User Tag List

Page 235 of 335 FirstFirst ... 135185225232233234235236237238245285 ... LastLast
Results 3,511 to 3,525 of 5021

Thread: The earth is flat and we never went to the moon

  1. #3511
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    A distant planet called earth.
    Posts
    5,145
    Thanks
    6,742
    Thanked 1,827 Times in 1,401 Posts

    Blog Entries
    9
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    Listen to what you just said.

    "Relativity states, for example, what is moving to one person is stationary/not moving to someone else."

    "...something cannot be both moving and not moving at the same time in the same place to all who are present at the same place at the same time."
    Clete... how does this refute Dave? Relativity has much to do with point of observation. You say that "something cannot be both moving and not moving"... but even a still lake has water molecules that are being moved by subsequent aquatic life. The lake "appears" still, but it's water molecules are actually "moving".

    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    Read what you wrote again.

    Read it a third time.

    Read it over and over again until you see it.
    I would say the same to you. Read what you wrote and consider how relativity further disproves your argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    The surface of the Earth is not moving relative to me. It is moving relative to someone in an airplane at 20,000 ft. The airplane is not moving relative to the person in the airplane but it is moving relative to me.

    There is no contradiction because it is not talking about two people in the same place at the same time. It's talking about two different frames of reference. This is the most basic principle of Relativity. If you cannot get that, you cannot even begin to discuss Relativity, nevermind dispute it.
    You are discounting that point of "observation" is enormously important. I've flown in a plane and I never observed "rotation" of the earth.

    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    No, it is not what Relativity is!

    Relativity does not say that the Earth is actually stationary nor does it say that the Moon is actually stationary nor anything else like that. Your objection here is predicated on the idea that there is an absolute reference for motion (that actual motionlessness is detectable or even possible) which is precisely the thing that the Theory of Relativity denies!
    Can you prove that the earth is not stationary? The only relativity that I'm currently observing is your relatively different perspective on this "flat earth".

    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    Relativity is all about frames of reference, all of which are moving relative to another frame of reference. It says that the idea of motion is only meaningful in relation to something else. Whether you are moving or are standing still, you are doing so RELATIVE to something else.
    I don't see how this proves your idea that the earth is "rotating". You were typing this response from a "stationary" location. You're simply denying what your "senses" are clearly showing you with false assertions and ideas that support an idea that you "can't prove".

    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    Actually, the theory has to do with light and gravity and other things but the reason its called the Theory of Relativity is because of this understanding of what motion is. Again, it is the most fundamental concept of the theory. The speed of light is constant relative to any observer, no matter their frame of reference. It makes no difference how fast or slow I am moving relative to you, you and I will both measure the speed of light to be the exact same. So, if I am moving away from you at half the speed of light and turn around and shine my flashlight at you, the light beam will proceed away from me at exactly the regular speed of light, not 1.5 times the speed of light. And you would measure the speed of my light beam at exactly the same speed of light, not .5 of the speed of light. This counterintuitive aspect of the speed of light is accounted for in the theory and it all has to do with relative frames of reference and it is constantly talking about what is true in one frame of reference RELATIVE to another frame of reference thus the name of the theory. It does not say anything that is contradictory (at least not in regards to motion).
    I can't refute what you've posed hear, but I can suggest that you are working backwards from the "assumption" that the earth is round. I can prove any idea if I logically work backwards from an assumed conclusion. You are very versed in physics in this response, but have you considered that you are trying to cram these "ideas" into your perspective that the earth is "round".?

    - EE (Flat earth Convert / "Devil's Advocate")

  2. #3512
    Silver Member Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    8,663
    Thanks
    345
    Thanked 4,776 Times in 2,733 Posts

    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147752
    Quote Originally Posted by Evil.Eye.<(I)> View Post
    Actually... it's not. It supports that the earth is flat, circular and contained within a dometrical enclosure.

    Could you please explain how this doesn't support "Flat Earth" Theory? I don't see a "globe", but a flat... circular earth... in this image.

