The earth is flat and we never went to the moon

[Clete]

You've answered a fool according to his folly. Now its time to not answer a fool according to his folly.

Sent from my Z992 using TheologyOnline mobile app

I have done no such thing! I've done just the precise opposite.

I have answered questions and rebutted arguments with sound reason and with the patience of Moses. I've not responded to moronic arguments with more moronic arguments. I've not met the fool with foolishness. In fact, I've learned more than I expected to learn from participating in this thread. Arguing a round Earth is not the intuitively easy task one might expect it to be and there are real people out there who actually do think the Earth is flat! Not making an argument in favor of the truth would be the foolishness. But there comes a point where people are no longer debating, no longer trying to decide which is right and which is wrong. It is at that point that you ought not continue making arguments and should start pointing at the real problem, which in this case is indeed foolishness on David's part, which is why he's now on my ignore list.

 

[Right Divider]

There's also no evidence that Dave has done any of the tests or experiments we have given him to do that show exactly how our universe works, on the small scale, that he doesn't need high tech equipment to do, and are relatively cheap or that he can use items lying around his house to do. He has become inherently intellectually dishonest.

I think now would be a good time for me to go through this thread and list all the unanswered questions and arguments made to him...

I'm not so sure that we need a list of all of the unanswered questions. If Dave would simply address Knight's question about sun sets, that would be a great place to start.

The "flat earth model" fails miserably on that one.

 

[Derf]

I have done no such thing! I've done just the precise opposite.

I have answered questions and rebutted arguments with sound reason and with the patience of Moses. I've not responded to moronic arguments with more moronic arguments. I've not met the fool with foolishness. In fact, I've learned more than I expected to learn from participating in this thread. Arguing a round Earth is not the intuitively easy task one might expect it to be and there are real people out there who actually do think the Earth is flat! Not making an argument in favor of the truth would be the foolishness. But there comes a point where people are no longer debating, no longer trying to decide which is right and which is wrong. It is at that point that you ought not continue making arguments and should start pointing at the real problem, which in this case is indeed foolishness on David's part, which is why he's now on my ignore list.

I think you've misunderstood my point. What you've done, admirably and (mostly) patiently, is to attempt to correct the folly of a fool, or "answer a fool according to his folly". What you are now doing, admirably, is to cease doing so, or "answer not a fool according to his folly".

I don't think wise Solomon would ever suggest that we meet a fool with foolishness. I have altered the order from Solomon (my apologies), but it makes sense that way. The preceding (now following, retaining the reverse order) also makes sense:

Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit. [Pro 26:5 KJV]
Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. [Pro 26:4 KJV]
A whip for the horse, a bridle for the ***, and a rod for the fool's back. [Pro 26:3 KJV] (Are we censoring the good King James these days?)

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Hey Dave you mentioned that you posted a time lapse video of the sun setting which you claim demonstrates the sun disappearing into the horizon. I would like to check that video out. But this thread is a long one and I can't find it. Can you point me to it or better yet... repost it?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

...on David's part, which is why he's now on my ignore list.

What's the point in ignoring him?

This has been a fun thread. Frustrating at times? Yes. But still fun.

 

[Clete]

What's the point in ignoring him?

This has been a fun thread. Frustrating at times? Yes. But still fun.

I agree that this has been a terrific thread, one of the best in a long time, in fact. But I just think Derf's point is right. It's become counter productive and while I'm more than happy to continue debating the topic, Dave is no longer debating. He has barely debated the topic from the beginning and now it just seems to me that he's decided to stubbornly cling to what he has been repeatedly shown to be not only false but just flat out dumb, and engaging him any further would seem to suggest that for him to do so is okay. It's not okay. He harms himself and, in the minds of those unbelievers he interacts with, the reputation of the whole Christian faith. If he were an atheist, I'd argue with him till the cows come home, but he's a believer. That makes his mindlessness harmful to all of us.

If Dave decides to repent and begins to actually debate the issue with some intellectual honesty, I'll reconsider. Until then, I'm not going to waste my time arguing with someone (especially a professing believer) who has turned off his mind.

