The earth is flat and we never went to the moon

[Yorzhik]

I have to hand it to people who have been arguing with Dave for so long.. I don't know where you find the patience.

One could make a solid case for almost anything using his tactics. Chickens grow on trees. Chickens look like fruit, taste like fruit. They are not animals- you never see one walking around. Anybody who says they do is part of a conspiracy or have been fooled. Videos showing chickens chickens hatching from eggs are faked by the agriculture department.

You are getting bogged down in unimportant details - the earth is not flat no matter how the Mississippi flows. It's like those endless discussions of the mechanism of evolution. It is a distraction from the basic point that evolution happens- irrespective of whether we understand how or don't understand.

You meant "common descent" and not "evolution", no? Because I could agree that the arguments of common descentists are as insane as the flat-earthers (and probably why flat-earthers, in general, believe in common descent) due to the same mindset.

But you see, arguing against flat-earthers is good exercise for understanding the arguments of common descentists.

You know... I'm thinking maybe you don't have the patience to argue with Dave because it feels like the blind leading the blind to you. It's an interesting hypothesis anyway.

 

[DFT_Dave]

I already said that everyone knows the river flow downhill, GENERALLY SPEAKING. But, if you know the name of a river that has no portion of it that ever flows up and over a rock or small hill or other uphill portion of any length of time or distance at all, give me the name of it. (Such a river does not exist.)

It completely does counter it, Dave. You're the one who's suggesting that rivers would flow differently than they do if the world was actually round, not me. And that position is predicated on the silly notion that water cannot flow uphill except that it does all the time, every day.

This is approaching insanity! No up or down. Let me see...

Yep, I just took my finger and pointed up....

....and there I went, pointing my finger down.

What the hell does this "no up or down" even mean?

Down on a spherical Earth is toward the center of gravity, which is effectively the same as simply saying toward the center of the Earth. Up is the opposite. Water in all bodies of water (as well as every other thing with mass) is pulled by gravity toward the Earth's center of mass. (In actual fact, every piece of matter has gravity and are attracted to each other, the net effect is that each body of mass is pulled toward another as if they were a single point at their center of mass. A point of fact, by the way, that just so happens to be exactly consistent with what you'd theoretically expect mathematically.) This is why water flows toward the lowest point unless otherwise acted upon and why it does so, automatically (i.e. without having to be started in that direction by any other force). Thus water flows north in the Nile River because the elevation of Egypt away from the Earth's center of gravity decreases (not uniformly but generally speaking) from south to north.

Clete

I was talking about elevations so when I said no up or down what I meant was there is no "uphill" and no "downhill". I'm sorry for the confusion. The following illustration will help, I hope, explain what I meant.

View attachment 25337

From what ever point you are standing on a globe, every direction is downhill from you, in terms of distance. And your position is uphill to every one else. And when every point is relative, uphill to downhill, to every other point then there is no actual uphill or downhill.

That's why "it can" be said that the Mississippi Rivers, on a globe, flows both up and down hill at the same time. But, that's obviously an irrational self contradiction which is why the earth having oceans and rivers is logically "flat" and cannot be a globe.

The sun, moon, and stars are not at all like the earth. They have no water or life. They, according to Genesis and visual empirical evidence, produce only light which is why they can be spherical and can "move".

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

I realize now what I forgot to add to the second image.

The bottom line of the lower triangle represents the distance from the center of the earth to the surface "height" of the poles.

The left vertical line represents the height difference of the above to the height of sea level, which is 21.36km, at the equator.

The rightmost vertex is the North pole.

Obviously, the drawing is not to scale, and my art skills suck. Also, the straight "lines" represent the curve of the earth, not the flat earth.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

I understood your point, and if the earth is a globe you are correct. But any river flowing both uphill and down hill at the same time is a self contradiction and obviously not true, which means the earth must be flat.

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

I understood your point, and if the earth is a globe you are correct. But any river flowing both uphill and down hill at the same time is a self contradiction and obviously not true, which means the earth must be flat.

--Dave

The "contradiction" you are talking about is not a contradiction because uphill and downhill are relative terms. The Mississippi River is flowing "downhill" relative to sea-level (in general). However, relative to a specific "level" (sea level at the north and south pole), it is flowing "uphill."

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[DFT_Dave]

This argument has already been directly refuted. Objects do not simply get so far away that they can no longer be seen because they've shrunk into the distance. They disappear from the bottom up over the horizon just as you'd expect them to do if the world was a sphere. If the world were flat, you could get a telescope and see Eaurope from New York or Australia from California. Things the size of continents would never get so small that you couldn't see them in the first place! You ought not even need a telescope. But I don't care how powerful a telescope you use, you will never ever be able to see all the way from California to Australia - period. You can't even see all the way across Kansas from Oklahoma to Nebraska, never mind across a whole ocean!

All vision, even aided by a telescopes, is subject to an ascending horizon line to the viewers height on a flat plain. This is an absolute fact. There exists a vanishing point across that entire horizon line of "limited" visual ability. The state of Kansas is a flat plain that extends for many miles. Our limited view obviously does not mean Kansas curves downward away from us. And neither do the oceans for the same reason.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

I found another video the debunks the flat earth theory. It's the best one I've seen yet when it comes to just really great, straightforward arguments as well as excellent production quality.

