Daniel1611
New member
You believe. You have faith that some guy is telling you the truth. Its not 900 quintillion miles away. Oh no. It's 240 Sextillion miles away...but we dont know what's right past pluto. Lol. What? How gullible you are.
Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter MichaelCadry
- Start date
- Status
You believe. You have faith that some guy is telling you the truth. Its not 900 quintillion miles away. Oh no. It's 240 Sextillion miles away...but we dont know what's right past pluto. Lol. What? How gullible you are.
noguru
Well-known member
Dave Chapelle, Martin Lawrence, Randy Quaid and many other comedians don't try to make serious claims from their comedy.
I am not even sure Kat Williams takes his comedy as seriously as you do.
noguru
Well-known member
I know where to place my confidence, and it is certainly not in inept fools like you. I see who is fastidious, with a disciplined methodology as well as who does rigorous analysis and you do not even get close to the big leagues in that regard.
Scientists are motivated by being accurate in their research and conclusions. You are just trying to get a warm fuzzy feeling in your gut about your suppossed afterlife. Please, you are the one who is fooling himself, so that you can maintain that warm fuzzy feeling.
Daniel1611
New member
Pretty sure Chapelle was serious when he went on Oprah and said satanists control hollywood. Martin Lawrence was serious when he's running down the street with a gun yelling that they're trying to kill him. Pretty sure Randy Quaid was serious when he went on camera talking about the "star whackers". Oh, but they're crazy. Chapelle goes to Africa to get away from satanists running hollywood, his words. And he disappears for years. Yeah it was all a bit .
noguru
Well-known member
.
Martin Lawrence ran down the street in paranoia because of his bi polar disorder. I have no problem with people with bi polar disorder. In fact I tend to be attracted to women who have that. I am very familiar with the symptoms of that condition going back to my first gf in high school. In fact my current gf has it as well. She knows when she is delusional. People with bi polar disorder tend to gravitate towards me. I suspect they are attracted to my balanced and emotionally stable take on life. I don't know much about these other comments.
At any rate that is Hollywood, not science. What do comedian's claims about Hollywood have to do with scientists. You realize they are very different types of professions, right? Scientists do not rely on Hollywood to carry out their research or arrive at conclusions. The reverse might be true, but usually not.
Are you on meds?
Last edited:
6days
New member
For details... Google- Daniel Shelton, president of flat earth society... an agnostic leaning towards atheism and an evolutionist
noguru
Well-known member
As usual your information is a little off.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_flat_Earth_societies
There is also this:
Daniel Shenton president of Flat Earth Society, 2004 - present
I see no mention of him being agnostic or someone who accepts evolution . I see no reason why someone would think the earth is flat without reference to a literal interpretation of Genesis. Can you provide one?
I do see where a creationist site makes this claim. But as usual they make claims that are misrepresentations and often fallacies of which they are aware.
http://creation.com/flat-earth-leader-is-an-evolutionist
Last edited:
I just can't imagine any apologist ever making a statement that stretches the truth and credibility.
Daniel1611
New member
Funny how anyone who isn't an atheist sheep is insane, huh? Atheist think they're these wonderful free thinkers. They're cattle in a herd. They're dogmatic fanatical sheep being led to the slaughter.
Daniel in the Kitty’s Den
Daniel in the Kitty’s Den
I asked Daniel1611:
As to what is taught in schools, I have, and use, the physics textbooks that are used at the premier scientific universities in the world. And without a single exception, every one of them deals with spherical earth. If you are right, tens of thousands of the keenest students in the world in college right now are incapable of recognizing what should be one of the most egregious falsifications in history.
Let me pose a question to you – Is your interest in this spherical earth primarily for the entertainment value it generates in discussions like this, or are you seriously willing to look at the evidence and accept where it leads?
The past few hundred posts in this thread are a confusing and disorganized mass of claims and counterclaims. Are you interested in going back over the ideas that have been put forth, and examine them one at a time, slowly and in as much depth as necessary, to see which arguments stand up to technical scrutiny, and which fall?
Daniel in the Kitty’s Den
I asked Daniel1611:
Part of Daniel's response:
You did not answer directly the way I asked you to, but nonetheless, you made your point. Indeed, you think that I was duped in college, and apparently have not been technically competent enough since graduating to realize it is all a hoax.
A little over a decade ago I was sent to Tokyo to give a technical presentation dealing specifically with the geometry of the earth to a room full of senior Japanese scientists and military leaders. A few years later I was sent to Germany as part of a team to do an in-depth review of a major system that involved spherical earth geometry. I have been involved in a number of other similar technical reviews with scientists from countries that I am not at liberty to give any specifics on. My point being this – if the spherical earth is nonsense, then the deception is not just a NASA thing, it must be a collusion involving every scientifically literate government on the face of the earth.
As to what is taught in schools, I have, and use, the physics textbooks that are used at the premier scientific universities in the world. And without a single exception, every one of them deals with spherical earth. If you are right, tens of thousands of the keenest students in the world in college right now are incapable of recognizing what should be one of the most egregious falsifications in history.
Let me pose a question to you – Is your interest in this spherical earth primarily for the entertainment value it generates in discussions like this, or are you seriously willing to look at the evidence and accept where it leads?
The past few hundred posts in this thread are a confusing and disorganized mass of claims and counterclaims. Are you interested in going back over the ideas that have been put forth, and examine them one at a time, slowly and in as much depth as necessary, to see which arguments stand up to technical scrutiny, and which fall?
