The earth is flat and we never went to the moon

Status
Not open for further replies.

DFT_Dave

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Can you scientifically demonstrate this essence of lizardness or E.Coli'ness? If fairly drastic physiological changes can evolve in less than 40 years, what stops it from evolving and diversifying further and diversifying into new species? Can you scientifically demonstrate this limit to possible changes? Of course you can't, because there is no such thing. Speciation is an accumulation of enough changes. Your argument is analogous to an extremely short lived entity who admits that the second hand on a watch moves, but not the hour hand.

No, an atheist is someone who does not affirm the existence of God. Someone who believes all lifeforms have evolved is a scientifically literate person.

Your problem is not that you are a theist, it is that you are delusional or incapable of acknowledging even the most basic scientific facts. Your sources are lunatic conspiracy theorists on youtube, it has nothing to do with science. Your flat earth view is no more of a scientific credible alternative than sorcery is to medicine.

Speciation is a diaspora of physical characteristics of a gene pool, a spreading out and breaking down into smaller groups. You atheists have it upside down with the absurdity of information accumulation that "builds up" DNA over time instead of the reality that mutations are misinformation that "breaks down" DNA over time.

Theistic evolution is a contradiction of terms, an oxymoron for morons.

--Dave
 

Selaphiel

Well-known member
Speciation is a diaspora of physical characteristics of a gene pool, a spreading out and breaking down into smaller groups. You atheists have it upside down with the absurdity of information accumulation that "builds up" DNA over time instead of the reality that mutations are misinformation that "breaks down" DNA over time.

Ah, the old information schtick from creationists. Too bad it relies on a misunderstanding of information theory. The problem with your nonsense conception of an original pure genetic code that simply degenerates through changes into a more and more disordered state, is that it assumes that the usefulness of a gene is absolute. But it isn't. The value of a gene is relative, relative to the environment. One example is human genetic resistance to malaria, which is due to a mutation. In the area where malaria is present, it is advantageous. In an environment where there is no malaria, it is disadventageous because the mutation can lead to anemia, sickle cell disase and so forth. In other words, the value or order of the gene is determined by the environment, not some absolute standard.

Then your misunderstanding of information theory. There is no degradation of information in a mutated gene. In fact, if I took all of let us say Dostyevsky's works, randomly jumbled all the letters. The amount of information remains the same, as long as I do not add or remove any symbols. That you are unable to read and understand it now, is irrelevant. Don't believe me? Here is an experiment for you: 1) Open notepad on your computer. 2) Type: "DFT_Dave". 3) Save the file. 4) Check the file size (that is measurement of information). 5) re-open the file. 6) Type: "ftdaved_". 7)Save the file. 8) Check the file size (amount of information), did it change? It doesn't, the information content remains the same even if the content means nothing according to the conventions of your language.

But genetic mutation mean something in nature. Mutations can cause changes in gene expressions. It depends on the environment if they are advantageous or not.

Theistic evolution is a contradiction of terms, an oxymoron for morons.

Theistic evolution is an oxymoron? How so? Saying it is an oxymoron is to claim that the two terms theist and evolution contradicts each other, in this case a contradicto in adjecto. Prove it.

It is of course nonsense:

Theist and thus theistic: Is a view of reality that affirms some conception of God. This conception of God can vary a lot.

Evolution: A scientific theory that describes how all lifeforms evolved from a common ancestor through observable mechanisms genetic mutations and observable principles like natural selection.

These two do not contradict each other at all, in fact they do not have a lot to do with each other at all. One can easily have a view of reality that affirms the existence of God and affirm the theory of evolution. Of course, you cannot affirm the existence of a "God that created the earth and all living things in 6 literal days 6000 years ago" and the theory of evolution. But "creating the universe and all living things in 6 literal days 6000 years ago" is not an essential part of the definition of the term God.
 

DFT_Dave

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Except that he doesn't actually decieve the whole world. It's a figure of speach. Hyperbole. Just as "all of Israel" wasn't baptized by Jesus, Satan hasn't and never will "decieve the whole world".

This makes no sense. Being willingly ignorant is one thing, being decieved is quite another.

One or the other of us is wrong about the nature of the Earth. Are you suggesting that whichever that is, willingly became deceived? How would that even work?

