The earth is flat and we never went to the moon

[DFT_Dave]

Scripture on stars

Origin of stars
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

Destiny of stars
Matthew 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

Revelation 6:12 And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood; 13 And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.

--Dave

 

[Clete]

Dave,

You are not responding to the arguments presented. All you do is present more lunacy that needs to be refuted which you then ignore (mostly) and add even more lunacy.

There is a name for this technique. It's called muddying the water. People with rational worldviews don't need such tactics.

Ideally speaking, rational people respond to rational arguments with rational rebuttals of those specific arguments. The conversation then proceeds along rational lines and, in the end, all the rational people in the room leave in agreement with eachother.

The bottom line is that I'm not going to present rebuttals to an entire worldview of insanity! What I've presented is MORE than enough for any reasonable person to see and clearly understand that THE WHOLE FREAKING UNIVERSE DOES NOT REVOLVE AROUND THE EARTH ONCE A DAY!

:bang:

 

[DFT_Dave]

Dave,

You are not responding to the arguments presented. All you do is present more lunacy that needs to be refuted which you then ignore (mostly) and add even more lunacy.

There is a name for this technique. It's called muddying the water. People with rational worldviews don't need such tactics.

Ideally speaking, rational people respond to rational arguments with rational rebuttals of those specific arguments. The conversation then proceeds along rational lines and, in the end, all the rational people in the room leave in agreement with eachother.

The bottom line is that I'm not going to present rebuttals to an entire worldview of insanity! What I've presented is MORE than enough for any reasonable person to see and clearly understand that THE WHOLE FREAKING UNIVERSE DOES NOT REVOLVE AROUND THE EARTH ONCE A DAY!

:bang:

Coward

--Dave

 

[chair]

Coward

--Dave

No, Dave. People have far better things to do with their time. What you have presented doe snot justify spending further time on it.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Dave,

You are not responding to the arguments presented. All you do is present more lunacy that needs to be refuted which you then ignore (mostly) and add even more lunacy.

There is a name for this technique. It's called muddying the water. People with rational worldviews don't need such tactics.

Ideally speaking, rational people respond to rational arguments with rational rebuttals of those specific arguments. The conversation then proceeds along rational lines and, in the end, all the rational people in the room leave in agreement with each other.

The bottom line is that I'm not going to present rebuttals to an entire worldview of insanity! What I've presented is MORE than enough for any reasonable person to see and clearly understand that THE WHOLE FREAKING UNIVERSE DOES NOT REVOLVE AROUND THE EARTH ONCE A DAY!

:bang:

Who do you think you are to decide what is and is not a rational world view? You simply neither have the nerve nor the will to challenge or counter "popular" cosmology.

Today, "Multi Universe" cosmology and quantum physics is used to counter the "fine tuning/intelligently designed" reality of the universe that sustains life. It is believed a cosmology of quantum/chance eventually produces a universe out of the many that will produce one that is fine tuned by chance. This fine tuned universe is selected by mindless nature to produce life. This unverifiable argument is cosmological evolution. Mindless nature selects a universe for life out of the many. Life/biology evolves from the many/chance mutations that mindless nature selects for survival.

The cosmology of relativity's boxed space/time universe controlled by gravity is absolutely irrational. If the perspective from every single planet is that it is stationary and all others move around it then all planets are both moving and not moving at the same time. Relativity is a consequence of the globe model. If relativity is wrong then so is the global model of earth. There must be a stationary center of the universe in order to have a rational cosmology and a stationary earth must be flat and the theory of gravity that keeps every thing from flying off a spinning ball earth is not required. Here is how the globe earth theory has lead us to the irrational unverifiable cosmology of today.

1. The flat stationary earth with sun, moon, and stars circling above it, created by God became a globe with the other heavenly bodies rotating around it.

2. The globe was removed from the center of the universe and made to revolve around the sun and spin at a tilt in order to maintain the days and seasons established by flat earth.

3. Stars became planets and were made to spin and revolve around the sun in a perfect pattern that were consistent with all observations from flat stationary earth. Gravity was invented to keep every thing from flying or falling off a spinning ball earth.

4. Some stars were made to be galaxies with there own sun and planets revolving around them. Our galaxy became only one of many galaxies in a vast universe of multi galaxies all moving away from each other originating from the expansion of a singularity in a big bang.

5. To keep these galaxies together and keep them from expanding into chaos gravity was extended to the entire universe of space/time.

