Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - totallackey

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 53  Next >
1
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« on: Today at 03:50:23 PM »
...

I happen to believe that even science suggests the RET/spinning globe is capable of experiencing change in velocity and gaining/losing time over incidents such as giant earthquakes.

So, I wouldn't be so quick to discount the apparent stoppage of the sun and moon in the sky.

As for it being evidence of a flat earth, I agree. It would be silly to even suggest the stoppage of the sun/moon is related to a flat earth.

What caused you to correlate the two?

This verse was mentioned above:

Josh 10:13
The sun stood still and the moon stood motionless while the nation took vengeance on its enemies. The event is recorded in the Scroll of the Upright One. The sun stood motionless in the middle of the sky and did not set for about a full day.

It is being used to suggest the earth is flat since suddenly stopping rotation would cause a massive inertia backlash if the earth was spinning.

When you are pointing out how the bible suggests the earth is flat, your argument assumes a literal interpretation of the bible, so you literally ARE taking those scriptures LITERALLY. When it says "ends of the earth", you are taking that as the earth literally has ends. "To the four corners of the earth" you are taking it that the earth literally has four corners - hence you are taking it literally.
I am not taking it literally.

I am pointing out, as does your own source (which I quoted) states the Bible does suggest the earth is flat.

2
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« on: Today at 01:05:17 PM »
You've heard of figurative speech, right?
I have.
You are taking those phrases literally.
I'm not.

I am merely pointing out the Bible, as your own source points out, suggests the earth is flat.
Do you really believe the earth is a square? Even FET does not suggest it to be square.
I do not know.

I do not know that FET suggests a square, infinite plane, or other shape.

FET does suggest "flat."
Do you really believe the sun and moon stopped in the sky? Even if it literally stopped in the sky, how is this evidence of a flat earth? It seems like a stretch to interpret those scriptures to be anything other than metaphors.
I happen to believe that even science suggests the RET/spinning globe is capable of experiencing change in velocity and gaining/losing time over incidents such as giant earthquakes.

So, I wouldn't be so quick to discount the apparent stoppage of the sun and moon in the sky.

As for it being evidence of a flat earth, I agree. It would be silly to even suggest the stoppage of the sun/moon is related to a flat earth.

What caused you to correlate the two?

3
Flat Earth Community / Re: Moon Landing 50th Anniversary.
« on: Today at 12:56:56 PM »
think of who profits from this- the Russians, the Brits and the Americans, or more specifically those countries governments. Together they can use these lies to keep their citizens under control.
I don't know how the chaps at Jodrell Bank monitoring a Russian probe or the Apollo manned mission in any way keeps me under control.
What does that mean?
Maybe it means you are on a flat earth website arguing your point, for what you believe should be readily apparent and indisputable to the masses?

4
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« on: Today at 12:07:03 PM »
Here is a site that discusses how the bible "seems to suggest the earth is flat", and why it actually does not suggest it to be flat.

https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/earth/does-bible-teach-earth-flat/
Your four corners:

North, south, east, west
On your provided site the word "suggest," or its derivatives appears five times.

First, "Nearly everyone understands that a sphere does not have an edge. Indeed, we can travel indefinitely around a sphere and never reach a boundary or edge. On the other hand, if the earth is flat, it must have an edge somewhere, unless the earth is an infinite plane. However, few people today suggest the latter, and no one in the ancient world did. Bible skeptics are fond of pointing out that the phrase “four corners of the earth” appears three times in the Bible. Surely, the skeptics claim, this must refer to a flat, square earth—thus proving that the Bible teaches a flat earth."

Second, "The many instances of anthropomorphisms in the Bible, suggesting such things as God having hands (Psalm 8:3; Isaiah 66:2) or eyes (Proverbs 15:2) clearly are not literal. There also is an inconsistency in the flat-earth argument here. Flat-earthers believe that the firmament is a transparent dome over the earth, and hence is curved. On the other hand, no body of water is curved, but rather all seas have flat surfaces. But John described a sea of glass, which, by every other use, must be flat, so why is this one curved?"

Third, "Flat-earthers who pursue this distinction suggest that the phrase “in the firmament of heaven” of Genesis 1:17 (and possibly Genesis 1:14–15 as well) ought to be understood as “inside the firmament of heaven.”

Fourth, "Presumably, this was while still in the wilderness. Next, the devil took Jesus to the pinnacle of the Temple in Jerusalem and suggested that Jesus cast himself down (Matthew 4:5). Note that there was considerable distance between the wilderness and the Temple (at least 50 miles)."