    - EE (Flat Earth Convert... "Devil's Advocate")
    There are about 5 million or so videos that have been linked to in this thread so I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure I made that comment about a gif that showed the relative sizes of major objects in the solar system. All of which were presented as spheres or almost spheres.

    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

  3. #3513
    Silver Member Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    8,663
    Thanks
    345
    Thanked 4,776 Times in 2,733 Posts

    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147752
    Quote Originally Posted by Evil.Eye.<(I)> View Post
    Clete... how does this refute Dave? Relativity has much to do with point of observation. You say that "something cannot be both moving and not moving"... but even a still lake has water molecules that are being moved by subsequent aquatic life. The lake "appears" still, but it's water molecules are actually "moving".
    The lake analogy doesn't work because a lake is a dynamic system by definition. The only way it could work is if you were suggesting that the entire like as a whole was moving from one place to another (like from Oklahoma to Texas or something).

    But to answer your question directly. It refutes Dave's objection because Dave was employing the Law of (Non)Contradiction in an attempt to refute Relativity....

    The Law of Contradiction states that contradictory statements cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense.

    Relativity states that motion of one thing is relative to something else.

    So, in order for Dave's objection to be valid, Relativity would have to state that an object is moving relative to the Moon and that the same object is also stationary RELATIVE TO THE MOON at the same time.

    Relativity does not say any such thing nor does even the example Dave used in his objection. Relativity simply states that an object that is stationary relative to its own frame of reference can be moving relative to another frame of reference. That is, an object that is stationary in one sense can be moving in a difference sense.

    There just simply is no contradiction.

    I would say the same to you. Read what you wrote and consider how relativity further disproves your argument.
    I don't think you or Dave understand either Relativity or my argument.

    You are discounting that point of "observation" is enormously important. I've flown in a plane and I never observed "rotation" of the earth.
    Yes, you did. You just didn't or couldn't notice it.

    The primary problem with your objection here has to do with scale. You are amazingly tiny compared to the Earth and the observation you reference would require very careful measurement. Your own motion in the plane relative to the ground would overwhelm any perception of the Earth's rotation other than the movement of the Sun across the sky which would also be affected by your movement with the plane. In other words, your plane is moving relative to the ground which is already moving in its daily revolution. Your plane's movement is being added to the spin of the Earth (or subtracted from it- depending on your direction of flite), so it would serve to obscure your perception of Earth's spin, not enhance it. The only perception that would noticeably change for you without careful measurements would be the apparent length of the day. The Sun would remain visible to you for a longer or shorter period depending on your direction and speed of travel.

    Can you prove that the earth is not stationary? The only relativity that I'm currently observing is your relatively different perspective on this "flat earth".
    I've presented several proofs on this thread already. I won't rehash them all again but just to give your a taste;

    The fact that weather systems and oceanic currents (i.e. the way they spin and the general direction in which they move) are mirrored on the Earth along the equator cannot be explained by a flat earth model but would be expected only if the Earth was a spinning globe.

    If the Earth is stationary then the entire universe is spinning once a day around us. Objects that we know for a fact are several billion miles away would have to travel many times the speed of light to make it even a fraction of the way around in that length of time.

    You can prove the Earth is spinning by swinging the pull chain on your own ceiling fan. No matter how carefully you attempt to swing it straight, it will always swing out an ellipse (unless you live on the equator then it'll swing straight.)

    There are many such proofs. Some empirical some not - all valid.

    I don't see how this proves your idea that the earth is "rotating". You were typing this response from a "stationary" location. You're simply denying what your "senses" are clearly showing you with false assertions and ideas that support an idea that you "can't prove".
    That statement wasn't made in an attempt to prove that the Earth is rotating but only to refute the notion that Relativity states something contradictory.

    I can't refute what you've posed hear, but I can suggest that you are working backwards from the "assumption" that the earth is round.
    The speed of light and the whole of the Theory of Relativity is not predicated on, nor would it be affected in any way by the shape of the Earth.