You've said this before. How does it affect Satan's ability to take over control of this world if the Earth is flat but we all think its a sphere? It makes no sense and even if it did, he simply could not pull it off.

You'd better read this thread again! If it were anyone else saying this, I'd be angry.

Read it again.

Here's one...

The Corriolis effect is proof that the Earth is NOT stationary.

Here's another...

The FACT that the Moon appears the same to all obervers on the entire Earth, regardless of latitude or elevation is proof that it is both a sphere and very far away and that it orbits the Earth once a month not once a day. It doesn't flaten out like a disk would nor does it shrink into the distance like it would if it were very close. This is all also true of the sun.

There are several more. Just find the video or two that I posted and watch them again. They are irrefutable. As evidenced by the fact that the only attempt you've made to refute them was to repeate your position.

There is no evidence that Satan even knows what the theory of evolution even is, never mind that he came up with it. That's not to say that he is ignorant of it or even that he didn't inspire it but merely that to build a worldview around the notion is to build it on nothing that you have any evidence for.

All miraculous events spoken of in figurative language to be sure. Have you ever noticed that when the bible is speaking of stars that it often bounces back and forth between discussing stars and angels and that it is often difficult to tell which is being discussed? Verse 25 is an excellent example, equating stars with the powers of heaven. Do a word study and look for references to the hosts of heaven, angels and stars. You'll be amazed at the correlation.

None of which has anything to do with whether even Satan himself could pull off a conspiracy the likes of which you are suggesting. Even if the whole world gets decieved about some things by Satan, there's no way he could pull this one off because it relies on thousands of human beings all of whom are not decieved at all but are in on the secret and whom derive no benefit at all from keeping it.

Think about, Dave. All the pilots in the world. All the leadership of every airline company. The thousands of people who work for Nasa, the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps, all of those people's counterparts in every developed nation (both friend and foe), etc, etc, etc. Hundreds of thousands of people many of whom claim to be and in fact are believers in the Lord Jesus Christ have to not only be in on Satan's deception but must be actively participating in it. And that's just the people alive today! The number must reach into the millions when stretched across the millenia that this deception has been continuing.

Isn't it so much easier to accept the notion that it is you who have been decieved? Seriously - isn't it?

Clete

The videos I post are not merely a repeat of a position they refute the globe theory with tests and evidence that is far more compelling than the globe theory provides. I use them because the nature of the evidence is visual. For you to say they just state a positions means you haven't been really watching them.

There is no such thing as a Corriolis effect. Head winds and tail winds effect flight time not a supposed spinning globe.

I had seen nothing in your posted videos that was irrefutable. Sun and moon paths are the same for both models and is not a proof for either.

The biggest and most important distinction of the two models is, what you see is what truly is on the flat earth model. What you see is not what truly is on the globe model. It's not crazy to believe in what you see.

Satan's motives are clear and that he is a deceiver and we are the deceived is also very clear. Our minds are controlled by our world view, your emotional outbursts are evidence of that. Satan can control the world by forcing his world view vs God's revelation. Satan opposes God's revelation of God's nature and the nature of the world he created, theology and cosmology go hand in hand.

Remember a debate is a comparison of opposing views. We allow everyone to evaluate the arguments and evidence from both positions and let everyone decide for themselves what they want to believe.

--Dave
 

DFT_Dave

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Ah, the old information schtick from creationists. Too bad it relies on a misunderstanding of information theory. The problem with your nonsense conception of an original pure genetic code that simply degenerates through changes into a more and more disordered state, is that it assumes that the usefulness of a gene is absolute. But it isn't. The value of a gene is relative, relative to the environment. One example is human genetic resistance to malaria, which is due to a mutation. In the area where malaria is present, it is advantageous. In an environment where there is no malaria, it is disadventageous because the mutation can lead to anemia, sickle cell disase and so forth. In other words, the value or order of the gene is determined by the environment, not some absolute standard.

Then your misunderstanding of information theory. There is no degradation of information in a mutated gene. In fact, if I took all of let us say Dostyevsky's works, randomly jumbled all the letters. The amount of information remains the same, as long as I do not add or remove any symbols. That you are unable to read and understand it now, is irrelevant. Don't believe me? Here is an experiment for you: 1) Open notepad on your computer. 2) Type: "DFT_Dave". 3) Save the file. 4) Check the file size (that is measurement of information). 5) re-open the file. 6) Type: "ftdaved_". 7)Save the file. 8) Check the file size (amount of information), did it change? It doesn't, the information content remains the same even if the content means nothing according to the conventions of your language.

