The earth is flat and we never went to the moon

[1Mind1Spirit]

That is the same "argument" the Christ rejecting world, atheists, many scientists................................... employ to dismiss the resurrection.

Well done, Lamont Dave.

They dismiss God right out of the gate, they don't even worry about him having a son or his ability to resurrect him.

So, take a seat, Johnny.

:mock::darwinsm:

 

[DFT_Dave]

When you believe (and don't lie, it's clear you DO believe it) that water magically doesn't flow off the end of a flat plane and atmospheric currents come from nowhere and go nowhere, yeah, you're talking supernatural. Magic, in fact.

I have never made those assertions either, the flat earth model is not what you imagine it, you are guilty of the straw man fallacy by a false representation of the flat earth model.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Well then, if it only MAY be correct, then it may NOT be correct and the global model MAY be correct after all.

Waste of time.

You are welcome to your own personal bias.

--Dave

 

[chair]

Dave, how about if you explain the Flat Earth Model to us in one clear post. Maybe you can clarify a few things:
1. How big is it?
2. Can one see the edge?- if so- where and how?
3. What is under it?
4. What holds it up?
5. Where does the Sun go at night?


Thanks,

Chair

 

[musterion]

Dave, how about if you explain the Flat Earth Model to us in one clear post. Maybe you can clarify a few things:
1. How big is it?
2. Can one see the edge?- if so- where and how?
3. What is under it?
4. What holds it up?
5. Where does the Sun go at night?


Thanks,

Chair

I'd be happy with his explanation of point 2.

 

[musterion]

I have never made those assertions either, the flat earth model is not what you imagine it, you are guilty of the straw man fallacy by a false representation of the flat earth model.

--Dave

And that would be my fault, how?

You're the one that's been promoting this viewpoint without adequately explaining why it's true, or why it NEEDS to be true.

 

[DFT_Dave]

I don't disagree with the point you are making here but just to be precise, it isn't natural selection that is the contradiction, it's evolution.

Natural selection happens all the time. In fact, you can induce natural selection to occure rather easily. This is where we get antibiotic resistant bacteria for example. Or short dandilions in your yard because you regularly mow the flowers off of all the tall ones. Conditions in nature can just as easily cause one group of a population to prosper more than another. It happens constantly and all over the place.

What never ever happens is evolution which is altogether a differnt thing.


Well, like I said, what isn't repeatable isn't science. You can do all the very same experiments and make all the exact same observations and measurments that Newton made and see it for yourself. They really aren't that complicated. It was a huge undertaking for Newton because he lived so long ago but with today's technology, it would be rather simple and inexpensive to recreate his experiments. Chances are there are people who have already done so and published it on YouTube.


I agree! A self-contradiction is proof of at least partial falsehood. What aspect(s) of Newton's theory of gravity do you find to be self-contradictory?

Resting in Him,
Clete

Do you know what a synthesis is.

Do you understand the dialectic process.

Do you know the three laws of logical thought and can you tell when some one is violating one, or more, of them and committing a logical fallacy?

Natural Selection
Nature does not, and can not, select for "hybrids". If you can't even understand this than what can you understand about the construction of contradictory concepts?

nature = without choice or purpose

selection = choice with purpose

The phrase "natural selection" is a contradiction. The world is said to evolve because of natural selection. The word evolution means change, and there is nothing contradictory about things changing even in nature. Things evolve in nature but not in the direction of simple to complex, not from status quo to hybrid, not from bacteria to man.

I'll show the fallacy in entropy next. David vs Newton. I would say David vs Clete but Newton compared to me is more like Goliath then me vs you. :chuckle:

--Dave

 

[musterion]

You are welcome to your own personal bias.

--Dave

It's biased to simply follow out your own statement?

 

[JudgeRightly]

I'll show the fallacy in entropy next. David vs Newton. I would say David vs Clete but Newton compared to me is more like Goliath then me vs you. :chuckle:

--Dave

Oh, so you're going to challenge the laws of thermodynamics? I'd love to see you try.

*grabs popcorn*

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[DFT_Dave]

Dave, how about if you explain the Flat Earth Model to us in one clear post. Maybe you can clarify a few things:
1. How big is it?
2. Can one see the edge?- if so- where and how?
3. What is under it?
4. What holds it up?
5. Where does the Sun go at night?


Thanks,

Chair

Look at the globe earth from over the north pole as the center and pull every thing up from the south pole until every thing is on a flat plane then surround it with a circle of ice. Very few have gone beyond the wall of ice we call the south pole.

Admiral Byrd of the US navy explored Antarctica in the late 40's and early 50's and after that the whole area was restricted from any private exploration. Byrd said there was a vast extended region of unexplored land that was rich in minerals, etc. there that could benefit all the nations. But only penguins can explore there now unless you have "top secret level clearance".

The sun, moon, and stars move in a circle over the flat earth and have the same calendar as does the globe model. The sun, moon, and stars are closer and not as large as in the globe model. Copernicus simply took the flat earth model and pushed it down into the ball/globe. He then put the earth circling the sun instead. He obviously took the same calendar that the flat model produced and adjusted his globe model to correspond to it. The Copernicus model is the flat earth model reversed. All visual effects from our perspective on earth remain the same for both models.

View attachment 25141

Sun and moon movement over flat earth and other pics of flat earth model.

 

[musterion]

Look at the globe earth from over the north pole as the center and pull every thing up from the south pole until every thing is on a flat plane then surround it with a circle of ice. Very few have gone beyond the wall of ice we call the south pole.

The fact that ANYONE has flown over Antarctica tells you what about your flat earth faith?

The Polar Route

 

[musterion]

Depending on the winds, the Qantas flight QF 63 from Sydney to Johannesburg sometimes flies over the Antarctic Circle to latitude 71 degrees as well, allowing views of the icecap.

 

[DFT_Dave]

The fact that ANYONE has flown over Antarctica tells you what about your flat earth faith?

The Polar Route

Flying by the antarctic is not the same as flying over it.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

--Dave

 

[musterion]

Flying by the antarctic is not the same as flying over it.

--Dave

Actually it is, for the purpose of being high enough and near enough to the purported "edge" of the world's "rim of ice" that anyone in the plane should have be able to see it. No one reports seeing anything like it.

 

[chair]

...

The sun, moon, and stars move in a circle over the flat earth and have the same calendar as does the globe model. The sun, moon, and stars are closer and not as large as in the globe model...

OK. If this is the case, rather than seeing the sun set over the horizon, I should see it gradually getting more distant and looking smaller. It should never completely disappear.

I have watched sunsets. That is not what happens.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Actually it is, for the purpose of being high enough and near enough to the purported "edge" of the world's "rim of ice" that anyone in the plane should have be able to see it. No one reports seeing anything like it.

Admiral Richard Byrd saw land beyond the South pole. He called it an unexplored land mass as big as the United States, another continent. Listen to him in this TV interview from 1950.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

OK. If this is the case, rather than seeing the sun set over the horizon, I should see it gradually getting more distant and looking smaller. It should never completely disappear.

I have watched sunsets. That is not what happens.

That's funny because there are many people posting video of this happening. It also depends on where you are as to what you can see.

--Dave

 

[chair]

That's funny because there are many people posting video of this happening. It also depends on where you are as to what you can see.

--Dave

What!? Dave- I have seen the sunset. So have you. It doesn't gradually get distant. It sinks below the horizon. It does so if it sets behind a mountain, or if it sets over the sea. That is what it does. Everywhere. Go outside and take look tonight.

I even watched a flat earth video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_Kl5T1Ob6M
that explains sunsets. It really did not make any sense.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Another good video on flights that prove flat earth.

--Dave