6. To finally make all this a product of mindless natural selection multi universes and quantum physics are imagined to make all this possible--no God required.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

No, Dave. People have far better things to do with their time. What you have presented doe snot justify spending further time on it.

Just who do you think you are to speak on behave of "other people"? Speak for your self and let other people make up their own minds. I doubt you have spent much time at all studying cosmology and you certainly have spent no time considering flat Biblical earth. You're afraid to do it, you don't want to be called everything you have called me.

--Dave

 

[Clete]

Who do you think you are to decide what is and is not a rational world view? You simply neither have the nerve nor the will to challenge or counter "popular" cosmology.

I am a rational being, that's who. I can decide what is and is not a rational worldview that same way I decide that anything else is rational, by reason.

Today, "Multi Universe" cosmology and quantum physics is used to counter the "fine tuning/intelligently designed" reality of the universe that sustains life. It is believed a cosmology of quantum/chance eventually produces a universe out of the many that will produce one that is finely tuned by chance. This fine tuned universe is selected by mindless nature to produce life. This unverifiable argument is cosmological evolution. Mindless nature selects a universe for life out of the many. Life/biology evolves from the many/chance mutations that mindless nature selects for survival.

That which is not verifiable is not science, Dave. I'm not I understand the point you're making here. Are you equating the fact that the Earth is demonstrably round with Multiverse Cosmology? That's a false equivalence if I ever heard one. One is testable, observable and verifiable, the other is little more than mathematical wishful thinking.

The cosmology of relativity's boxed space/time universe controlled by gravity is absolutely irrational. If the perspective from every single planet is that it is stationary and all others move around it then all planets are both moving and not moving at the same time.

No argument here except that this is essentially the argument you are in fact making! You're the one that says we're stationary because it looks like we're stationary and that the world is flat because it does seem like its round from our perspective.

Relativity is a consequence of the globe model.

Not it isn't. As much as I disagree with the theory of relativity, there's no mention a spherical earth in the theory nor are any of it's premises rationally dependent upon a spherical earth.

If relativity is wrong then so is the global model of earth.

So now Relativity and "Globe-ism" are now co-dependant on each other? On what basis can you possibly make such a claim?

There must be a stationary center of the universe in order to have a rational cosmology

Saying it doesn't make it so, Dave!

Newton did a pretty darn good job of explaining not only why apples fall to the ground but also why the Moon takes the amount of time it takes to go around the Earth and why the Earth takes the amount of time it takes to go around the Sun and all sorts of other things that are seemingly unrelated. His ideas are testable. They make very specific predictions that we can go out and see and verify with our very own eyeballs.

...and a stationary earth must be flat and the theory of gravity that keeps every thing from flying off a spinning ball earth is not required.

Actually, yes, it is Dave! That's just the point. Science doesn't allow you to just throw away facts because "you don't need them". Science has, in fact, verified Newton's Laws over and over and over and over again. If you want to reject them, you are going to have to come up with a good solid rational reason for doing so.

Here is how the globe earth theory has lead us to the irrational unverifiable cosmology of today.

1. The flat stationary earth with sun, moon, and stars circling above it, created by God became a globe with the other heavenly bodies rotating around it.

2. The globe was removed from the center of the universe and made to revolve around the sun and spin at a tilt in order to maintain the days and seasons established by flat earth.

3. Stars became planets and were made to spin and revolve around the sun in a perfect pattern that were consistent with all observations from flat stationary earth. Gravity was invented to keep every thing from flying or falling off a spinning ball earth.

4. Some stars were made to be galaxies with there own sun and planets revolving around them. Our galaxy became only one of many galaxies in a vast universe of multi galaxies all moving away from each other originating from the expansion of a singularity in a big bang.

5. To keep these galaxies together and keep them from expanding into chaos gravity was extended to the entire universe of space/time.

6. To finally make all this a product of mindless natural selection multi universes and quantum physics are imagined to make all this possible--no God required.

--Dave

I'm not even going to dignify this with a response except to say that this is the closest thing to stupidity that I've ever seen you post. I refuse to believe that you're capable of such utter nonsense. The history of science is very well recorded. You can, with only a modicum of effort, trace every step that great thinkers took to arrive at everything from Newton's theory of gravity and laws of motion to equally stunning and unexpected discoveries about electricity, magnetism, architecture, biology (not evolution), astronomy, chemistry and pretty nearly anything else you can think of. All of which followed the same rational thought process that Newton did. You have no more basis for this conspiracy theory B.S. about gravity and a flat earth than you have for the rejection of electrical theory. Is there an electrical panel in your house? Do you use light bulbs? If so, you have science, real science to thank for it. The very same sort of science that informed us that we live on a sphere and orbit the Sun.