    I can prove any idea if I logically work backwards from an assumed conclusion. You are very versed in physics in this response, but have you considered that you are trying to cram these "ideas" into your perspective that the earth is "round".?
    You should learn that words of an exact meaning. You CANNOT prove any idea by simply working backward from an apriori assumption. If that were the case we couldn't know anything. Science wouldn't work. Hell, forget science, language itself wouldn't work. If logic worked like that, I could say, "The sky is blue." and you'd have to wonder whether I was talking about the expanse over our heads or the liquid coming out of that cut on your finger. And that's assuming you could define cocnepts such as "expanse", "color", "cut" and "finger". Logic works, and it works really well.

    Now, I get that you probably didn't really intend to undermine the veracity of logic and meant to suggest that my arguments represent some form of rationalization or another but even that isn't the case. We're talking about 400 plus years of scientific thought, nearly all of which is published and available for anyone to read and to understand for themselves. And the further back you go in history, the more basic and easily understood the concepts become. Newton's work, in particular, is based on empirical obervations that he made himself and recorded in detail. His experiments can and have been recreated and reperformed thousands and thousands of times, always with the same result. Newton's many works are among the most tested and verified truths in all of human history. It is anything but an apriori assumption. And even his work was based, in large part, on the equally rigorous work done by his scientific predicessors, as is all science to one degree or another.

    "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants." - Isaac Newton

    That statement of his, by the way, was not, in my estimation, a statement of humility on Newton's part, as so many seem to suggest. It was merely a statement of fact, an acknowledgment of the fact that he wasn't the only great thinker that had ever come along and that we cannot be expected to start from scratch if we expect to make further progress than has already been achieved. The point being that believing the Earth is round is not an apriori assumption, it is the view gained from atop a great pillar of shoulder standing giants.

    - EE (Flat earth Convert / "Devil's Advocate")


    Clete

    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Clete For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (May 12th, 2017),Right Divider (May 12th, 2017)

  5. #3514
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    A distant planet called earth.
    Posts
    5,145
    Thanks
    6,742
    Thanked 1,827 Times in 1,401 Posts

    Blog Entries
    9
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    The lake analogy doesn't work because a lake is a dynamic system by definition. The only way it could work is if you were suggesting that the entire like as a whole was moving from one place to another (like from Oklahoma to Texas or something).

    But to answer your question directly. It refutes Dave's objection because Dave was employing the Law of (Non)Contradiction in an attempt to refute Relativity....

    The Law of Contradiction states that contradictory statements cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense.

    Relativity states that motion of one thing is relative to something else.

    So, in order for Dave's objection to be valid, Relativity would have to state that an object is moving relative to the Moon and that the same object is also stationary RELATIVE TO THE MOON at the same time.

    Relativity does not say any such thing nor does even the example Dave used in his objection. Relativity simply states that an object that is stationary relative to its own frame of reference can be moving relative to another frame of reference. That is, an object that is stationary in one sense can be moving in a difference sense.

    There just simply is no contradiction.


    I don't think you or Dave understand either Relativity or my argument.


    Yes, you did. You just didn't or couldn't notice it.

    The primary problem with your objection here has to do with scale. You are amazingly tiny compared to the Earth and the observation you reference would require very careful measurement. Your own motion in the plane relative to the ground would overwhelm any perception of the Earth's rotation other than the movement of the Sun across the sky which would also be affected by your movement with the plane. In other words, your plane is moving relative to the ground which is already moving in its daily revolution. Your plane's movement is being added to the spin of the Earth (or subtracted from it- depending on your direction of flite), so it would serve to obscure your perception of Earth's spin, not enhance it. The only perception that would noticeably change for you without careful measurements would be the apparent length of the day. The Sun would remain visible to you for a longer or shorter period depending on your direction and speed of travel.


    I've presented several proofs on this thread already. I won't rehash them all again but just to give your a taste;

    The fact that weather systems and oceanic currents (i.e. the way they spin and the general direction in which they move) are mirrored on the Earth along the equator cannot be explained by a flat earth model but would be expected only if the Earth was a spinning globe.

