The earth is flat and we never went to the moon

[JudgeRightly]

Dave,

I had an entire post typed responding to all five of the "arguments" made in this video and when I hit the post button, TOL acted like I wasn't logged in (I never ever log out) and I lost the whole post. The only thing that survived was the photo I imported of the Persied Meteor shower showing "falling stars" going in all directions just as the video said they should if the Earth was a globe.

Maybe I'll retype it all but I really doubt it.

I'd certainly like to read it.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[DFT_Dave]

Dave, watch that video again.

The guy's own videos disprove his thesis.

Notice how the sound of the jet engines pass the camera before the shuttle does.
Notice how the sound of the jet engines isn't even close to being loudest when the back end of the shuttle is facing the camera.
Notice how the supposed jet engines don't burn the brake chute to smithereens upon deployment, nor is there even any evidence of thrust coming from the engines when that chute is deployed.

The jet engines audible on the video are on the chase planes. Just because they aren't in the camera's view doesn't mean that they aren't there.

The person who made the video said some would say this but he claims the sounds come from the shuttle. Funny how the shuttle has a back end that looks like an engine and a wing span that doesn't look like a glider.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

And airplane flights that occur that are impossible on a flat earth?

Max Igan is interviewed after he revealed that he took a flight that went the wrong direction. A must see.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

They weren't wrong on that.



The word used does not mean vault. It means firmament, and it's not talking about something up in the air. It's talking about something beneath our feet.

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/1-6.htm

*And Elohim said, Let there be a raki’a (expanse, dome, firmament) in the midst of the mayim (waters), and let it divide the mayim from the mayim. - Bereshis 1:6 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Bereshis1:6&version=OJB

rsr.org/hpt

Almost everything said in the Bible about creation and the flood and how it changed our entire universe can be explained by the Hydroplate theory. None of the other flood models even come close to explaining the flood, let alone how we ended up with comets, the weather patterns we have today, the ~365 1/4 day year (kgov.com/360), Earth's radioactivity, and many other phenomena that we see.

A "vault"? "Raqia" does not mean vault. I imagine that it's the origin of where we get our word for "rock", as the etymology comes from the french "rocque", which comes from the latin "rocca".

The firmament of the earth is the raqia that divides the waters from the waters, the waters above from the waters below. the HPT explains that the "waters below" are vast subterranian oceans, which explains why the flood waters kept rising well after the rain stopped.



God says He hung the earth on nothing. I believe I've said this before. What is "nothing" but a vacuum, which is an absence of matter. Space is literally nothing.

God hung the earth in orbit around the Sun. The model of our solar system is literally the planets orbiting our Sun, as if they were hung on nothing.

We know exactly how far away these stars are, and we know their size, color, type, and mass too. We know how far apart they are from one another. The closest is 4 light-years away, and the farthest we've seen is upwards of 13 billion light-years away.

Dave, we know exactly how far away both the moon and sun are, we know how big they are, and we know their mass. None of those things match the flat earth theory.

The Earth is the only planet in the solar system where you can see a perfect eclipse. The reason for this is that while the Sun is about 400 times farther away from the earth than the moon is, it's also about 400 times larger than the moon is, an almost perfect ratio.

The lights in the sky were meant for signs and seasons. You've heard of the zodiac? Well, the zodiac wasn't created by man to remember certain patterns of stars, the stars were put in place by God for us to use to remember the story he tells us in the Bible.

I highly recommend you get this.

http://store.kgov.com/the-planets-stars-and-the-bible-dvd-or-video-download/

It goes through how everything in the night sky tells us not only how great God is, but, even though it wasn't intended to be about this, it also shows how those pinpricks of light in the night sky aren't just pretty lights, they're actual objects.

In fact, the most important is the "Star" of Bethlehem. Check it out.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

The problem with your view is that the lights were placed in the firmament/vault/dome of heaven not on the earth.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Dave,

I had an entire post typed responding to all five of the "arguments" made in this video and when I hit the post button, TOL acted like I wasn't logged in (I never ever log out) and I lost the whole post. The only thing that survived was the photo I imported of the Persied Meteor shower showing "falling stars" going in all directions just as the video said they should if the Earth was a globe.

Maybe I'll retype it all but I really doubt it.

The term, falling star, exists for a reason. Shooting stars go across the sky. I've never seen a picture like this one before, so, it's suspect to me. But the rare misdirection of such events is not evidence enough of a globe and I would not use falling or shooting stars either as a proof of a flat earth.

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

The problem with your view is that the lights were placed in the firmament/vault/dome of heaven not on the earth.

--Dave

http://biblehub.com/hebrew/7549.htm

Relevant passage of Genesis:

*Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. *And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.*Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. . . . Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; *and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. *Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. *God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, - Genesis 1:7-9,14-17 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis1:7-9,14-17&version=NKJV

"Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament with the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so."

This verse is not talking about the atmosphere. it's talking about the oceans we see every day (the waters above the firmament) and the subterranean chambers of water that were created by God in case He needed to start over with humanity.