Clete

 

[JudgeRightly]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBDZtt0vWD8

 

[Clete]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBDZtt0vWD8

cool video.

Flat earthers must believe that the moon is many times smaller than it is which accounts for its apparent size in the sky.

I wonder then how they account for the fact that our current understanding of both the Moon's size (it's mass) and it's distance accounts perfectly for the tides and that a linear reduction in mass along with a decrease in distance would not make the numbers come out right in an attempt to figure out the tidal forces because of the inverse square law.

In other words, if an object is half as far away, in order for its apparent size to remain the same, its size must be reduced by half as well. But gravity doesn't work in this linear fashion. An object that is half as far away doesn't pull twice as hard, it pulls four times as hard. This exponential relationship between the pull of gravity and the distance of an object makes the flat earth model unworkable. There is simply no way to rigorously account for the observable facts of reality from within their ridiculous model.

Clete

 

[JudgeRightly]

https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/6cgask/hey_check_out_this_view/

No, the roundness of the earth in this gif is not caused by a fisheye lens.

 

[Derf]

cool video.

Flat earthers must believe that the moon is many times smaller than it is which accounts for its apparent size in the sky.

I wonder then how they account for the fact that our current understanding of both the Moon's size (it's mass) and it's distance accounts perfectly for the tides and that a linear reduction in mass along with a decrease in distance would not make the numbers come out right in an attempt to figure out the tidal forces because of the inverse square law.

In other words, if an object is half as far away, in order for its apparent size to remain the same, its size must be reduced by half as well. But gravity doesn't work in this linear fashion. An object that is half as far away doesn't pull twice as hard, it pulls four times as hard. This exponential relationship between the pull of gravity and the distance of an object makes the flat earth model unworkable. There is simply no way to rigorously account for the observable facts of reality from within their ridiculous model.

Clete

How do we determine the mass of the moon? Isn't it by the orbit it is in, its apparent size, and the effects it has on the earth, including the tides? If the moon were just 3000 miles away, and it's apparent size were the same, then to make its gravity the same would mean a decrease in density/mass.

I'd be curious to see what the flat earth model would do for the tides, with the moon and sun pulling in the same direction (up). But even before that, you have to find out how they pretend to deal with the gravity of the moon and sun, since the earth gravity is generated by acceleration. How do the sun and moon stay in their 2-d precessing circular orbits around the vertical extension of the north pole?

If the gravity is generated by acceleration, the tidal bulges become...what? daily sloshing from a wobble in the flat earth as it accelerates upward?

And, once you get back to talking about acceleration causing the appearance of gravity, there are so many other things to deal with--like the problem of the atmosphere being held in place by...what? the ice walls? They sure have to be a lot bigger than the few hundred feet or even thousand feet shown in Dave's pictures.

I tend to agree with Knight that it's an interesting discussion, because you have to get beyond the things you've been taught all your life. But i also agree with you that Dave isn't really wanting to consider the evidence.

 

[Nick M]

Much of this is blunt honesty... but... Dave Loves Jesus and that is a plus!

Always remember;

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made.

Dave has said many true things here. This anti-Bible makes no sense other than to discredit his own arguments in other places.

 

[Nick M]

I had not looked at my "friends" list in more than a year. Maybe 2, I don't remember. I had to make sure Dave was not on it, he wasn't. Sadly, I saw 2 that are deceased. But we will see them again some day.

 

[Clete]

How do we determine the mass of the moon? Isn't it by the orbit it is in, its apparent size, and the effects it has on the earth, including the tides? If the moon were just 3000 miles away, and it's apparent size were the same, then to make its gravity the same would mean a decrease in density/mass.

A decrease that would be dramatic in the extreme!
3000 miles is 1.26% of its actual distance. It would have to be made of mostly nothing at all for the gravity to remain the same. Flat Earthers know this. It doesn't move them an inch. They are fully irrational.