    If the Earth is stationary then the entire universe is spinning once a day around us. Objects that we know for a fact are several billion miles away would have to travel many times the speed of light to make it even a fraction of the way around in that length of time.

    You can prove the Earth is spinning by swinging the pull chain on your own ceiling fan. No matter how carefully you attempt to swing it straight, it will always swing out an ellipse (unless you live on the equator then it'll swing straight.)

    There are many such proofs. Some empirical some not - all valid.


    That statement wasn't made in an attempt to prove that the Earth is rotating but only to refute the notion that Relativity states something contradictory.


    The speed of light and the whole of the Theory of Relativity is not predicated on, nor would it be affected in any way by the shape of the Earth.


    You should learn that words of an exact meaning. You CANNOT prove any idea by simply working backward from an apriori assumption. If that were the case we couldn't know anything. Science wouldn't work. Hell, forget science, language itself wouldn't work. If logic worked like that, I could say, "The sky is blue." and you'd have to wonder whether I was talking about the expanse over our heads or the liquid coming out of that cut on your finger. And that's assuming you could define cocnepts such as "expanse", "color", "cut" and "finger". Logic works, and it works really well.

    Now, I get that you probably didn't really intend to undermine the veracity of logic and meant to suggest that my arguments represent some form of rationalization or another but even that isn't the case. We're talking about 400 plus years of scientific thought, nearly all of which is published and available for anyone to read and to understand for themselves. And the further back you go in history, the more basic and easily understood the concepts become. Newton's work, in particular, is based on empirical obervations that he made himself and recorded in detail. His experiments can and have been recreated and reperformed thousands and thousands of times, always with the same result. Newton's many works are among the most tested and verified truths in all of human history. It is anything but an apriori assumption. And even his work was based, in large part, on the equally rigorous work done by his scientific predicessors, as is all science to one degree or another.

    "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants." - Isaac Newton

    That statement of his, by the way, was not, in my estimation, a statement of humility on Newton's part, as so many seem to suggest. It was merely a statement of fact, an acknowledgment of the fact that he wasn't the only great thinker that had ever come along and that we cannot be expected to start from scratch if we expect to make further progress than has already been achieved. The point being that believing the Earth is round is not an apriori assumption, it is the view gained from atop a great pillar of shoulder standing giants.




    Clete
    I'm not discounting that what you are saying has validity, nor the possibility that the earth is a globe. I will weigh your evidence and respond in a few days or so.

    - EE (Flat earth convert... "devil's advocate")

  6. #3515
    ...then I woke up. Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    26,849
    Thanks
    356
    Thanked 2,053 Times in 967 Posts

    Blog Entries
    6
    Mentioned
    111 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1075221
    I saw this on Facebook today. Seems pretty solid.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
    TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

  7. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Knight For Your Post:

    Clete (May 12th, 2017),Evil.Eye.<(I)> (May 12th, 2017),JudgeRightly (May 12th, 2017),Right Divider (May 12th, 2017),Tambora (May 17th, 2017)

  8. #3516
    Silver Member Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    8,663
    Thanks
    345
    Thanked 4,776 Times in 2,733 Posts

    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147752
    Quote Originally Posted by Evil.Eye.<(I)> View Post
    I'm not discounting that what you are saying has validity, nor the possibility that the earth is a globe. I will weigh your evidence and respond in a few days or so.

    - EE (Flat earth convert... "devil's advocate")
    The following two videos present some of the best arguments I've seen. Ignore his insults and pay close attention to the actual arguments...

    https://youtu.be/JgY8zNZ35uw

    https://youtu.be/TeMooNFtFJk

    These videos also present excellent arguments...

    https://youtu.be/W9ksbh88OJs

    https://youtu.be/NGZEXkSX9wI

    https://youtu.be/FTBaOmJEQg0

    https://youtu.be/VFU1A88N_6I

    Anyone - ANYONE - who continues to believe in a flat Earth after watching these videos, even once, is an idiot or a liar.