 

[DFT_Dave]

I am a rational being, that's who. I can decide what is and is not a rational worldview that same way I decide that anything else is rational, by reason.

That which is not verifiable is not science, Dave. I'm not I understand the point you're making here. Are you equating the fact that the Earth is demonstrably round with Multiverse Cosmology? That's a false equivalence if I ever heard one. One is testable, observable and verifiable, the other is little more than mathematical wishful thinking.

No argument here except that this is essentially the argument you are in fact making! You're the one that says we're stationary because it looks like we're stationary and that the world is flat because it does seem like its round from our perspective.

Not it isn't. As much as I disagree with the theory of relativity, there's no mention a spherical earth in the theory nor are any of it's premises rationally dependent upon a spherical earth.

So now Relativity and "Globe-ism" are now co-dependant on each other? On what basis can you possibly make such a claim?

Saying it doesn't make it so, Dave!

Newton did a pretty darn good job of explaining not only why apples fall to the ground but also why the Moon takes the amount of time it takes to go around the Earth and why the Earth takes the amount of time it takes to go around the Sun and all sorts of other things that are seemingly unrelated. His ideas are testable. They make very specific predictions that we can go out and see and verify with our very own eyeballs.

Actually, yes, it is Dave! That's just the point. Science doesn't allow you to just throw away facts because "you don't need them". Science has, in fact, verified Newton's Laws over and over and over and over again. If you want to reject them, you are going to have to come up with a good solid rational reason for doing so.

I'm not even going to dignify this with a response except to say that this is the closest thing to stupidity that I've ever seen you post. I refuse to believe that you're capable of such utter nonsense. The history of science is very well recorded. You can, with only a modicum of effort, trace every step that great thinkers took to arrive at everything from Newton's theory of gravity and laws of motion to equally stunning and unexpected discoveries about electricity, magnetism, architecture, biology (not evolution), astronomy, chemistry and pretty nearly anything else you can think of. All of which followed the same rational thought process that Newton did. You have no more basis for this conspiracy theory B.S. about gravity and a flat earth than you have for the rejection of electrical theory. Is there an electrical panel in your house? Do you use light bulbs? If so, you have science, real science to thank for it. The very same sort of science that informed us that we live on a sphere and orbit the Sun.

I'm not making an equivalence argument, I'm giving a brief step by step general view of the history of cosmology and it is correct. The men who gave us the official view from Aristarchus and Pythagoras, to Copernicus and Newton, and to Einstein and Hawking, have established a cosmology that is a synthesis of philosophy and science that is actually science fiction. You want to believe that the history of cosmology is infallible pure science, it's not.

And yes, I have been and will debate each of the so called "great thinkers" and their theories. Let's start at the beginning of modern cosmology with Pythagoras and his followers.

Pythagorean astronomy
"An astronomical system positing that the Earth, Moon, Sun and planets revolve around an unseen 'Central Fire' was developed in the 5th century BC and has been attributed to the 'Pythagorean philosopher' Philolaus,"

"Aristarchus of Samos was an ancient Greek astronomer and mathematician who presented the first known model that placed the Sun at the center of the known universe with the Earth revolving around it He was influenced by Philolaus, but he identified the 'central fire' with the Sun, and put the other planets in their correct order of distance around the Sun."

Pythagoras
"Pythagoras was an Ionian Greek philosopher, mathematician, and the putative founder of the movement called Pythagoreanism. Most of the information about Pythagoras was written down centuries after he lived, so very little reliable information is known about him. He was born on the island of Samos, and travelled, visiting Egypt and Greece, and maybe India. Around 530 BC, he moved to Croton, in Magna Graecia, and there established some kind of school or guild."

"Pythagoras made influential contributions to philosophy and religion in the late 6th century BC. He is often revered as a great mathematician and scientist and is best known for the Pythagorean theorem which bears his name. Pythagoreanism originated in the 6th century BCE, based on the teachings and beliefs held by Pythagoras and his followers, the Pythagoreans, who were considerably influenced by mathematics and mysticism. Later revivals of Pythagorean doctrines led to what is now called Neopythagoreanism or Neoplatonism. Pythagorean ideas exercised a marked influence on Aristotle, and Plato, and through them, all of Western philosophy."