This video is the first in a series of videos on the subject but this one focuses on the horizon and all the flat Earth arguments that deal with the fact that the horizon we see is flat and not curved, which, as he demonstrates brilliantly in the video, is exactly what you'd expect on a spherical Earth.

The part of the video dealing with boats and ships going over the horizon (starts at 6:23) is just outstanding. Notice the nice clear images without all the atmospheric lensing that I now know was a mistake to even get caught up in. No mirror lines, no upside down ships, just a boat disappearing bottom up over the horizon as clear as day. All the lensing effects are videos that flat earthers cherry pick in order to make fallacious arguments that don't even really work even with the lensing effect, as I've shown in this thread already and which the video deals with at about 12 minutes into the video.

Anyway, it's a really excellent video. I hope you all watch it.

This picture demonstrates how a flat plain, or level/flat water, appears to rise up, even though there is no actual elevation, to meet the eye "level" of the viewer. We know the water is not elevating but only appears that way. The same effect occurs even through a telescopic lens. What ever is higher than the the horizon line of the viewer is visible, but what ever is below the horizon line is not visible but is still at the same "actual" level of the viewer. There is no curvature.

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

This picture demonstrates how a flat plain, or level/flat water, appears to rise up, even though there is no actual elevation, to meet the eye "level" of the viewer. We know the water is not elevating but only appears that way. The same effect occurs even through a telescopic lens. What ever is higher than the the horizon line of the viewer is visible, but what ever is below the horizon line is not visible but is still at the same "actual" level of the viewer. There is no curvature.

--Dave

Someone didn't watch the video (not picture).

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[DFT_Dave]

Dave,

If the Earth is flat, why isn't the Chicago skyline visible from across Lake Michigan all the time? It's plenty big enough and plenty tall enough to remain visible for hundreds of miles across a flat earth, but most of the time (nearly all of the time) it isn't visible at all.

The lakes are always subject to "haze" and "fog", that can obscure distant shores at any distance.

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

The lakes are always subject to "haze" and "fog", that can obscure distant shores at any distance.

--Dave

Your exact response is rebutted in that video. You should watch it before replying further.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[DFT_Dave]

Not long ago we had an atmospheric event that allowed us on the east coast of Lake Michigan to see Chicago very clearly. The funny thing was that even as the air got *clearer*, the image faded and disappeared. That proves the image was due to factors other than Lake Michigan being completely flat.

Fog appears even on clear days.

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

Fog appears even on clear days.

--Dave

Again, rebutted in the video.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Clete]

I was talking about elevations so when I said no up or down what I meant was there is no "uphill" and no "downhill". I'm sorry for the confusion. The following illustration will help, I hope, explain what I meant.

View attachment 25337

From what ever point you are standing on a globe, every direction is downhill from you, in terms of distance. And your position is uphill to every one else. And when every point is relative, uphill to downhill, to every other point then there is no actual uphill or downhill.

No, it isn't, Dave!

I cannot fathom what in the world you're even talking about!

First of all, direction is relative - always. Up, on the Earth's surface is away from the center of the globe. Down is the opposite. If someone is on a hill or mountain and I am at the base of that mountain then they are not downhill from me, they are up hill from me.

I feel like I'm talking to a child. How is this at all confusing or not completely intuitive?

That's why "it can" be said that the Mississippi Rivers, on a globe, flows both up and downhill at the same time. But, that's obviously an irrational self-contradiction which is why the earth having oceans and rivers is logically "flat" and cannot be a globe.

There would be no contradiction if whoever is saying such a thing was saying the river is flowing uphill from one frame of reference while flowing downhill from a different frame of reference. But I don't think that's what flat-earthers are suggesting at all. I think that they are suggesting that water would have to flow up the curvature of the Earth as if the pull of gravity was coming from somewhere other than the center of the Earth.

In other words, the flat-earther objection here is to a phenomenon that does not occur and that no one believes nor has even suggested happens. It's an objection born out of their own misunderstanding of the way the world works.

The sun, moon, and stars are not at all like the earth. They have no water or life. They, according to Genesis and visual empirical evidence, produce only light which is why they can be spherical and can "move".

--Dave

So what? They cannot move in the way they do if the world if flat. No way for there to be a south celestial pole if the world is flat or for the Moon and Sun not to shrink into the distance as they move out of sight. No way for people in the southern hemisphere to see the same side of the moon in the same phase as people in the northern hemisphere. And on and on and on. If the world was flat, it wouldn't look anything like it does.

Clete

 

[Clete]

All vision, even aided by a telescopes, is subject to an ascending horizon line to the viewers height on a flat plain. This is an absolute fact. There exists a vanishing point across that entire horizon line of "limited" visual ability. The state of Kansas is a flat plain that extends for many miles. Our limited view obviously does not mean Kansas curves downward away from us. And neither do the oceans for the same reason.

--Dave

Except that they do.