Fifth, " For instance, the phrase “ends of the earth” appears 28 times in the King James Version, and, if taken literally, suggest that the earth has an edge, which would rule out a spherical earth."

In the only instance your article figuratively "leaves the Bible to its own devices," so to speak, your article clearly states the Bible does indeed suggest the earth is flat, as a sphere does not possess four corners and does not have an end.

5
That sentence make no sense. I am not sure of what you are trying to say. Do you mean you can't disprove something that hasn't been proven? Sure, you can. Taking away the possibility of something, by definition disproves it. Just prove a contradictory premise that makes the 2nd premise impossible.  Something like this would work...x happens when y, which would be impossible if RE gravity existed.  Simple.

Do you mean cannot disprove something that "must" be proven first?  IOW, you can't disprove something until it has been proven?  Surely, even you can see that makes no sense.
I mean that I do not need to disprove something that has yet to be proven.

And RE gravity has yet to be proven.

Every other force known to man has properties that are proven and definable.

No matter where you find these forces in action, they will behave the exact same way.

Yet, we are told, that gravity has this force that is measurably distinct, except in certain aspects of our own environment!

So, no...I do not need to disprove gravity...it doesn't exist as science has already proven that.

6
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« on: Today at 10:43:42 AM »
If you are asking for FET evidence that the earth is flat, a good place to start would be the wiki in this site.

If you are asking what motives bring people to believe that the earth is flat despite overwhelming evidence against it, I could think of at least two:
- Religious convictions. Some passages of the Bible seem to suggest that the earth is flat or fixed to a position.
- Appeal of conspiracy theories. That would be the psychological explanation.


Kindly quote the verse or the chapter where the Earth is mentioned to be flat in the Bible. Nowhere has it mentioned that the Earth is flat.
He has not written the Bible mentioned the Earth is flat.

He wrote the Bible seemed to "suggest," the Earth is flat.

Well, where does the bible seem to suggest the earth is flat?

My point exactly.
Unless a sphere has corners, I present the following:

Isaiah 11:12
And He will lift up a standard for the nations And assemble the banished ones of Israel, And will gather the dispersed of Judah From the four corners of the earth.

Revelation 7:1
After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth, so that no wind would blow on the earth or on the sea or on any tree.

7
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: Today at 10:39:13 AM »
Because a union rep should represent his people, not support a presidential candidate?
I agree and so did the union rep.

He said that Trump is doing good for his workers.
Like seriously, he was saying "Your Union isn't doing its job unless it supports me.  Because its job is to support me, not you."
Told the truth.

Undeniable.

Even the steelworkers realize the good he is doing for the union and their jobs.
Fossil fuels aren't evil.  Just like flesh eating bacteria or gamma rays aren't evil.  Doesn't mean they're good for you.
Yeah they are good for me and everyone I know.

They allow me to enjoy a warm environment to get to work.

And a warm environment in which to sleep.

They also provide necessary energy for doctors to use to combat the flesh eating bacteria and build shelter against those dangerous gamma rays.
Yes, when you tell businesses they don't need to worry about worker or environmental safety, they tend to ramp up production.  Almost as though they wanna get as much cheap work in as possible before shit hits the fan again.
No one has told any company or worker they do not need to worry about worker or environmental safety.

More companies today than ever before have a health and safety department/officer in place. More workers at these companies are more aware of various environmental/safety standards such as MSDS and OSHA standards.

Workplace deaths were higher in 2016 than 2017.
Do I not?  Did every other citizen of a fascist regime say the same thing?
For clarity, you are a citizen of a fascist regime?
I don't follow or care about what Bill Maher says.
Ok.

8
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: August 19, 2019, 03:51:43 PM »
Pa. Workers Forced To Choose Between Watching Trump, No Pay Or Using Paid Time Off https://n.pr/2YZheVF

Watch Trump paint this as so many supporters....

Also his comment:
If your Union won't support me, they aren't doing their job.

Imagine Pelosi saying that.
I can't imagine Pelosi saying that and coming across as honest while she is uttering the words.

But that is pretty much par for the course when she talks anyway.

Yes, she wouldn't be honest about it.  Which is a plus.  Tump, however, believed it 100%.  I realize you WANT Trump to rule you but the rest of us do not want him to be absolute president for life.
Why shouldn't he believe it?

Other candidates have virtually stated oil/gas/coal are evil.

TrumP? Has deregulated and now the businesses are booming. Even the union rep said as much.

Well, I doubt you have any legitimate reason to worry about that.