Pythagorean Mysticism and Numerology
Pythagoras is mysterious figure and was a pantheist who believed in reincarnation. "The soul of man is...divine, but the body holds the soul in bondage. Thus, it was declared that the soul returns to a host ten times, bound to the wheel of rebirth." He also was a numerologist who combined his philosophy of the unlimited/eternal with the limited/temporal into a synthesis of metaphysics and cosmology--Apeiron cosmology

These two sites have more information: Pythagoras, Mathematics and Mysticism
The Pythagorean Number Values

In Pythagoras we see, possibly, the beginnings of occult astrology and numerology--the foundation of later freemasonry. The Pythagorean cosmology is based on imagination not empirical evidence. The world is not what it appears to be because our "limited" personal existence and perspective is unable to comprehend the "unlimited" impersonal reality--the apeiron of numbers and mathematics that is the real (unseen) matrix of the universe. For the Pythagoreans the earth is moving even though it seem to be stationary, the earth is round even though it seems to be flat. These philosopher/mystics imagine the earth is as round as the sun and moon that they see moving over them. They imagine the sun/central fire is the center and every thing else including the earth revolving around it. The globe model is a presupposition and the so called proofs are simply deductions made from the model and not proofs of the model, circular reasoning, which I will demonstrate as we focus next post on Aristarchus.

--Dave

p.s. All quotes are from Wikipedia unless other wise stated.

 

[chair]

Just who do you think you are to speak on behave of "other people"? Speak for your self and let other people make up their own minds. I doubt you have spent much time at all studying cosmology and you certainly have spent no time considering flat Biblical earth. You're afraid to do it, you don't want to be called everything you have called me.

--Dave

Fine. I speak for myself. And others have spoken for themselves.

When you give me a real reason to watch more of your videos, maybe I will. I am not afraid of new (well, recycled, in this case) ideas. But intellectual honesty does not require me to investigate every alternate physics or astronomy that somebody on the internet throws at me. Unless soem real reason to do so has been presented- and you haven't managed to do that.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Fine. I speak for myself. And others have spoken for themselves.

When you give me a real reason to watch more of your videos, maybe I will. I am not afraid of new (well, recycled, in this case) ideas. But intellectual honesty does not require me to investigate every alternate physics or astronomy that somebody on the internet throws at me. Unless soem real reason to do so has been presented- and you haven't managed to do that.

I have given plenty of reasons, but they are not reasons enough to suit you. That's good, I will not take a position on anything unless I have enough reasons as well.

--Dave

 

[chair]

I have given plenty of reasons, but they are not reasons enough to suit you. That's good, I will not take a position on anything unless I have enough reasons as well.

--Dave

Dave, I was trying to help you understand that you've gone down a wrong track here. I even asked you what could possibly convince you- and you repeatedly ignored my question. As far as I can tell, you are dead-set on this, and there is no argument or evidence that could possibly change you mind. If that is the case, there is no point in pursuing this further.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Dave, I was trying to help you understand that you've gone down a wrong track here. I even asked you what could possibly convince you- and you repeatedly ignored my question. As far as I can tell, you are dead-set on this, and there is no argument or evidence that could possibly change you mind. If that is the case, there is no point in pursuing this further.

I have posted my answer to you but it's not the answer you want. You are asking me a "loaded question". I will not move my king into your trap for a check mate. If you ever played chess you'll get my point. If you understand logical fallacies you'll stop asking me this question.

--Dave

 

[chair]

I have posted my answer to you but it's not the answer you want. You are asking me a "loaded question". I will not move my king into your trap for a check mate. If you ever played chess you'll get my point. If you understand logical fallacies you'll stop asking me this question.

--Dave

Dave, if someone tells you upfront that they will not listen to any argument or consider any fact, then there isn't room for discussion. It is like trying to convince an ISIS member with earplugs in his ears to become a Methodist.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Dave, if someone tells you upfront that they will not listen to any argument or consider any fact, then there isn't room for discussion. It is like trying to convince an ISIS member with earplugs in his ears to become a Methodist.

I have grown up with the globe model, I know the arguments and so called evidence for it. The flat earth model counters it with it's evidence and arguments.