"And God called the firmament Heaven."

Once again, the verse is not talking about the sky. "Heaven" was the entire earth. God created a perfect world, so there was no need for another Heaven elsewhere, like we imagine heaven would be today. No, the word "Heaven" here is a specific place, it does not mean the sky.

"“Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so."

God is pulling the waters to one section of the planet, and in doing so, creating a supercontinent. Pangea is what both scular and Christian scientists call it, however, the Christian scientists have a more accurate model of it, as explained in Dr. Walt Brown's Hydroplate Theory.

"Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; *and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so."

This verse IS talking about the sky. "Firmament of the heavens" is not "firmament" or "Heaven" God placed the stars in the night sky, and did it in such a way as to tell a story, where each "season" is a different part of the story, each constellation a sign.

"Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. *God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth,"

God created the sun and the moon on this day, the sun being brighter than the moon, the sun to rule the day, and the moon to rule the night. And again, we see "firmament of the heavens." The fact that there's a differentiation between "firmament" and "firmament of the heavens" should tell you that they are not talking about the same thing.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[JudgeRightly]

The term, falling star, exists for a reason. Shooting stars go across the sky. I've never seen a picture like this one before, so, it's suspect to me. But the rare misdirection of such events is not evidence enough of a globe and I would not use falling or shooting stars either as a proof of a flat earth.

--Dave

Dave, I strongly urge you to at least browse through http://www.creationscience.com/, as it goes through an explanation for most of the phenomena in our universe.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[gcthomas]

The term, falling star, exists for a reason. Shooting stars go across the sky. I've never seen a picture like this one before, so, it's suspect to me. But the rare misdirection of such events is not evidence enough of a globe and I would not use falling or shooting stars either as a proof of a flat earth.

--Dave

Falling star is a synonym for shooting star. And the photo would look less suspect to you if you had any interest in actually going out and observing the world as it is. The meteoroids appear to radiate from a point due to perspective effects, like what you see as you drive in snow. The photo looks just like what I saw in August last year ~I saw fifty meteors radiating away from a point just as shown (but one at a time - the photo is a time exposure of several minutes). Go out in the nights of August 11-13 and see for yourself. http://earthsky.org/?p=165416#when

 

[Clete]

The person who made the video said some would say this but he claims the sounds come from the shuttle. Funny how the shuttle has a back end that looks like an engine and a wing span that doesn't look like a glider.

--Dave

The guy is trying to convince of something, Dave! You don't have to take anyone's word for it. Listen to it!

If he had just stuck with that first video, it would be a harder case to make because that's the one that would be the most convincing. But then he'd have a problem because there are all kinds of reasons one video might sound a particular way. He understood this intuitively and so offered example after example of space shuttles making jet engine noises.
But he puts those well into the video. And I think he does so on purpose. First of all, lots of people won't make it that far into the video and they've already seen his best evidence video. Secondly, he's spent that last several minutes building the notion into your mind and relies on confirmation bias to do the rest of the argument for him.
But for those of us who understand how to think critically, it doesn't work - or shouldn't. Just as we all know the Joseph A. Bank doesn't actually give away two shirts for every one you pay full price for, we should all be able to tell that this guy is a flim-flam artist.

Look, just listen to the video again. Skip to the part where he shows one shuttle landing after another and simply try to match up what is shown in the video with what you'd expect to hear if the jet engine was on that shuttle. It doesn't even work on the last one, which is a reshowing of the one he shows at the beginning of the video. If the jet engines were on that shuttle, it ought to be loud as hell and back again when those engines are directly facing the camera but they're no louder at all!

 

[gcthomas]

Dave, I strongly urge you to at least browse through http://www.creationscience.com/, as it goes through an explanation for most of the phenomena in our universe.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

The Hydroplate "Theory" is the most incompetent attempt at explaining scientific observations that I have ever read, but the author is only aiming to convince uneducated people to buttress them against the the threats to faith that come from seeing the world as it is, as opposed to the world as the biblical literalists would like it to be.

 

[JudgeRightly]

The Hydroplate "Theory" is the most incompetent attempt at explaining scientific observations that I have ever read, but the author is only aiming to convince uneducated people to buttress them against the the threats to faith that come from seeing the world as it is, as opposed to the world as the biblical literalists would like it to be.

Saying something doesn't make it true, gc.

Try to refute it instead of just bashing it.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Clete]

The term, falling star, exists for a reason. Shooting stars go across the sky. I've never seen a picture like this one before, so, it's suspect to me. But the rare misdirection of such events is not evidence enough of a globe and I would not use falling or shooting stars either as a proof of a flat earth.

--Dave

I've taken similar photos with my own camera. It was years ago and the photos are on film (slides actually) and I don't even know where they are now so I can't post them here or else I would.

Remember, multiple independent source confirmation. Look it up. Look it up in several places. Look on the internet. Find ANY astronomy textbook. Call ANY local astronomy club. Ask anyone anywhere that has studied astronomy for longer than one week and you'll get the exact same information. Then take your own camera and look up the date of the next meteor shower and do the long exposure photo on your own equipment. If you stick around while the exposure is being made, you'll see for yourself that they go in all directions, just exactly as the lady in that video stated should happen if the Earth was a globe moving through space.