Watch the video I posted. It seriously blows everything you've said on this thread about the horizon to bits.

 

[Clete]

This picture demonstrates how a flat plain, or level/flat water, appears to rise up, even though there is no actual elevation, to meet the eye "level" of the viewer. We know the water is not elevating but only appears that way. The same effect occurs even through a telescopic lens. What ever is higher than the the horizon line of the viewer is visible, but what ever is below the horizon line is not visible but is still at the same "actual" level of the viewer. There is no curvature.

--Dave

I don't even think that you're thinking this through as you're saying it. If there is a flat plane then there would be nothing for the buildings to disappear behind. They would just sit directly on the horizon and get smaller and smaller with distance. There is no way that the bottom of the building shrinks into the distance faster that the top.

Watch the video.

 

[Clete]

The lakes are always subject to "haze" and "fog", that can obscure distant shores at any distance.

--Dave

This is not so.

 

[JudgeRightly]

There would be no contradiction if whoever is saying such a thing was saying the river is flowing uphill from one frame of reference while flowing downhill from a different frame of reference. But I don't think that's what flat-earthers are suggesting at all. I think that they are suggesting that water would have to flow up the curvature of the Earth as if the pull of gravity was coming from somewhere other than the center of the Earth.

In other words, the flat-earther objection here is to a phenomenon that does not occur and that no one believes nor has even suggested happens. It's an objection born out of their own misunderstanding of the way the world works.

This is exactly what I was doing. Downhill from one frame of reference (sea level in general), uphill from another (sea level at the poles (if the earth was a perfect sphere).

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[DFT_Dave]

I have to hand it to people who have been arguing with Dave for so long.. I don't know where you find the patience.

One could make a solid case for almost anything using his tactics. Chickens grow on trees. Chickens look like fruit, taste like fruit. They are not animals- you never see one walking around. Anybody who says they do is part of a conspiracy or have been fooled. Videos showing chickens chickens hatching from eggs are faked by the agriculture department.

You are getting bogged down in unimportant details - the earth is not flat no matter how the Mississippi flows. It's like those endless discussions of the mechanism of evolution. It is a distraction from the basic point that evolution happens- irrespective of whether we understand how or don't understand.

"Evolution happens irrespective of whether we understand how or don't understand", is a statement of "belief". The "physical" sciences are founded on evidence that can be "falsified" and are supposed to be subject to empirical sensory "verification".

Evolution like globe earth is based on "faith" and is theoretically placed beyond empirical sensory "verification", except for the few who have seen what no one else can. No one has ever seen the evolution of man from ape, and no one has ever seen the earth rotate around the sun. Thought experiment has replace, handle, feel, and see.

Einstein has become atheism's Moses, Darwin it's Abraham. NASA is a cult with astronauts that have been to the Holy Moontain and seen the cosmos as it really is, just as the "I Am" Copernicus said it was. How dare any one question these holy men of science!

--Dave :darwinsm:

 

[JudgeRightly]

"Evolution happens irrespective of whether we understand how or don't understand", is a statement of "belief". The "physical" sciences are founded on evidence that can be "falsified" and are supposed to be subject to empirical sensory "verification".

Evolution like globe earth is based on "faith" and is theoretically placed beyond empirical sensory "verification", except for the few who have seen what no one else can. No one has ever seen the evolution of man from ape, and no one has ever seen the earth rotate around the sun. Thought experiment has replace, handle, feel, and see.

Einstein has become atheism's Moses, Darwin it's Abraham. NASA is a cult with astronauts that have been to the Holy Moontain and seen the cosmos as it really is, just as the "I Am" Copernicus said it was. How dare any one question these holy men of science!

--Dave :darwinsm:

Einstein and Darwin both died rejecting God. NASA is just a program, and I'm pretty sure quite a few of the people who work there are Christians, especially some of the astronauts. And Copernicus would probably take offense (as I do) at you blaspheming the name of God. Copernicus was a Christian. He rejected naturalistic origins for life and the universe, the same as Newton and many other fathers of the physical sciences.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[DFT_Dave]

The "contradiction" you are talking about is not a contradiction because uphill and downhill are relative terms. The Mississippi River is flowing "downhill" relative to sea-level (in general). However, relative to a specific "level" (sea level at the north and south pole), it is flowing "uphill."

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

There is no "actual" uphill or downhill on a globe. Downhill to you is uphill to everyone else, etc. This contradicts the earth we see and experience.

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

There is no "actual" uphill or downhill on a globe.

YES THERE IS, DAVE! Yes there is! There are mountains and hills and valleys and canyons. You're arguments are getting more and more insane with each of your posts!

Downhill to you is uphill to everyone else, etc.

Dave, there is no way for that to be true on either a flat or a round earth.

This contradicts the earth we see and experience.

--Dave

"It contradicts because I, Dave, am too stupid to be able to understand how a spherical planet works because I've watched too many flat earth conspiracy videos on the internet, and you know that it's true because it's on the internet."

====

Dave, let's change topics for a bit. And get to something that we both have at least a small amount of common ground to stand on.

The Noachian Flood.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app