Since I know both sides it is you who will not hear the other side. Both sides say they have facts on the matter, I say lets compare and see. A loaded comment is no different than a loaded question. If you "will not listen to any argument or consider any fact" about flat earth then you should stop wasting your time and mine.

--Dave

 

[Clete]

I'm not making an equivalence argument, I'm giving a brief step by step general view of the history of cosmology and it is correct. The men who gave us the official view from Aristarchus and Pythagoras, to Copernicus and Newton, and to Einstein and Hawking, have established a cosmology that is a synthesis of philosophy and science that is actually science fiction. You want to believe that the history of cosmology is infallible pure science, it's not.

And yes, I have been and will debate each of the so called "great thinkers" and their theories. Let's start at the beginning of modern cosmology with Pythagoras and his followers.

Pythagorean astronomy
"An astronomical system positing that the Earth, Moon, Sun and planets revolve around an unseen 'Central Fire' was developed in the 5th century BC and has been attributed to the 'Pythagorean philosopher' Philolaus,"

"Aristarchus of Samos was an ancient Greek astronomer and mathematician who presented the first known model that placed the Sun at the center of the known universe with the Earth revolving around it He was influenced by Philolaus, but he identified the 'central fire' with the Sun, and put the other planets in their correct order of distance around the Sun."

Pythagoras
"Pythagoras was an Ionian Greek philosopher, mathematician, and the putative founder of the movement called Pythagoreanism. Most of the information about Pythagoras was written down centuries after he lived, so very little reliable information is known about him. He was born on the island of Samos, and travelled, visiting Egypt and Greece, and maybe India. Around 530 BC, he moved to Croton, in Magna Graecia, and there established some kind of school or guild."

"Pythagoras made influential contributions to philosophy and religion in the late 6th century BC. He is often revered as a great mathematician and scientist and is best known for the Pythagorean theorem which bears his name. Pythagoreanism originated in the 6th century BCE, based on the teachings and beliefs held by Pythagoras and his followers, the Pythagoreans, who were considerably influenced by mathematics and mysticism. Later revivals of Pythagorean doctrines led to what is now called Neopythagoreanism or Neoplatonism. Pythagorean ideas exercised a marked influence on Aristotle, and Plato, and through them, all of Western philosophy."

Pythagorean Mysticism and Numerology
Pythagoras is mysterious figure and was a pantheist who believed in reincarnation. "The soul of man is...divine, but the body holds the soul in bondage. Thus, it was declared that the soul returns to a host ten times, bound to the wheel of rebirth." He also was a numerologist who combined his philosophy of the unlimited/eternal with the limited/temporal into a synthesis of metaphysics and cosmology--Apeiron cosmology

These two sites have more information: Pythagoras, Mathematics and Mysticism
The Pythagorean Number Values

In Pythagoras we see, possibly, the beginnings of occult astrology and numerology--the foundation of later freemasonry. The Pythagorean cosmology is based on imagination not empirical evidence. The world is not what it appears to be because our "limited" personal existence and perspective is unable to comprehend the "unlimited" impersonal reality--the apeiron of numbers and mathematics that is the real (unseen) matrix of the universe. For the Pythagoreans the earth is moving even though it seem to be stationary, the earth is round even though it seems to be flat. These philosopher/mystics imagine the earth is as round as the sun and moon that they see moving over them. They imagine the sun/central fire is the center and every thing else including the earth revolving around it. The globe model is a presupposition and the so called proofs are simply deductions made from the model and not proofs of the model, circular reasoning, which I will demonstrate as we focus next post on Aristarchus.

--Dave

p.s. All quotes are from Wikipedia unless other wise stated.

So what's the form of your argument here?

Pythagoras was a pagan therefore everything he said was false and everything everyone said that can be at all linked to him is also false.

Are you intentionally calling into question the validity of the pythagorian theorum or was that just an accidental consequence of this case study in sloppy thinking?

 

[Clete]

I've been, reluctantly, reading some flat Earth nonsense (sorry, there's just not any other word for it) on various websites and I've come to the conclusion that the entire idea is indeed Satanic, or at the very least, demonic. And I'm 100% not kidding about that.

Here's the best example of what I'm talking about...

Flat Earth Frequently Asked Questions

That website is put together (quite well, I might add) by overtly Christian people who I'm sure are quite well meaning. But just read through it and watch their animations. Imagine if you were an unbeliever and weren't familiar with the bible or Christianity. What would your reaction to that website be? If you had any sort of skill in the area of critical thinking, your reaction would be that these people are either stupid or insane.