But genetic mutation mean something in nature. Mutations can cause changes in gene expressions. It depends on the environment if they are advantageous or not.



Theistic evolution is an oxymoron? How so? Saying it is an oxymoron is to claim that the two terms theist and evolution contradicts each other, in this case a contradicto in adjecto. Prove it.

It is of course nonsense:

Theist and thus theistic: Is a view of reality that affirms some conception of God. This conception of God can vary a lot.

Evolution: A scientific theory that describes how all lifeforms evolved from a common ancestor through observable mechanisms genetic mutations and observable principles like natural selection.

These two do not contradict each other at all, in fact they do not have a lot to do with each other at all. One can easily have a view of reality that affirms the existence of God and affirm the theory of evolution. Of course, you cannot affirm the existence of a "God that created the earth and all living things in 6 literal days 6000 years ago" and the theory of evolution. But "creating the universe and all living things in 6 literal days 6000 years ago" is not an essential part of the definition of the term God.

I will be starting a new thread on evolution vs creation soon and will gladly debate you there. This thread, being maybe too broad anyway, is not a place to have this conversation, sorry.

--Dave
 

Tnkrbl123!

New member
You guys he is obviously just trying to get a rise out you all and it working g fabulously! There are a lot of arguments for a flat earth that have been used for centuries and he is digging them up and playing you all like fiddles. half of his arguments don't make sence but they are getting you all ruled up lol. it's entertaining let me say. I am sure he knows the earth is like a globe but is just playing you all. at least he is using real arguments unlike Squeaky who littlerally blabbers nonsense then calls you an idiot for not agreeing hahaha.
 

User Name

Greatest poster ever
Banned
You guys he is obviously just trying to get a rise out you all and it working g fabulously! There are a lot of arguments for a flat earth that have been used for centuries and he is digging them up and playing you all like fiddles. half of his arguments don't make sence but they are getting you all ruled up lol. it's entertaining let me say. I am sure he knows the earth is like a globe but is just playing you all.

Of course.
 

WatchmanOnTheWall

Well-known member
If the Earth's flat then why do they put crows nests high up on the masts of boats and ships where it is dangerous and uncomfortable? Surely if the Earth was flat there'd be no need to do that and the look outs could stay in the wheel house where it is safe and comfortable and just tell the captain when they see anything. So why put them up high?
 

DFT_Dave

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
My Perspective / Rory Cooper - Flat Earth does it matter

These last two videos are among the best I've seen.


--Dave
 

DFT_Dave

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
My Perspective / Rory Cooper - Flat Earth from a Plane on a Plain

Dave on a plane, gotta love this one.


--Dave
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
The videos I post are not merely a repeat of a position they refute the globe theory with tests and evidence that is far more compelling than the globe theory provides. I use them because the nature of the evidence is visual. For you to say they just state a positions means you haven't been really watching them.
I've not only watched them but I've made arguments that directly refute them with both words and videos that YOU HAVE NOT REFUTED - period. You've barely responded to them at all and when you have it has been to either restate your position or post yet another video that makes similar, if not identical claims, which I have then refuted as well, again with no substantive response from you.

There is no such thing as a Coriolis effect. Head winds and tail winds effect flight time not a supposed spinning globe.
The Coriolis Effect is completely real and you know it. Most of the Flat-Earth websites I've seen even acknowledge it. You can prove it yourself in about two minutes. Grab the pull chain from your ceiling fan and swing it from side to side. The fact that it swings out a parabola and not a straight line is caused by the Coriolis Effect. It happens every single time you try it and there's no wind to cause it or anything else other than the fact that the Earth is not stationary.

Now, this right here is where the rubber meets the roads, David. The Coriolis Effect is obviously real to any intellectually honest person. The fact that it exists is also proof that the Earth is spinning. The fact that the effect is in the opposite direction on the opposite side of the equator is proof that the Earth is NOT a disk that spins around the north pole because, if it were, the Coriolis Effect would not reverse at all, it would just continue to get stronger and stronger as you got further from the pole because the outer edges of a disc are spinning faster than the center. The effect would, therefore, get stronger and stronger and stronger as you got closer to the Flat-Earth's Ice Wall, which we know for certain is not the case.