 

[gcthomas]

Saying something doesn't make it true, gc.

Try to refute it instead of just bashing it.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

I have done a number of times on ToL. It is a simple thing. Tell you what: Pick your favourite part of the book and I will refute is specially.

 

[musterion]

I have done a number of times on ToL. It is a simple thing. Tell you what: Pick your favourite part of the book and I will refute is specially.

Prov 30:33

 

[Clete]

The Hydroplate "Theory" is the most incompetent attempt at explaining scientific observations that I have ever read, but the author is only aiming to convince uneducated people to buttress them against the the threats to faith that come from seeing the world as it is, as opposed to the world as the biblical literalists would like it to be.

It's a theory, Thomas. It isn't a peer-reviewed scientific paper. It is a theory presented in laymen's terms because the book is intended for laymen to read. You've gotta take things for what they are and critique them based on what they're intent is. In no case is "incompetent" a fair characterization. Dr. Walt's book is not intended to be some sort of scientifically rigorous presentation of the theory on par with something you'd find in The Journal Science or something equivalent. It's intended to be a book that presents rationally sound, falsifiable ideas that are consistent with the biblical account and with the physical evidence present the world over. He's fully aware that the audience will be predominantly evangelical, fundamentalist Christians. He makes his living presenting such information to that specific audience.

If you think you can refute it, which you may well be able to do, then I encourage you to start a thread and give it your best shot. It would be something new and, presuming the participants are intellectually honest, it would be very interesting and enjoyable.

If you don't want to start a new thread, I'll assume you don't want to discuss it at all.

Clete

 

[gcthomas]

Prov 30:33

I see no wrath. Just wry amusement at the contortions of the literalists.

 

[gcthomas]

In no case is "incompetent" a fair characterization. Dr. Walt's book is not intended to be some sort of scientifically rigorous presentation of the theory on par with something you'd find in The Journal Science or something equivalent. It's intended to be a book that presents rationally sound, falsifiable ideas that are consistent with the biblical account and with the physical evidence present the world over.

Here is how the book presents itself:

It is the most complete reference work I have encountered on the scientific aspects of the multifaceted subject of origins. At the same time it presents a comprehensive theoretical framework (his hydroplate theory) for reconciling the many seemingly unrelated, and sometimes apparently contradictory, facts that bear on these questions.

It isn't underselling itself - it claims to be a scientific theoretical framework to match and better the actual science.

In previous threads I have tackled misrepresentations on the distribution of radioactivity in the Earth, the hopelessly naïve treatment of the recession of the Moon's orbit, the thermodynamic nonsense that is his explanation of the acceleration of the fountains of the deep to escape velocities, Brown's misunderstanding of nuclear physics regarding radioactivity, and the fact that Brown has claimed that his prediction of pooled water under mountain ranges has been confirmed (either a lie or a humorously incompetent misunderstanding of the actual science), as well as others that I cannot currently recall.

I don't feel the need to start a new thread specifically for the purpose when I am happy to tackle such scientific illiteracy as and when it arises. Walt Brown is a charlatan or a self-infatuated fool. My guess is the former.

 

[gcthomas]

Space Shuttles are jets not gliders

True deception at work here, listen and see for yourself.
--Dave

The guy in the video has obviously never seen a hang-glider if he thinks that the Shuttle's wings are too short for gliding flight. Hasn't he ever made a paper dart and thrown it across the room? What shape are those wings?

 

[CabinetMaker]

The person who made the video said some would say this but he claims the sounds come from the shuttle. Funny how the shuttle has a back end that looks like an engine and a wing span that doesn't look like a glider.

--Dave

The engines are the main engines used only during lift off. That big brown tank on the belly of the shuttle is the fuel tank for those engines, once that tank is jettisoned, there is no more fuel for those engines and they do not operate again for the remainder of the mission.

The reentry speed of the shuttle is considerably greater than that of a glider. It is traveling at several times the speed of sound. Typical cal glider style wings would be ripped off at those speeds. The shuttle wings are designed to withstand the heat and forces of reentry, not sustained flight. Which means the shuttle gets one chance to land, it does not have the ability (i.e. the fuel and engines) to pull up and go around again.

Here is a nice article about the space shuttle that describes how it functions as a glider during landing. Have a look.
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/glidshuttle.html

 

[themuzicman]

Max Igan is interviewed after he revealed that he took a flight that went the wrong direction. A must see.

--Dave

How did the plane travel 16,000 miles without stopping for fuel at 1100 MPH? It can't be done. There isn't a plane in existence than can do that.

So, you have yet to explain this simple problem, which this video demonstrates, BTW, as they accomplished half the flight or so in about 5 hours/

And you have to consider that compass works by magnetic poles. If a compass is close to a magnetic source (like, say, the electrical system in the plane itself), it will produce a false reading.