My youngest daughter who is now a teenager but is still just a child saw the animation that is supposed to represent how the sun and moon move around the earth, creating night and day. She hadn't looked at it for 15 seconds before she mentioned that the sun and moon are often visible in the sky at the same time and she asked, "What about eclipses?"

My daughter is as much a girly girl as can be. She isn't a nerdy science type. She spends her time face-timing friends and practicing on her new ukulele. She's a smart kid but astronomy isn't her gig at all and she blew a permanent, irreparable hole into the flat Earth theory as presented by that website in less than 20 seconds!

And I think that is exactly the point of this resurgence of the flat earth nonsense, to discredit Christianity. There seems to be no other motivation to accept it at all. Anyone who does not have some religious reason to give it the time of day dismisses it by rational means in less time that it took you to read this last three sentences.


Having said that, I'd like for Dave to answer my daughter's question...

What about eclipses?

There are lunar eclipses which I bet a reasonably simple to conjure up an explanation for but total solar eclipses (one of which is happening in the United States this year) has to be a lot harder for you because for a total solar eclipse to happen the moon has to be exactly as many times smaller as the sun is further away. That's the ONLY way that perfect solar eclipses can happen, no matter how big the bodies are or how far away they happen to be. The inside body HAS TO BE EXACTLY as many times smaller as the outside body is further away.
So if the moon is 10 times smaller than the sun, the sun must be ten times further away than the moon is. You can replace the 10 with any number you want! But here's the problem for you. The closer they are, the bigger the shadow. The fact that the Moon's umbral shadow is smaller than the moon itself means that the Sun must be much further away than the moon is and since the angular size of the two bodies is the same, the Sun must be very much bigger. All of which is contrary to the flat earth model.

Further! Oh yes, there's more!...

We KNOW that the moon HAS TO BE a sphere because it always looks circular in the sky to everyone on earth, no matter where you are. That is, if the moon were flat, it would look more and more oval shaped as it got further away (i.e. closer to the horizon). This one single, undeniable fact, debunks the entire flat earth idea because if the spherical moon moved in the path suggested by the flat earthers, different people would see different parts of the moon depending on where they were on the flat earth, which does not happen. Further still, if the moon moved in a path even a little bit similar to the path proposed by the flat earthers, we would see the moon go through all it's phases on a daily basis! Why is this true? Because the moon's phases are caused by its position relative to both the Sun and the Earth, not just the Sun or just the Earth!

If that isn't intuitive, take a look at the image below which was taken from another Christian flat earther website...

View attachment 25196

In the above image, we see the Sun and Moon going around a circle above the equator. This image is intended to demonstrate how lunar phases happen but the image falsifies everything the author of that page is saying. Imagine what the moon in that image would look like to an observer standing in England (near the center of the image). It would be nearly, if not completely, full. Now find Australia (it's at about 10:00 if the image were a clock face). Would it be anywhere near full? NOPE! And the folks in New Zealand would see a nearly New Moon! And just in case you didn't already know - THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN!

If you want a laugh, click on the question "What causes solar eclipses?" at the top of that website!


In the immortal words of my thirteen year old daughter, "Yo dude! Get off the drugs!"


Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[DFT_Dave]

So what's the form of your argument here?

Pythagoras was a pagan therefore everything he said was false and everything everyone said that can be at all linked to him is also false.

Are you intentionally calling into question the validity of the pythagorian theorum or was that just an accidental consequence of this case study in sloppy thinking?

I am calling into question the Pythagorean Cosmology not his geometry. The two are not the same thing. Not everything about him is false.

You should no better than to use "sloppy" straw man arguments.

Apeiron/Pythagorean Cosmology
"The apeiron is central to the cosmological theory created by Anaximander, a 6th-century BC pre-Socratic Greek philosopher whose work is mostly lost. From the few existing fragments, we learn that he believed the beginning or ultimate reality (arche) is eternal and infinite, or boundless (apeiron), subject to neither old age nor decay, which perpetually yields fresh materials from which everything we can perceive is derived. Apeiron generated the opposites, hot-cold, wet-dry etc., which acted on the creation of the world. Everything is generated from apeiron and then it is destroyed by going back to apeiron, according to necessity. He believed that infinite worlds are generated from apeiron and then they are destroyed there again."