Why adopt the Bill Maher take...that dufus has been so wrong about everything the last two years it is ridiculous.

9
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
« on: August 19, 2019, 03:45:20 PM »

Quote
My argument, as explained in other threads, is not circular.

I suggest you rethink your position.

You cannot claim:
...In order for FE to be true, the the RE explanation for why things fall must be false.  Just offering alternative explanations doesn’t do that.
...if RE hasn't explained gravity.

And, as far as I can recall, RE hasn't.

Again, RE gravity doesn't have to be proven, it has to be disproven for the FE position is correct.  Both theories cannot be true at the same time.  The FE explanations, at best, offer alternate explanations, but don't prove or disprove anything.

RE gravity has never been proven, therefore it does not exist, and cannot be proven.  How have I misstated your position?
My position is that you cannot disprove something that has to be proven.

10
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« on: August 19, 2019, 03:39:32 PM »


Quote
So, you have personally been to a point in outer space and know first hand that it exists as depicted on screen, regardless whether self-proclaimed fictional portrayal or non-fictional portrayal.

I really don't think you have a valid point here.

I do not need to know the people involved. I need only to provide the reported names and what I have seen.I have done that for both the reportedly fictional and reportedly non-fictional video presentations of people on the ISS.

It is all fake is my point, so no...no circular reasoning...pretty linear thinking...

So I have to personally go to space and validate the accuracy instead of relying on what I have told, but you don't.  I can't take what is claimed at face value, but you can.  If you don't know the people who claim to have made the CGI or witnessed them doing it, you don't know what they did any more than I can know what space looks like without going there.  Quite a double standard, don't you think?

And yes, your logic is the very definition of circular...you can't know something is true, unless you already know its true.
Let me write it out again, for perhaps further clarity.

I know and you know that some people in the television industry produced an entertainment show entitled The Big Bang Theory. I know and you know the show presented, according to what the producers stated, were fictional representations of the character Howard Wolowitz, performing in the role of scientist/astronaut onboard the ISS, on the television show.

I know and you know that NASA has produced, according to NASA statements, audio/video feeds from astronauts onboard the ISS.

I have not stated that I know either is real or fake.

I have stated that given the undetectable difference I see between the two, and given we have the ability to produce such video from the relative comfort of an office, I believe the simplest explanation is that both are fake.

11
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
« on: August 19, 2019, 01:50:52 PM »
Quote
RE has finally explained gravity?

Where?

RE doesn't have to explain gravity.  RE isn't trying to over turn thousands of years of accepted science.
Science is never accepted.
Even if it were the case that RE has not proven gravity, absence of evidence it not evidence of absence.

In a court of law, the default position is innocent.  It is up the prosecution to prove, not just that the defendant could have done it, but that the defendant must have done it.  Like or not, scientifically, RE is the default position.  If FE wants to change the default position, then it must prove, not just that FE could be true, but that it must be true.

Your question reveals the fundamental flaw in all of FE reasoning...it is circular. (no pun intended).  It starts with the assumption that RE gravity is not true and ends with the conclusion that RE gravity is not true.
My argument, as explained in other threads, is not circular.

I suggest you rethink your position.

You cannot claim:
...In order for FE to be true, the the RE explanation for why things fall must be false.  Just offering alternative explanations doesn’t do that.
...if RE hasn't explained gravity.

And, as far as I can recall, RE hasn't.

12
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« on: August 19, 2019, 01:19:00 PM »
If you are asking for FET evidence that the earth is flat, a good place to start would be the wiki in this site.

If you are asking what motives bring people to believe that the earth is flat despite overwhelming evidence against it, I could think of at least two:
- Religious convictions. Some passages of the Bible seem to suggest that the earth is flat or fixed to a position.
- Appeal of conspiracy theories. That would be the psychological explanation.


Kindly quote the verse or the chapter where the Earth is mentioned to be flat in the Bible. Nowhere has it mentioned that the Earth is flat.
He has not written the Bible mentioned the Earth is flat.

He wrote the Bible seemed to "suggest," the Earth is flat.

13
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« on: August 19, 2019, 01:13:38 PM »
lackey, all you're doing is speculating about how things could possibly be faked.
Do you have any evidence that it is being faked.
And why do you find the concept of space travel so implausible?
Rocket technology demonstrably exists, we've have powerful rockets since the 1940s
Laika was put into low earth orbit in 1957, Gagarin. This technology isn't even that new. Why is the ISS so implausible to you 50 years later?
Yes I have presented evidence.

There is no distinguishable difference between the instances of acknowledged (RE and FE alike) video fiction and those purported to be of video reality in this instance.

