave :rotfl:

 

[Greg Jennings]

You are welcome to your opinion.

--Dave

Not to pile on, but I concur with chair's opinion. Anyone who says that their senses tell them more about the world around them than actual scientific data can is simply wrong.


Example: Dave, your eyes do not see what is going on in front of you right now. They are dependent upon how long it takes light to reflect off of an object and back to your eyes. You are seeing things as they were ever so slightly in the past.

That would seem to contradict the reality that your senses construct. However, I can prove it to be true because your ears pick up sound faster than your eyes pick up light (which is why everyone reacts faster to sounds than sight, despite the fact that light travels faster than sound)

 

[DFT_Dave]

You are not welcome to yours. If you are serious about wanting to consider different scientific theories about something, you owe it to yourself to understand the basics.

Even the basics need to be challenged. There are differences "of opinion" on what is basic in science among valid scientists.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Not to pile on, but I concur with chair's opinion. Anyone who says that their senses tell them more about the world around them than actual scientific data can is simply wrong.

Example: Dave, your eyes do not see what is going on in front of you right now. They are dependent upon how long it takes light to reflect off of an object and back to your eyes. You are seeing things as they were ever so slightly in the past.

That would seem to contradict the reality that your senses construct. However, I can prove it to be true because your ears pick up sound faster than your eyes pick up light (which is why everyone reacts faster to sounds than sight, despite the fact that light travels faster than sound)

My eyes see the present in the same way all other eyes see it. How fast we all see it, or hear it, does not make our sense perception incorrect.

All "scientific data" must past through our sense perception so our sense perception must not be in doubt or else all "scientific data" is also in doubt.

Science today has absolutely no regard for rational thought and is why you never see the most obvious errors/fallacies in your arguments like the one you just made.

Modern cosmological and evolution science has been placed by it's adherents beyond the realm of falsification. Darwin did not do this. He said the fossil record would eventually validate or invalidate his theory. Well guess what happened? When gradualism was invalidated Gould and Eldredge changed the theory of evolution to Punctuated equilibrium instead of rejecting the theory of evolution, which what they should have done.

When tests were conducted that demonstrated the earth was stationary the globe theory should have been rejected. But instead the theory of "relativity" was created and space and time became the same thing. Einstein was a pantheist by the way.

--Dave

 

[Greg Jennings]

My eyes see the present in the same way all other eyes see it. How fast we all see it, or hear it, does not make our sense perception incorrect.

All "scientific data" must past through our sense perception so our sense perception must not be in doubt or else all "scientific data" is also in doubt.

Science today has absolutely no regard for rational thought and is why you never see the most obvious errors/fallacies in your arguments like the one you just made.

Modern cosmological and evolution science has been placed by it's adherents beyond the realm of falsification. Darwin did not do this. He said the fossil record would eventually validate or invalidate his theory. Well guess what happened? When gradualism was invalidated Gould and Eldredge changed the theory of evolution to Punctuated equilibrium instead of rejecting the theory of evolution, which what they should have done.

When tests were conducted that demonstrated the earth was stationary the globe theory should have been rejected. But instead the theory of "relativity" was created and space and time became the same thing. Einstein was a pantheist by the way.

--Dave

I'd be more than happy to debate evolution with you, but that should likely occur on the thread dedicated to it.

I think you missed the point a little. If you hear something faster than you see something, your senses are telling you that sound travels faster than light. Your senses are wrong. Light is far far faster than sound.

Just like in that example, your senses have fooled you in regards to flat earth stuff, as shown by comments such as "Earth looks flat from an airplane."

 

[DFT_Dave]

I'd be more than happy to debate evolution with you, but that should likely occur on the thread dedicated to it.

I think you missed the point a little. If you hear something faster than you see something, your senses are telling you that sound travels faster than light. Your senses are wrong. Light is far far faster than sound.

Just like in that example, your senses have fooled you in regards to flat earth stuff, as shown by comments such as "Earth looks flat from an airplane."

My sense perception tells me nothing about the speed of either sound or light. This is another false analogy. Tests tell me the speed of sound and light, and the speed of light is theoretical and debatable. When I see a car crash right in front of me I hear the sound of it at the same time. I am not seeing or hearing a "past" event. Tests tell me the earth is not rotating and those tests are perceived through senses and confirm what my senses tell me.

--Dave

 

[Greg Jennings]

My sense perception tells me nothing about the speed of either sound or light. This is another false analogy. Tests tell me the speed of sound and light, and the speed of light is theoretical and debatable.

--Dave

Please explain



I'll give you another example of your senses being fooled too, why the heck not:
Have you ever tried to spear a fish while standing in calm water? If you throw the spear where you see the image of the fish, you will miss every single time.
But if you throw a little bit over the image of the fish, then you have a good chance of hitting it. That's because light travels more slowly through water than it does through air, and the light waves bend in water to make it appear that the fish is closer than it actually is. You can test this if you want by sticking your hand into a pool and looking at it

If they had followed their senses, traditional island fisherman would've starved to death

 

[Right Divider]

My sense perception tells me nothing about the speed of either sound or light. This is another false analogy. Tests tell me the speed of sound and light, and the speed of light is theoretical and debatable. When I see a car crash right in front of me I hear the sound of it at the same time. I am not seeing or hearing a "past" event. Tests tell me the earth is not rotating and those tests are perceived through senses and confirm what my senses tell me.

--Dave

You are seeing a "past" event. The time difference is SO small that you cannot tell the difference.

 

[DFT_Dave]

You are seeing a "past" event. The time difference is SO small that you cannot tell the difference.

Does a car hit me before I can sense it? Is a car hitting me actually a past event?

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Please explain



I'll give you another example of your senses being fooled too, why the heck not:
Have you ever tried to spear a fish while standing in calm water? If you throw the spear where you see the image of the fish, you will miss every single time.
But if you throw a little bit over the image of the fish, then you have a good chance of hitting it. That's because light travels more slowly through water than it does through air, and the light waves bend in water to make it appear that the fish is closer than it actually is. You can test this if you want by sticking your hand into a pool and looking at it

If they had followed their senses, traditional island fisherman would've starved to death

It was their senses that told them where to throw the spear. Their sense of where the fish was, was clear to them because of their experience of what water does to what is in it. They did not need a theory of science to tell them how to fish. It's our senses that tell how to perceive things under water when we are under water.

You can't undermine sense perception without undermining "all" that you think you know.

Fish in water tell me nothing about the flatness or roundness of the earth.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

I'd be more than happy to debate evolution with you, but that should likely occur on the thread dedicated to it.

I think you missed the point a little. If you hear something faster than you see something, your senses are telling you that sound travels faster than light. Your senses are wrong. Light is far far faster than sound.

Just like in that example, your senses have fooled you in regards to flat earth stuff, as shown by comments such as "Earth looks flat from an airplane."

As to air planes, they ascend then "level" off at a certain altitude and remain there until it is time to descend and land. They never adjust to a curvature of the earth. The distance we can see from commercial flights would be more than enough to "see" the curvature if their was one.

--Dave

 

[Right Divider]

Does a car hit me before I can sense it? Is a car hitting me actually a past event?

--Dave

Don't change the subject Dave. Bringing it closer to you does minimize the distance, does it not?

Light and sound do take time to travel, do they not?