    Clete

    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Clete For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (May 12th, 2017)

  10. #3517
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    A distant planet called earth.
    Posts
    5,145
    Thanks
    6,742
    Thanked 1,827 Times in 1,401 Posts

    Blog Entries
    9
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    The following two videos present some of the best arguments I've seen. Ignore his insults and pay close attention to the actual arguments...

    https://youtu.be/JgY8zNZ35uw

    https://youtu.be/TeMooNFtFJk

    These videos also present excellent arguments...

    https://youtu.be/W9ksbh88OJs

    https://youtu.be/NGZEXkSX9wI

    https://youtu.be/FTBaOmJEQg0

    https://youtu.be/VFU1A88N_6I

    Anyone - ANYONE - who continues to believe in a flat Earth after watching these videos, even once, is an idiot or a liar.

    Clete
    Quote Originally Posted by Knight View Post
    I miss this thread already. Are there any other Flat Earthers on TOL we can play with?
    Quote Originally Posted by Evil.Eye.<(I)> View Post
    At this juncture... I can't even bring myself to play the "devil's advocate" on this matter of disproving the "round earthers" of this modern world.

    I was a little disappointed that Dave didn't want to discuss how scripture notes many scientific facts that predate their discovery in direct relation to Cosmology and the modern Bang Theory.

    Its boasted by many advocates of chance based origin that the big bang dispels creation... but science has only proven that everything has ONE central origin. It makes me chuckle.

    I brought up this verse to Dave...

    Isaiah 40:22 It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,
    And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,
    Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
    And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

    But... he wouldn't have it and wanted to stick with the scientific, instead of the philosophic and scriptural side of this discussion.

    If the back and forth of the scientific discussion is what is desired by the minds here...

    I could psych myself up and claim flat earth belief. All I have to do is remember the main rules of dispelling the opinions of "round earth... rebels".

    1: Photography and Video is only accurate and genuine when it is produced in support of Flat Earth

    2: Astro-Physicists aren't actually intelligent, but merely elected by their participation in round earth heresy.

    3: No matter how valid an argument is, or how well it is constructed, I can dispel it by simply undermining its application to this topic.

    4: If I'm disproven, I can simply change the subject and redirect the topic back to the "compelling" evidence for flat earth theory.

    5: Just because the majority of the world embraces "round earth" doesn't mean that I'm not a ground breaking scientist awaiting my Nobel Prize for correcting years of inaccurate evidence and mathematical findings.

    6: If I am disproved so obviously that my argument is destroyed... I can suggest that I am considering the validity of round earth theory and will look into the evidence. 2 hours later, I can come back and say that I am now more certain than ever that Flat earth theory is true and the "round earth" evidence simply assisted in my assurance that round earthers are simply deceived people that require you tube videos and a wake up call that they have been duped.

    7: No matter how compelling an actual video is, I can say it was digitally enhanced or simulated by the use of a deceptive lens.

    8: Flat earth isn't a theory. Round earthers say "The Earth is NOT Flat". If I simply remove the "NOT" from their sentence... It becomes clear that they know I am right and are actually saying "The Earth is Flat"... (Okay... I stole that one from the spiritual life youtube guy)

    - EE

  11. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Evil.Eye.<(I)> For Your Post:

    Clete (May 13th, 2017),JudgeRightly (May 12th, 2017),Tambora (May 17th, 2017)

  12. #3518
    Gold level Subscriber JudgeRightly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    On the road
    Posts
    6,147
    Thanks
    18,872
    Thanked 5,449 Times in 3,445 Posts

    Mentioned
    43 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147586

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to JudgeRightly For Your Post:

    Clete (May 13th, 2017)

  14. #3519
    Over 4000 post club oatmeal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    4,701
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 333 Times in 273 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    67792
    Quote Originally Posted by DFT_Dave View Post
    Here is a short list of observable proofs for a flat earth:

    1. There is no visible curvature.

    2. All bodies of water are absolutely level.

    3. All aircraft move over a stationary flat plain.

    Arguments against these facts contradict sensory perception.