That is called evidence.


That is a classic example of circular reasoning, with a big heaping helping of hypocrisy thrown in.  You have to know that movie versions are fake to know that ISS versions are fake...but you only "know" the movie versions are fake because that is what Big Movie wants you to believe. For all you know they actually went into space and filmed it in real time because it was cheaper and just said it was done on computers so everyone would think they were so talented.  You weren't there to watch them create the pictures, so by your logic, you can't really know they are fabricated
Do you know these people, met them, gone to a taping of the show?  Unless you have, then by your logic you can't really know anything about what you claim to know.
So, you have personally been to a point in outer space and know first hand that it exists as depicted on screen, regardless whether self-proclaimed fictional portrayal or non-fictional portrayal.

I really don't think you have a valid point here.

I do not need to know the people involved. I need only to provide the reported names and what I have seen.I have done that for both the reportedly fictional and reportedly non-fictional video presentations of people on the ISS.

It is all fake is my point, so no...no circular reasoning...pretty linear thinking...

14
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
« on: August 19, 2019, 01:02:38 PM »
I understand that FE has at least a couple of different explanations for “gravity”, but really all they are is alternative explanations for why things fall.

In order for FE to be true, the the RE explanation for why things fall must be false.  Just offering alternative explanations doesn’t do that.

Is there any evidence that the RE explanation can’t be true?
RE has finally explained gravity?

Where?

15
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: August 19, 2019, 12:59:06 PM »
Pa. Workers Forced To Choose Between Watching Trump, No Pay Or Using Paid Time Off https://n.pr/2YZheVF

Watch Trump paint this as so many supporters....

Also his comment:
If your Union won't support me, they aren't doing their job.

Imagine Pelosi saying that.
I can't imagine Pelosi saying that and coming across as honest while she is uttering the words.

But that is pretty much par for the course when she talks anyway.

16
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: August 18, 2019, 09:37:11 PM »

Just another example of the racism of Trump and conservatives as a whole...

17
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« on: August 16, 2019, 10:45:05 AM »
According to my understanding of Occams Razor... it states

"You've probably heard it before: The simplest explanation is usually the right one."

In which case is it not true to say that the modern heliocentric model of the solar system for example is far more simple account for the planetary movement we observe than the ever elaborate versions of the Ptplemy geocentric model with all its epicycles?
You are correct.

The simplest explanation is usually the right one.

That means, given the simple effort it takes to make CGI, even for a weekly television program, that is the easiest one to accept.

18
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« on: August 16, 2019, 10:42:27 AM »
Please go ahead and demonstrate how they "do not reach speeds necessary to lift the weight they claim to the heights they claim and are never observed to do so".
Yes, I was interested in that comment. Care to elaborate, lackey?
Also, I'd like to respond to more of your post but you really do suck at using the quote feature, lackey. Can you edit your post and sort that out so I can see what I'm supposed to respond to.
Yeah, I am not as good at the quote feature as you.

Sorry.

Thanks for letting me know.

19
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« on: August 16, 2019, 10:40:13 AM »

Rockets exist.

They can reach great heights.

They demonstrably do not reach speeds necessary to lift the weight they claim to the heights they claim and are never observed to do so.

Please go ahead and demonstrate how they "do not reach speeds necessary to lift the weight they claim to the heights they claim and are never observed to do so".
Look at the video recordings.

Those things are not traveling anywhere near the speeds reported.

I have seen tests of both the F-15 and F-18 at PAX, witnessing missile launches from both.

I have witnessed model rocket launches in the desert.

None of these reported space rockets are traveling at near the rate of speed of the things I have personally witnessed.

20
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« on: August 16, 2019, 10:35:42 AM »
Quote
If you read my posts earlier, I do not deny the reality of an object labeled the ISS. I do not know what that object is.

To repeat the question I posted earlier... have you personally ever observed the ISS through a telescope or even binoculars during a pass?
No, I haven't. I have seen photos.
If you have then you will see something that looks remarkably like an artificial satellite. Definite structure and also some large solar panels. The solar panels are bronze coloured due to the material they are made from. Many people that I know don't even realise you can see the ISS with the naked eye. However it can now match the planet Venus in terms of brightness when it passes directly or near to directly overhead.
I agree there is something circling above us.

It comes into sight then disappears from sight, just like airplanes.
So using my own senses to form my interpretation of reality (as you like to do) then I would come to the conclusion that it is an artificial satellite. And a rather large one too!
We agree it is circling above us.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 53  Next >