"The apeiron has generally been understood as a sort of primal chaos. It acts as the substratum supporting opposites such as hot and cold, wet and dry, and directed the movement of things, by which there grew up all of the host of shapes and differences which are found in the world. Out of the vague and limitless body there sprang a central mass—this earth of ours—cylindrical in shape. A sphere of fire surrounded the air around the earth and had originally clung to it like the bark round a tree. When it broke, it created the sun, the moon and the stars. The first animals were generated in the water. When they came to earth they were transmuted by the effect of the sun. The human being sprung from some other animal, which originally was similar to a fish. The blazing orbs, which have drawn off from the cold earth and water, are the temporary gods of the world clustering around the earth, which to the ancient thinker is the central figure."

"Philolaus (5th century BC) mentions that nature constituted and is organized with the world from unlimitable (Greek: ἄπειρα apeira, plural of apeiron) and limitable. Everything which exists in the world contains the unlimited (apeiron) and the limited."

Biblical Creation and Cosmology
The Genesis creation account and cosmology is not the same as Pythagorean account or it's cosmology. The eternal/unlimited/apeiron is "natural selection" for the atheist, and "Brahma" for the pan-en-theists. Both natural selection and Brahma are impersonal forces. Natural selection is actually a disguised pantheism. The Biblical God who created heaven and earth is a personal Being not an impersonal force. The Genesis cosmology is not the same as the pantheistic cosmology of the past nor the present.

Biblical Cosmology: Origin of stars
Genesis 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

Biblical Cosmology: Destiny of stars
Matthew 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

Revelation 6:12 And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood; 13 And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.

You want to accept the Pythagorean/Copernican cosmology without question. Do you really think it's infallibly true? If it is then the Biblical account is not true. Do you not realize that the evolution of species you reject is the same evolution of the cosmos that you accept.

--Dave

P.S. All quotes are Wikipedia unless otherwise indicated.

 

[DFT_Dave]

"What about eclipses?"

Resting in Him,
Clete

Daytime Lunar Eclipse Footage Debunks The Ball Earth - The Flat Earth Reality

The umbra from the rising sun should cover the bottom of the moon with a shadow as it sets. But it does not. "An interesting observation to attempt would be to view the eclipsed setting Moon and the rising Sun simultaneously. The little-used name for this effect is called a “selenelion”; a phenomenon that celestial geometry says cannot happen."

--Dave

 

[Clete]

I am calling into question the Pythagorean Cosmology not his geometry. The two are not the same thing. Not everything about him is false.

You should no better than to use "sloppy" straw man arguments.

Dave, you've gotta start reading more carefully. I didn't make that argument, YOU DID!

Your argument was basically that because Pythagoras was a pagan, his cosmology is false. But you made no rational connection between the premise (paganism) and the conclusion (false cosmology). Therefore, the FORM of your argument was/is that because Pythagoras was a pagan, everything he said was false (which unintentionally implies that his geometry is false too). You then imply that the whole line of science to the present day proceeded from Pythagoras and that since Pythagoras was wrong, so was all of science that connected with him.

In other words, you've made no more connection between his paganism and his cosmology than you have made between his paganism and his geometry. If you accept his geometry, then on what basis do you reject his cosmology? If it's his paganism, fine! WHY? Where's the connection? Where's the argument? It's not there because you didn't make it. You simply implied that because he was a pagan, what he believed about the relationship between the Earth and the Sun must be false.

That is not a rational argument and you know it. And, as a result, nothing else you have to say on the matter concerning scientist that came after Pythagoras is relevant.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Daytime Lunar Eclipse Footage Debunks The Ball Earth - The Flat Earth Reality

The umbra from the rising sun should cover the bottom of the moon with a shadow as it sets. But it does not. "An interesting observation to attempt would be to view the eclipsed setting Moon and the rising Sun simultaneously. The little-used name for this effect is called a “selenelion”; a phenomenon that celestial geometry says cannot happen."

--Dave

Do you see what I mean!

This is a bunch of crap, David!

You begged me to debate this. BEGGED ME!

So I do and you flatly IGNORE arguments that take me hours to write up and to edit. Rather than responding to arguments, all you do is find more horse manure to present that I'm supposed to spend another two hours debunking!

I won't do it.

When you start responding to the arguments I make, we can continue. Otherwise, go be stupid by yourself or waste someone else's time with it.