One single thing - one simple idea that you can confirm with your own eyes in your own living room without spending a dime to do it proves about 90% of the Flat-Earth model to be impossible. If you deny it, it will be for reasons other than intellectual honesty.

I had seen nothing in your posted videos that was irrefutable. Sun and moon paths are the same for both models and is not a proof for either.
Yes, you did, you're just proving to be more stubborn and far less intellectually honest than I had previously given you credit for.

If the Sun and Moon set beyond the horizon because of distance, they would shrink into the distance just like ships do - but they don't.
If the Moon were anywhere near as close to the Earth as the Flat-Earthers say, people in the Northern Hemisphere would not see the same face of the Moon as those in the South Hemisphere - but they do.
If the Earth was a flat disk, people looking south from Australia would be looking in the opposite direction as those looking south in South America and the two groups would see different stars directly to their south. - But they don't. They all see the same celestial pole. A pole that cannot exist on a flat Earth.

There are three things based on what we see with out own eyes that cannot be refuted and that you've made no attempt to refute (unless I missed something).

The biggest and most important distinction of the two models is, what you see is what truly is on the flat earth model. What you see is not what truly is on the globe model. It's not crazy to believe in what you see.
There is nothing that we see that is in contradiction to the Earth being a very large sphere. In fact, I just listed several things that we do see with our eyes that are not at all consistent with a flat Earth and so your statement here is both a non-sequitur and flatly false. Another argument I've made more than once without response except for the repetition of the position.

Satan's motives are clear and that he is a deceiver and we are the deceived is also very clear.
You're the only one here who is deceived and I doubt very much that Satan even knows who you are.

Our minds are controlled by our world view, your emotional outbursts are evidence of that.
Don't talk to me about emotional outbursts, David. I've been as patient as Moses with this whole conversation which you all but begged people, including me, to participate in. I've responded to every argument, watched every video, some more than once. Nearly all of which were a waste of time and simply stupid. You, frankly, ought to be ashamed of yourself for presenting them as convincing to anyone other than children.
Not only that, but I've repeatedly asked you in more than one way to respond to my counter arguments which you have not done except to present additional videos with even more assinine arguments for me to refute with arguments that you mostly haven't responded to, all in a debate that I was basically begged to participate in! It's enough to make any rational person angry. And, in fact, if it were anyone else but you, I'd have been gone weeks ago.

I'll tell you that a great deal of my frustration has everything to do with the fact that the arguments I've presented should have convinced you. You aren't Nang or Squeaky for crying out loud! You're DFTDAVE! There's no way that these arguments you've presented in these videos should be able to move you one inch in their direction and yet, not only have they moved you, they seem to have gunked up the gears between your ears. I honestly expected that when I posted that video that dealt with issues surround the horizon, that you'd be persuaded enough to at least watch the other two videos in the series and that would have put an end to the whole debate. I seriously did expect that! I still can hardly believe it was insufficient. I can't believe it to the extent that I've openly wondered aloud whether I'm really talking to the same DFTDave that wrote most, if not all of THIS. I have a very hard time reconciling the mental acuity it took to produce that website with the childish arguments you've allowed to convince you that the Earth is flat. It doesn't seem possible.

Satan can control the world by forcing his world view vs God's revelation.
There is nothing about the spherical nature of God's Earth that contradicts one syllable of the bible.

Satan opposes God's revelation of God's nature and the nature of the world he created, theology and cosmology go hand in hand.
You'd think that Satan was smart enough to have come up with something that actually contradicts God's nature then. You ascribe far too much power, intelligence and influence onto Satan. Not that he isn't powerful and smart and influential but what you are giving him credit for is more than God Himself could pull off with a population of people who have free will and mind's that can think independently.

Remember a debate is a comparison of opposing views. We allow everyone to evaluate the arguments and evidence from both positions and let everyone decide for themselves what they want to believe.

--Dave
Honest debate requires intellectual honesty.