    --Dave
    Most certainly the earth is "flattish" from my perspective and I certainly did not go to the moon.

    However, God knows that the earth is basically a sphere for He designed and created it. He did not change the design to accommodate our lack of understanding of God's word.

    Psalm 103:12 indicates that north and south end, but east and west continue as far as a person want to travel east or west.
    "And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship and in breaking of bread and in prayers." Acts 2:42

    "Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind" Philippians 2:2

    Pro scripture = Protestant

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to oatmeal For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (May 13th, 2017)

  16. #3520
    LIFETIME MEMBER DFT_Dave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    3,010
    Thanks
    137
    Thanked 200 Times in 173 Posts

    Mentioned
    35 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    66772
    Quote Originally Posted by oatmeal View Post
    Most certainly the earth is "flattish" from my perspective and I certainly did not go to the moon.

    However, God knows that the earth is basically a sphere for He designed and created it. He did not change the design to accommodate our lack of understanding of God's word.

    Psalm 103:12 indicates that north and south end, but east and west continue as far as a person want to travel east or west.
    This verse clearly has nothing to do with the shape of the earth. Flat or round earth, east is the opposite direction of west.

    --Dave
    www.dynamicfreetheism.com
    The only view of ultimate reality that provides
    rational answers to the questions of human origin, destiny, and dignity.
    The only view that proves the existence and explains
    the nature of God.

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to DFT_Dave For Your Post:

    Evil.Eye.<(I)> (May 13th, 2017)

  18. #3521
    LIFETIME MEMBER DFT_Dave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    3,010
    Thanks
    137
    Thanked 200 Times in 173 Posts

    Mentioned
    35 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    66772
    Originally Posted by Evil.Eye

    I brought up this verse to Dave...

    Isaiah 40:22 It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,
    And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,
    Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
    And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.
    There is no above on a globe earth for God.

    God could not sit above a Globe earth.

    There is only "above" if the earth is flat.

    Only a flat earth could be covered by a dome/heavens that is like a tent.

    --Dave
    www.dynamicfreetheism.com
    The only view of ultimate reality that provides
    rational answers to the questions of human origin, destiny, and dignity.
    The only view that proves the existence and explains
    the nature of God.

  19. The Following User Says Thank You to DFT_Dave For Your Post:

    Evil.Eye.<(I)> (May 13th, 2017)

  20. #3522
    Over 4000 post club oatmeal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    4,701
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 333 Times in 273 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    67792
    Quote Originally Posted by DFT_Dave View Post
    This verse clearly has nothing to do with the shape of the earth. Flat or round earth, east is the opposite direction of west.

    --Dave
    Oh, I am sorry, I forgot that the clarity of what that verse states or rather implies was not obvious to me, many, many years ago until it was explained to me by a wonderful teacher of God's word.

    Psalm 103:12 states that as far as the east is from the west so far has he removed our transgressions from us.

    If you were on a point on the equator and traveled straight north how far could you keep going until you could no longer travel north? If the earth was flat or round there would be a limit. If the earth is round it would be when you reached the north pole and kept moving on the same direction you would start travelling south. Why because the north pole is the limit that you can travel north on the earth. If the earth was flat, the limit would be when you reached the edge of the earth.

    If you started at any point on the earth, not including the north or south pole on a spherical earth, you could travel straight east and never get to the point where you would start travelling west.

    If the earth was flat, there would again be a limit as to how far a person could travel east, that limit would be the edge of the flat earth.

    If and since, the earth is spherical, God's mercy separates us by an infinite distance from our transgressions.

    That is why God spoke of east from the west in that verse.

    If he had said as far as north is from the south, then there would be a limit.

    That verse wisely tells us that God's mercy is without limit for those who believe.

    However, that can only be true if the earth is spherical, not flat.

    If the earth was flat, there would be a limit to God's mercy to those who believe.

