SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
I've seen footage of both, with curvature and flat.
The flat ones are from independent balloons and rockets, the ones with curvature are from NASA, SpaceX, or Discovery Channel. How can this be?
The earth is flat and we never went to the moon--Part II
- Thread starter DFT_Dave
- Start date
- Status
I've seen footage of both, with curvature and flat.
The flat ones are from independent balloons and rockets, the ones with curvature are from NASA, SpaceX, or Discovery Channel. How can this be?
SpaceX is a private company. So is Discovery Channel. There's also Virgin Galactic, but I haven't heard too much from them in recent years.
Since you think you have already proven it many time already why even bother asking this question?
Christianity is about Christ not cosmology.
No one has "proven" the curvature or motion of the earth. We are always being ask to "believe" what we cannot see which makes this a matter of faith.
That the Biblical stories have been rejected as being a historical and literal account of human origin and the origin of the universe along with the account of human destiny and coming apocalypse because of heliocentrism and evolution is already a known fact.
From earth, a globe lacks verifiable empirical evidence from both ground and sky--accept from NASA. Their credibility has been destroyed by fake moon landing missions.
--Dave
People keep asking why the globe? Why lie about it? Who lied? Why Why Why? Please watch - it starts at 3 minutes - laugh it off at your peril -
38 minute documentary
38 minute documentary
Atheists say, "Belief in God, Christ, the Bible...it's what happens when people have no idea what they are talking about regarding science, physics, math, geography, astronomy, and cosmology."
--Dave
They don't mind ignoring the clear plain words of God and mocking Christians who think flat earth is possible. It's the cool thing to do here. I get much more support on other forums. Earth is geostationary at the very least.
Last edited:
Answer the question, Dave.
QUOTE=Clete;5226513
David,
If I prove that the Earth is not flat, will you drop Christianity on the basis that the bible has been falsified?
That is a serious question. I'd appreciate a straight answer.
Clete
/QUOTE
[MENTION=2589]Clete[/MENTION]
The Berean
Well-known member
Hello there, JudgeRightly. I have been well. I don't post as much but I do lurk quite a bit. How are you?
Broken, but doing my best to keep moving, seeking Jesus.
Good point! Except that I'm asking the question for a specific reason.
Yeah, yeah. yeah. You wouldn't know anything about Christ if not for the bible. If the bible is falsified, Christ goes out the window.
Saying it doesn't make it so, David.
So what if it could be seen, would you drop the bible as false or not?
No, David. Those things were invented to replace already rejected biblical truths. In other words, the fantacy of evolution and much of what passes for science came after and as a result of the rejection of the Bible, not the other way around.
I've shown you multiple times how this is not true. The only response I get from you is this tripe. I count it as a lie. As I've also said before, I don't understand you any longer. I don't know what your motives are and I'm quite near writing you off completely as someone who somehow has tragically lost his mind and is no longer worth my time but it is clear that a search for the truth doesn't have much to do with whatever it is you're doing here.
There are two people engaged in this discussion who's credibility has been destroyed. Their names are David and Patrick.
Now, I ask you again for a straight answer. If I prove (empirically) that the Earth is flat (which I am not committing myself to doing yet), will you reject the bible, and Christianity by extension, as false? There is a reason I'm asking this David. Don't be afraid. Just give me an honest answer. I suspect I know the answer already.
Clete
Since we now know they exist, they can exist wherever they propagate.
Another irrational cosmological construction.
Gravity waves are everywhere in the entire universe so they cannot be detected only in one place and be undetected everywhere else.
It's like saying we have detected a large wave in the ocean so now we know waves exist.
--Dave
My answer is no. Christianity is not dependent on cosmology. I have said many times that this subject does not affect salvation.
That does not mean that "the World" (and those who turn away from the Christianity they once believed in) will not be deceived into rejecting Christianity and that the basis of that rejection will be the evolution of both cosmos and man. Heliocentrism is the basis for the evolution of both. Christians at some point have to reject what heliocentrism has become regardless of original intent.
Most Christians today want to accept both Christ and Copernicus as if both are Biblical and infallible. But at what point do we reject modernity's evolving heliocentrism cosmologies of spacetime relativity, multi galaxies, infinite multiverses, quantum physics, life on other planets?
Flat earth has a strong case and many, like me, are giving it serious consideration. If you think you can debunk it in a way the common man can test and validate then please do. I will be ready this summer to test and see for myself.
--Dave
Now that we have the technology to detect them, we will begin to refine and detect more. Detecting gravity waves is not like detecting ocean waves. We had a prediction and it has had its first verification. Now we will watch other scientists do the similar experiments and collect data.
See, the irrationality of today's cosmology. You don't even know how to answer the objection. What is said to be everywhere cannot be detected only somewhere. What is everywhere must be detected everywhere. Cosmology is not built on logic.
--Dave
Last edited:
Quite so! That's what I get for being in a hurry! :doh:
Good!
Because I'm quite likely to prove the Earth to be round with my own equipment.
The reason I asked was to gauge how married you were to the idea that the bible teaches the Earth to be flat (which it doesn't at all - by the way).
If the passages of scripture taught what you implied, your "No" answer would be the wrong answer. The point being, of course, that they do not teach what you imply and your unwillingness to hinge your faith on the idea that they do is proof that you know that they don't.
In fact, your use a scripture is akin to the way the Calvinists use scripture. It's irrational and ought to be offensive to any mind searching for the truth. Your own website is proof that you know better.
It affects the salvation of the lost who hear mindless Christian suggest the the Earth is flat and reject the whole thing based on their stupidity.
Further, Christianity absolutely is cosmology.
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth.
It goes on from there but that first sentence is a foundational one and it is undoubtedly a cosmological in nature, wouldn't you agree?
This is stupid, David. Not only is it a false premise but it would an irrelevant one anyway. I don't care who figured it out or what their motives where for doing the science. Facts are facts. The Earth either orbits the Sun or it doesn't. You don't reject facts of relativity based on who figured them out or why.
False premise. Copernicus is not anti-biblical. They two are not in conflict, as your "no" answer implies.
This sort of thinking is what got the inquisition started, David. You reject ideas/theories as false at the point at which they diverge from reality. That's what science is supposed to be about. You don't reject them based on their philosophical origins. Their origins may be a good reason to investigate their veracity but not reason enough to reject them.
No, it doesn't David. The idea of a flat earth has, in fact, been proven wrong several times on this thread alone not to mention over several centuries of history.
You're well past the consideration stage. You've bought this stupidity hook line and sinker.
It took me less than ten minutes to figure out the method. It's simple. If I was comfortable leaving a multi thousand dollar telescope unattended for anything length of time, I'd have done a long time ago.
Clete
Yes it is. But it takes time to develop the equipment that is capable of collecting the data. The ancient Greeks were the first to hypothesis the atom. In the early 1800's, the first evidence base hypothesis was put forward. The first time we actually saw an atom was in about 2013. That is roughly two hundred years to develop the equipment capable of seeing an atom. Did atom not exist until we developed the equipment to see it? Of course not! Same with cosmology. The hypothesis comes first, frequently from a mathematical model, and then the work begins to try to figure out how to create an experiment to confirm or refute the hypothesis. You seem to think that only one experiment is required to verify something. They never stop experimenting and that is how theories get refined and become more useful.
- Status