The earth is flat and we never went to the moon
- Thread starter DFT_Dave
- Start date
- Status
Remember how fun this thread used to be?? Oh Dave where art thou??
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
He left a post about being busy and not spending as much time here for a while. Hopefully he'll get back soon
Sorry for my absence. My new bosses think working 12 hour days is better than 8. I'm trying to get them to understand that I'd rather work 8 hours but they make more money if I work more hours. I make more money as well, but I'd rather make less money and have more time to do this and a few other things.
--Dave
musterion
Well-known member
Hmmm...
Sensory perception does not tell us that railroad tracks meet at the horizon.
Sensory perception does not tell us that objects in the distance are smaller than those closer to us.
Depth perception is sensory perception you idiot.
How can you argue against sensory perception when you don't even know what it is?
That I can "see" what you have written is not only evidence of your existence it is also evidence that you are irrational. You have violated the first law of reason, that of identity or definition. What sensory perception is is not what you have claimed it to be. With out sensory perception there could be no claim that the curvature of the the earth is visible. So you also have violated the second law of reason, the law of non contradiction. If that you say, sensory perception is not the proof of truth then we have no proof that the earth is truly curved, but you say we can "see" a curved earth.
"Depth perception is the visual ability to perceive the world in three dimensions (3D) and the distance of an object."--Wiki
All views of the horizon are straight and flat in every direction and from every axis point, north to south and east to west. This is evidence of a flat earth. We "see" a horizon/straight line because of the depth/sensory perception that brings level ground and water up and the sun, moon, and clouds in the sky down to meet at the limited distance we can see, called eye level.
The earth is never felt, experienced, or seen to be moving from earth or from high altitude commercial flight. The earth is motionless and things move on it and over it not the other way around.
--Dave
musterion
Well-known member
musterion
Well-known member
Appealing to atheists now?
We have here a fundamental contradict.
Common basic sensory perception says one thing and science says the opposite.
I like your pic with the sign, "Behead those who say Islam is violent."
I think you'd say that is an irrational statement and the person holding it is an idiot.
--Dave
musterion
Well-known member
Why do you appeal to atheists to help you make a case you can't make from the Bible?
Oh...because you can't make it from the Bible.
And why do you keep ignoring Knight's moon question while paying attention to inconsequential me?
musterion
Well-known member
When you going to address Knight's moon question? As soon as you find a YT video that pretends to address it?
Michio Kaku: Is God a Mathematician?
In this video theoretic physicist Michio Kaku gives us his understanding of what God is.
He gives three historic developments of cosmology. He presents the best simple explanation of the difference between Newton's and Einstein's view of gravity, that I have heard.
I have posted this video because Kaku tells us how new math has been invented in order to explain new views of the universe and visa versa.
Kaku arrives at a formula for God--"super semetry". The mind of God is the cosmic music of strings resonating through eleven dimensional hyper space.
As Christians we will reject Kaku's God and his cosmology of strings, they go together. We should also reject Einstein's cosmology of curved space time along with his pantheism. I would reject Newton as well. "According to most scholars, Newton was Arian, not holding to Trinitarianism. 'In Newton's eyes, worshipping Christ as God was idolatry, to him the fundamental sin.--Wiki This means Newton was not a Christian and his cosmology is not Biblical.
This also requires a rejection of all the so called "math" that supports all imagined cosmologies.
So how much of scriptural cosmology is literally true verses figurative of something else?
All globe cosmologys perempt our Biblical knowledge of a personal God.
--Dave
In this video theoretic physicist Michio Kaku gives us his understanding of what God is.
He gives three historic developments of cosmology. He presents the best simple explanation of the difference between Newton's and Einstein's view of gravity, that I have heard.
I have posted this video because Kaku tells us how new math has been invented in order to explain new views of the universe and visa versa.
Kaku arrives at a formula for God--"super semetry". The mind of God is the cosmic music of strings resonating through eleven dimensional hyper space.
As Christians we will reject Kaku's God and his cosmology of strings, they go together. We should also reject Einstein's cosmology of curved space time along with his pantheism. I would reject Newton as well. "According to most scholars, Newton was Arian, not holding to Trinitarianism. 'In Newton's eyes, worshipping Christ as God was idolatry, to him the fundamental sin.--Wiki This means Newton was not a Christian and his cosmology is not Biblical.
This also requires a rejection of all the so called "math" that supports all imagined cosmologies.
So how much of scriptural cosmology is literally true verses figurative of something else?
All globe cosmologys perempt our Biblical knowledge of a personal God.
--Dave
oatmeal
Well-known member
Show me where scriptures say that Newton was not a Christian, that is that believing that worshiping Christ as God is idolatry.
Newton stated the obvious. Idolatry is the fundamental sin. God is God, His son is His son. They are one identical.
For that matter, why do railroad tracks meet in the distance? at the horizon? Are they becoming one track? or is that a matter of perception?
oatmeal
Well-known member
You made a good point but I do not walk by sight but by believing.
Since your trust is in sensory perception, it seems, then you would fall for the same lie that Eve did. The tree was good for food and the fruit was pleasant to the eyes
Your ability to insult people is polished to a high degree. Congratulations for that.
Eve fell for the falsehoods of sensory perception instead of the truth of God's word.
Truth is truth, but sensory perception is not a guarantee of truth, it is only a guarantee of sensory perception.
Have you not read Genesis 3:1-7 Adam and Eve's sensory perception after they sinned told them they were naked. Sensory perception tells them they were naked. It was not an issue until they sinned, it was not an issue with God.
Who are you going to believe? God or your unreliable, limited, deceptive sensory perception?
God gave us sensory perception.
We can't live in this physical world without it.
Sensory perception is not why Eve ate the fruit.
That would be like saying God created us with sensory perception so that we would sin.
--Dave
Christian Trinity:
God the Father
God the Son
God the Holy Spirit
Newton did not believe in God the Son. For him God could not become flesh.
But this is not a debate about the Trinity.
Depth perception tells us if something is near or far away.
The distance between the tracks simply gets smaller the further away it is gets.
These a very simple things to understand.
--Dave
Source?
Then why even bring it up at all?
So if you were to travel down the tracks, the distance between them would get smaller and smaller as you traveled? They aren't parallel?
Or do the tracks spread apart when Dave approaches them?
:kookoo:
I gave the source in my post.
All original cosmologists from the Greek world were anti Christian and anti Biblical.
All modern cosmologists today are anti Christian and anti Biblical.
Now we know that Newton was not really Christian. He was influenced by Pythagoras for his cosmology not the Bible.
The obvious point was that tracks and everything else appear smaller in the distance, but again you miss the obvious and misrepresent my point, a sinful thing to do.
--Dave
- Status