    Question is, who are you going to believe?

    a. science falsely so called

    b. God's word

    If you have trouble with that explanation, you might want to consider if you really want to believe God's word or not.
    "And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship and in breaking of bread and in prayers." Acts 2:42

    "Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind" Philippians 2:2

    Pro scripture = Protestant

  21. #3523
    LIFETIME MEMBER DFT_Dave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    3,010
    Thanks
    137
    Thanked 200 Times in 173 Posts

    Mentioned
    35 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    66772
    Originally Posted by Evil.Eye

    I could psych myself up and claim flat earth belief. All I have to do is remember the main rules of dispelling the opinions of "round earth... rebels".

    1: Photography and Video is only accurate and genuine when it is produced in support of Flat Earth.
    Photography and video is only accurate when it has not been digitally altered, photo shop effects and CGI/Computer-generated imagery can be detected most of the time. NASA has all the tools needed to fake what ever it wants. That's not to say they fake everything, but they have the ability to alter photo or video and they have been caught doing it.

    --Dave
    www.dynamicfreetheism.com
    The only view of ultimate reality that provides
    rational answers to the questions of human origin, destiny, and dignity.
    The only view that proves the existence and explains
    the nature of God.

  22. The Following User Says Thank You to DFT_Dave For Your Post:

    Evil.Eye.<(I)> (May 13th, 2017)

  23. #3524
    LIFETIME MEMBER DFT_Dave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    3,010
    Thanks
    137
    Thanked 200 Times in 173 Posts

    Mentioned
    35 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    66772
    Quote Originally Posted by oatmeal View Post
    Oh, I am sorry, I forgot that the clarity of what that verse states or rather implies was not obvious to me, many, many years ago until it was explained to me by a wonderful teacher of God's word.

    Psalm 103:12 states that as far as the east is from the west so far has he removed our transgressions from us.

    If you were on a point on the equator and traveled straight north how far could you keep going until you could no longer travel north? If the earth was flat or round there would be a limit. If the earth is round it would be when you reached the north pole and kept moving on the same direction you would start travelling south. Why because the north pole is the limit that you can travel north on the earth. If the earth was flat, the limit would be when you reached the edge of the earth.

    If you started at any point on the earth, not including the north or south pole on a spherical earth, you could travel straight east and never get to the point where you would start travelling west.

    If the earth was flat, there would again be a limit as to how far a person could travel east, that limit would be the edge of the flat earth.

    If and since, the earth is spherical, God's mercy separates us by an infinite distance from our transgressions.

    That is why God spoke of east from the west in that verse.

    If he had said as far as north is from the south, then there would be a limit.

    That verse wisely tells us that God's mercy is without limit for those who believe.

    However, that can only be true if the earth is spherical, not flat.

    If the earth was flat, there would be a limit to God's mercy to those who believe.

    Question is, who are you going to believe?

    a. science falsely so called

    b. God's word

    If you have trouble with that explanation, you might want to consider if you really want to believe God's word or not.
    You are welcome to your personal interpretation. But this is verse is not a proof of round or flat earth and if the earth is flat this verse does not mean your sins are not removed.

    --Dave
    www.dynamicfreetheism.com
    The only view of ultimate reality that provides
    rational answers to the questions of human origin, destiny, and dignity.
    The only view that proves the existence and explains
    the nature of God.

  24. The Following User Says Thank You to DFT_Dave For Your Post:

    Evil.Eye.<(I)> (May 13th, 2017)

  25. #3525
    LIFETIME MEMBER DFT_Dave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    3,010
    Thanks
    137
    Thanked 200 Times in 173 Posts

    Mentioned
    35 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    66772
    Originally Posted by Evil.Eye

    4: If I'm disproven, I can simply change the subject and redirect the topic back to the "compelling" evidence for flat earth theory.
    I am disputing that flat earth has been disproven.

    --Dave
    www.dynamicfreetheism.com
    The only view of ultimate reality that provides
    rational answers to the questions of human origin, destiny, and dignity.
    The only view that proves the existence and explains
    the nature of God.

  26. The Following User Says Thank You to DFT_Dave For Your Post:

    Evil.Eye.<(I)> (May 13th, 2017)

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us