:idunno: Huh??? I think Dave sounds like the opposite of Stripe.
Last edited:
The earth is flat and we never went to the moon
- Thread starter DFT_Dave
- Start date
- Status
https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/5o9w6c/moon_view_from_the_iss/
I'd like to know how a flat earther could explain (barring photoshop) how we could see the near side of the moon from this angle, and how the moon is partially hidden from view.
Dave, I think you should browse /r/space for a while and just look at the photos that have been taken. Don't comment, you'll get banned, but just look. Try to imagine that God created the scenes shown in the photos, instead of thinking that man edited them together. Maybe you'll gain an appreciation for how powerful and creative God is.
Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
I'd like to know how a flat earther could explain (barring photoshop) how we could see the near side of the moon from this angle, and how the moon is partially hidden from view.
Dave, I think you should browse /r/space for a while and just look at the photos that have been taken. Don't comment, you'll get banned, but just look. Try to imagine that God created the scenes shown in the photos, instead of thinking that man edited them together. Maybe you'll gain an appreciation for how powerful and creative God is.
Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
Well... for starters... you would... have to "BE" [MENTION=4980]DFT_Dave[/MENTION].
The issue is not that gravity "holds" the atmosphere, it's how does it "move" the atmosphere. And just how does gravity "move" and "hold" the atmosphere of earth as it rotates? Please explain and don't use the moving car or flying plane fallacy. Give me the scientific explanation.
The "entire universe" as in the globe model does not exist if the flat earth model is correct. So all the reasons why the flat earth cannot exist by using the globe model universe are non sequitur. The flat earth model and the globe model are either entirely wrong or entirely correct. The universe in the globe model is not the same in the flat model. In the flat earth model stars are not other planets, other galaxies or other universes. The sun, moon, and stars are not billions of miles or light years away.
No comments on the tests that proved a stationary earth from any one yet. Why is that?
--Dave
The answer is friction. Friction is what keeps you and I in place on the ground as gravity pulls us downward toward the center of the Earth's mass. It also affects the atoms and molecules of the atmosphere, keeping them moving around the earth, but not so much as to cease all movement relative to the Earth.
If the globe model is correct, then the flat earth model is incorrect. The reverse is also true: if the flat earth model is correct, then the globe model is incorrect.
If we use globe model arguments that are supported by evidence to get consistent answers, that in itself is evidence that the flat earth model is false. The reverse is also true: If we use flat earth model arguments that are supported by evidence to get consistent answers, that in itself is evidence that the globe model is false.
So far, we have shown you many examples of globe arguments that are supported by evidence that have consistent results which support the globe model and discredit the flat earth model.
So far, you have shown us examples of flat earth arguments that are supported by evidence, but they DO NOT have consistent results, and therefore do not support the flat earth model, nor do they discredit the globe model.
Because, from what I read of those experiments (which was, granted, very little), they did not actually 'prove' anything. If anything, they have been inconclusive, which results neither confirm nor deny a stationary earth, meaning that until there is a conclusive result, it cannot support either stance.
Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
The problem with micro vs macro evolution is that they both are about "change over time". We both agree that the one/micro, does not prove the other/macro. But our opponents say that micro evolution becomes macro over a very long period of time.
This is why I say the problem is not evolution it's natural selection. Neither weather nor prey effect or create DNA. Fur, fins, feet, wings, etc. are not mutations. The weather has no brain but some animals of prey can select a juicy meal because they do.
How can a flood or a drought be call a "selection" of nature, as if nature was making a choice. Your example of Cheetahs is a little silly. All Cheetahs are fast. Do you think there is a gene for fasterness? Do you think there is a mutation that will make some faster, or slower, than the others? The truth is Cheetahs that are very fast may produce offspring that are not quite as fast. Cheetahs survive because they are faster than their prey not because one Cheetah is a little faster than another Cheetah.
--Dave
The problems I have with this video is:
1. How can we see the detail on the moon if it is as far away as it is said to be.
2. That the moon rotates at an exact speed so we only see one side of it makes no sense at all. The bulge theory is an explanation not a proof.
3. That the earth's gravity keeps a moon, that many miles away, in it's orbit is an explanation not a proof.
4. That gravity pulls to the center of a globed earth presumes a globed earth and is not a proof. Gravity is not needed in the flat earth model.
Gravity is an invisible force that is believed to exist because of an effect that is needed for things to keep from flying, or falling, off a spinning globe. If the earth is flat and stationary then density and buoyancy are all we need in a world that has a "true" up and down everywhere.
That things fall down is not a proof of gravity. What causes the sun, moon, and stars to move above us? Tesla believed electromagnetism and the ether could account for it.
--Dave
At last you understand what this thread is about.
I suggest you read more about the Michelson-Morley experiments, and Sagnac's experiment. You're quite mistaken about them.
--Dave
Only because you agree with Stripe's ideas.
Who said that the vanishing point is curvature? I have never heard that before. Anyhow- I will not let you off the hook:
For the last time, I will in time summaries, categorize, and compare the arguments and evidence for and against both sides.
Then I will decide what I believe, not until then. No one argument or evidence will convince me one way or another.
--Dave
Holler when you're done, your honor.
By the way, it is traditional that judges study and understand law before serving in court. But who cares?
Right Divider
Body part
Give him some time chair, he's going to "summaries" it for you.
And only because you don't.
Greg Jennings
New member
Then you haven't interacted with Stripe enough :thumb:
Right Divider
Body part
Knight runs the place. I'm pretty sure that he know Stripe as well as anyone. :chuckle:
- Status