I'd be curious to see what the flat earth model would do for the tides, with the moon and sun pulling in the same direction (up). But even before that, you have to find out how they pretend to deal with the gravity of the moon and sun, since the earth gravity is generated by acceleration. How do the sun and moon stay in their 2-d precessing circular orbits around the vertical extension of the north pole?

Well, they consider the whole thing to be one contiguous system that is accelerating together.

The real problem with their exceleration idea is the fact that accelerating at 1G gets you to the speed of light in about a year (353 days). Just how fast do the Flat Earthers think the Earth is moving?

If the gravity is generated by acceleration, the tidal bulges become...what? daily sloshing from a wobble in the flat earth as it accelerates upward?

And, once you get back to talking about acceleration causing the appearance of gravity, there are so many other things to deal with--like the problem of the atmosphere being held in place by...what? the ice walls? They sure have to be a lot bigger than the few hundred feet or even thousand feet shown in Dave's pictures.

I tend to agree with Knight that it's an interesting discussion because you have to get beyond the things you've been taught all your life. But i also agree with you that Dave isn't really wanting to consider the evidence.

There are so many problems with the Flat Earth model that they can hardly be exhausted. We're over 3600 posts on this thread alone. If the material here is insufficient to convince anyone that the flat earth model is ridiculous then it's just proof that they aren't interested in being convinced.

Clete

 

[Clete]

Dave,

I've remembered something that has caused me to remove you from my ignore list! There is something I want you to see.

I happen to agree with you about the need to question modern cosmology. Relativity and Quantum Mechanics don't cut it for me any more than they do for you. But this flat Earth model is contemptible stupidity.

I was skimming back through the early posts in this thread and remembered something that I want to bring up to you now. I had hoped to bring this up as an alternative AFTER you had decided to reject this flat earth crap but that never happened and I had forgotten about my intention to bring this up.

I'd like for you to watch the following video...

I want to state quite clearly that I do not endorse everything said in this video. Some of it is clearly off the deep end and I simply despise the fact the those who produce this video are the same lot that wants people to believe in the ancient alien nonsense but IGNORE ALL THAT and just listen to the arguments and pay attention to the evidence the speaker presents. I offer up this video not because it nails the ideas down realy well but because it serves as a good primer to the whole idea. The idea being that you don't have to make up "dark matter" and "dark energy", dozens of dimentions, multiverse and all sort of other exotic things to explain the observable universe. And I think that this Electric Universe idea has potential as a cosmology that is not only consistent with what can be directly observed but consistent also with a biblical worldview. All without having to turn off our minds in order to accept it.

Clete

 

[Right Divider]

The real problem with their exceleration idea is the fact that accelerating at 1G gets you to the speed of light in about a year (353 days). Just how fast do the Flat Earthers think the Earth is moving?

:french:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/6cgask/hey_check_out_this_view/

No, the roundness of the earth in this gif is not caused by a fisheye lens.

That's true and therefore the video must have been faked. :duh:

 

[Bright Raven]

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

Guess that everyone has their own opinion.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Always remember;

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made.

Dave has said many true things here. This anti-Bible makes no sense other than to discredit his own arguments in other places.

I can't deny it. The idea of denying actual fact to defend a "pre-conceived" idea is indeed damning to witness.

The core of this is that I think Dave believes the bible argues "flat earth"... which it actually does not in any way, shape or form.

I want to give Dave some support to make him feel like he's not getting bombarded here... but I think there is a genuine concern that is being expressed by Knight, You, Judgerightly, Clete, Chair and many more that is attempting to encourage Dave to leave his idea that the earth is Flat.

I'm fairly convinced he is moderately defeated in the flat earth stance on this thread... so he is having trouble perpetuating his arguments which have been refuted.

I tried to bone up on the Flat Earth stance to assist Dave in not being alone... but the thing is... The arguments are so narrow and limited that I can't put myself into the argument as "devil's advocate".

This is a difficult matter.

And... well spoken.

- EE

 

[chair]

...

Relativity and Quantum Mechanics don't cut it for me any more than they do for you. ...

Why?

 

[Jacob]

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

Shalom.

I do not believe that the earth is flat.

Shalom.

Jacob