Daniel1611
New member
I'll examine the claims if globularists. As said, I'm agnostic on the issue. So I'll look at evidence for either side. But evidence I absolutely do not accept are pictures of the earth. Forget them. They're not proof. Also, forget ships disappearing over the horizon . things getting smaller when they get farther away don't mean anything. Also, forget anything that can be even remotely explained by a flat earth like the sunset.
If it is common sense that the earth is a globe, the evidence should be staggering and not based on alleged photos or things that are explainable without a globe..
I'm interested in facts that cannot be explained using a flat earth or geocentric model. My assertion is that the earth looks flat and feels stationary from our vantage point, so any evidence to the contrary must not be explainable by a flat earth or geocentric model
If it is common sense that the earth is a globe, the evidence should be staggering and not based on alleged photos or things that are explainable without a globe..
I'm interested in facts that cannot be explained using a flat earth or geocentric model. My assertion is that the earth looks flat and feels stationary from our vantage point, so any evidence to the contrary must not be explainable by a flat earth or geocentric model
Yesterday I stumbled across an interesting series of videos, the first of which deals with this very subject you bring up. You may be interested to have a look at this:
| . | |
Dear gcthomas,
That's a very nice video to send. I love to see the earth rotating. But why are the clouds seemingly staying exactly the same, like not moving at all but frozen? Do you know what I mean?!
So how have you been doing? You've got to start posting here more often. We miss you!! Don't be a stranger and thanks for your adding to this thread!!
Cheerio, Mate!!
Michael
:box: :angel: :angel: :thumb: :guitar: :singer:
Dear seehigh,
I'm pretty sure that Daniel isn't trolling us. He is serious. He probably believed what we do now, but got a bit twisted from some site he's checked out. Hey, I gave you and Jonahdog some good rep pts. to help you both out. I can't give you both any more for quite a while. God be with you!!
Michael
:angel: :angel:
Dear noguru,
Well, it sounds like you've done pretty well for yourself. I'm proud of you!! Excellent skills. Awesome indeed. Most of my gifts have been with what God blessed me with. Him having visited me, twice, angels visiting me, visits from the Holy Ghost {twice}, and visions, etc. I am very well-versed in the Bible and end times, and Jesus' Second Coming. My life has been all of that and more. I was in Merit Algebra-Trigonometry class. I used to correct the teacher in his equations when they didn't work out for him. It's been quite a life. I can hardly wait until Jesus Returns!!!
Praise God!!!
Michael
Last edited:
Daniel Petting the Kittens in the Den
Daniel Petting the Kittens in the Den
Your arguments against a spherical earth fall into a couple of categories. 1 – What should (and should not be) seen from various points on the earth, 2 - Reliability of our senses when they do not seem to say we are on a spinning ball, 3 – Whether we can trust the high echelons of the government (NASA) to be truthful.
The first category – whether what we actually see shows a flat or spherical earth is the most cut and dried, so I would like to start there. I presume the arguments along that line that you have already presented are ones you feel worth looking at.
The first argument that you presented that I claim is wrong was this:
Do you agree that the horizon (with no skyline in the way) would be about 45 miles from the top of Bear Mountain?
If you are uncertain about the necessary math, I would be glad to provide it. As I alluded to in my response I quote above, the necessary math is very rudimentary.
Also, in response to your answer to Jose Fly you said “Not just the tops of buildings. The entire skyline. With flat horizon in the background.” If the spherical horizon is 45 miles away, as I claim, then I agree that “not just the tops of buildings” should be visible (unless occluded by other buildings or intervening ridges). But looking at the picture of the skyline from the TripAdvisor website, I see no “flat horizon in the background.” Can you show us where that is in the picture?
In conclusion, are you willing to drop the claim that visibility of NYC from Bear Mountain is impossible with a spherical earth?
Daniel Petting the Kittens in the Den
Your arguments against a spherical earth fall into a couple of categories. 1 – What should (and should not be) seen from various points on the earth, 2 - Reliability of our senses when they do not seem to say we are on a spinning ball, 3 – Whether we can trust the high echelons of the government (NASA) to be truthful.
The first category – whether what we actually see shows a flat or spherical earth is the most cut and dried, so I would like to start there. I presume the arguments along that line that you have already presented are ones you feel worth looking at.
The first argument that you presented that I claim is wrong was this:
Jonahdog asked for more specifics:
At about the same time, Jose Fly challenged:
Your response to Jose Fly included:
Then you provided this as additional information for Jonahdog:
I responded to part of the “shouldn’t be able to see the NYC skyline” claim:
Clearly I disagree with your distance from Bear Mountain to New York City, since you said it was 60 miles, and Google Earth showed the distance to be 42 miles. That 18 mile difference is crucial when speaking of how far away the horizon is. Where did you come up with the 60 mile figure?
Do you agree that the horizon (with no skyline in the way) would be about 45 miles from the top of Bear Mountain?
If you are uncertain about the necessary math, I would be glad to provide it. As I alluded to in my response I quote above, the necessary math is very rudimentary.
Also, in response to your answer to Jose Fly you said “Not just the tops of buildings. The entire skyline. With flat horizon in the background.” If the spherical horizon is 45 miles away, as I claim, then I agree that “not just the tops of buildings” should be visible (unless occluded by other buildings or intervening ridges). But looking at the picture of the skyline from the TripAdvisor website, I see no “flat horizon in the background.” Can you show us where that is in the picture?
In conclusion, are you willing to drop the claim that visibility of NYC from Bear Mountain is impossible with a spherical earth?
Last edited:
noguru
Well-known member
All of my gifts are what God blessed me with. But they would be worthless, if I did not give it to others. In giving to others, they become invaluable.
- Status