For example, I made an argument early in this thread having to do with the curvature of the Earth and my argument including math that I failed to perform correctly. The calculation went from the curvature falling away by two inches in a quarter mile down to one half an inch in a quater mile. When I was corrected, I didn't just stubbornly stick to my claim of two inches. I not only acknowledged my error but admitted that half an inch over such a distance would probably not be sufficient to measure over that distance with my proposed experiment. That's what intellectual honesty looks like. I didn't just start denying that 8 inches per mile SQUARED means something other than it does or that math doesn't work when discussing really large spheres or some other such contrivance similar to "There is no such thing as a Corriolis effect." or citing cherry-picked visual evidence that intentionally suggests and makes arguments that presuppose that extreme atmospheric lensing is always present to the same degree in every situation or completely ignore arguments having to do with the fact that people looking south in Australia are looking in basically the opposite direction from those looking south from South America and yet they see the exact same stars spinning in a circle around the south celestial pole.

--------------

Now, I sort of allowed myself to ramble on a bit in this post and I didn't worry too much about pulling punches so I do want to state most clearly that I really am not angry with you David. I'm frustrated to be sure but I'm certainly not going to allow a discussion about the Earth being flat to turn you into an enemy. That will not happen. So you don't have to worry about continuing. I'll continue for as long as you like and, every once in a while, I'll get frustrated and then I'll get over it until I've either convinced you that the Earth cannot be flat or we both decide to just stop.

I think what I'll do next is retype that post I lost in response to one of the videos you posted.

Clete
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
"If Dave is flying at 800km/h how come he can only see his movement. If the land is moving at double his speed, why can't he see it?"

Because motion is always relative to a frame of reference.

His 800 km/h flight speed is relative to the ground. In a larger frame of reference, his 800 km/h would be added to or subtracted from the speed that the Earth is spinning, depending on the direction of flight.
 

WatchmanOnTheWall

Well-known member
You think it's because there is a curvature of the earth. As I have stated many times it's because you can see farther distance past the horizon line. Also you're above the waves and low fog.

--Dave
'it's because you can see farther distance past the horizon line'- This does not make any sense? Here is what the horizon line is: https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=horizon+line&*

'Waves' - Actually the higher the waves get then the more dangerous it is to be in a crows nest and therefore no one would be up a mast once the waves get beyond a certain height, thus proving that it is not because of waves.

'low fog' - Crows nests are used whether there is fog or not but it does help lookouts to see over any low fog as well but that isn't why crows nets were invented.
 

DFT_Dave

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
'it's because you can see farther distance past the horizon line'- This does not make any sense? Here is what the horizon line is: https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=horizon+line&*

'Waves' - Actually the higher the waves get then the more dangerous it is to be in a crows nest and therefore no one would be up a mast once the waves get beyond a certain height, thus proving that it is not because of waves.

'low fog' - Crows nests are used whether there is fog or not but it does help lookouts to see over any low fog as well but that isn't why crows nets were invented.

Distance to the Horizon Calculator
This webpage shows how far we can see the higher in elevation we go.

At 1 foot we can see 1.2 miles
6' = 3m
10' = 3.9m
15' = 4.7m
20' = 5.5m
50' = 8.7m
100' = 12.3m
200' = 17.3m

All these calculations are based on a flat plain. If we were looking at a curved earth the higher we go the more down ward we would have to look to see the horizon. In reality, the higher we go the further we see across the plain of the flat earth as the horizon line continues to extent out ward and upward, not down ward.

View attachment 25378

View attachment 25379

--Dave
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Distance to the Horizon Calculator
This webpage shows how far we can see the higher in elevation we go.

At 1 foot we can see 1.2 miles
6' = 3m
10' = 3.9m
15' = 4.7m
20' = 5.5m
50' = 8.7m
100' = 12.3m
200' = 17.3m

All these calculations are based on a flat plain. If we were looking at a curved earth the higher we go the more down ward we would have to look to see the horizon. In reality, the higher we go the further we see across the plain of the flat earth as the horizon line continues to extent out ward and upward, not down ward.

View attachment 25378

View attachment 25379

--Dave

Dave, I don't think you realize just how big the earth is, and because of that, you don't realize just how far away from the earth's surface one has to be to be able to see the curvature of the earth.

Also, I'd like to point out that your last image is indeed pointing downward by about 10 or so degrees, so using it to suggest a flat Earth doesn't work.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top