The earth is flat and we never went to the moon

Status
Not open for further replies.

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
I gave the source in my post.

I don't see a source, could you point it out here:

Christian Trinity:

God the Father

God the Son

God the Holy Spirit

Newton did not believe in God the Son. For him God could not become flesh.

-----

All original cosmologists from the Greek world were anti Christian and anti Biblical.

Was everything that they said wrong? Or just some of it? How do you know which parts are wrong and which are not?

All modern cosmologists today are anti Christian and anti Biblical.

Fathers of the Physical Sciences who velieved in the Creator God (or at least the ones relative to this discussion):
Galileo Galilei, 1642, Law of Falling Bodies
Isaac Newton, 1727, Gravitation
James Joule, 1889, Thermodynamics
Lord Kelvin, 1907, Thermodynamics (preferred Intelligent Design over Darwinism)
(See kgov.com/fathers for more scientists who believed in God)

Now we know that Newton was not really Christian.

Argument ad populum. You have not proven your claim, and are proceeding as if it has already been established. Prove your claim first, and then we can proceed with the rest of your argument.

He was influenced by Pythagoras for his cosmology not the Bible.

http://kgov.com/aron-ra-debates-creationist-bob-enyart
http://www.newtonproject.ox.ac.uk/view/texts/normalized/THEM00007

The first link you should read because it discusses Newton being a Christian; the second because it was written by Newton.

The obvious point was that tracks and everything else appear smaller in the distance,

You need to be clearer when making your points. This is what you said:

Depth perception tells us if something is near or far away.

The distance between the tracks simply gets smaller the further away it is gets.

No one is disagreeing that things are smaller in the distance. What you said however is that the distance between the tracks gets smaller as it gets farther away. Yet this is not true, just because they are farther away does not mean that the distance between the two rails on each side of the tracks is getting smaller, only that the "apparent size" of the objects is smaller only because they are farther away.

Now, is what I said a valid argument against what you wrote? Would you like to revise/rephrase what you said above?

but again you miss the obvious and misrepresent my point, a sinful thing to do.

I merely responded to what you said. In what way did I misrepresent you?
 

DFT_Dave

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
I don't see a source, could you point it out here:

Was everything that they said wrong? Or just some of it? How do you know which parts are wrong and which are not?

Fathers of the Physical Sciences who velieved in the Creator God (or at least the ones relative to this discussion):
Galileo Galilei, 1642, Law of Falling Bodies
Isaac Newton, 1727, Gravitation
James Joule, 1889, Thermodynamics
Lord Kelvin, 1907, Thermodynamics (preferred Intelligent Design over Darwinism)
(See kgov.com/fathers for more scientists who believed in God)

Argument ad populum. You have not proven your claim, and are proceeding as if it has already been established. Prove your claim first, and then we can proceed with the rest of your argument.

http://kgov.com/aron-ra-debates-creationist-bob-enyart
http://www.newtonproject.ox.ac.uk/view/texts/normalized/THEM00007

The first link you should read because it discusses Newton being a Christian; the second because it was written by Newton.

You need to be clearer when making your points. This is what you said:

No one is disagreeing that things are smaller in the distance. What you said however is that the distance between the tracks gets smaller as it gets farther away. Yet this is not true, just because they are farther away does not mean that the distance between the two rails on each side of the tracks is getting smaller, only that the "apparent size" of the objects is smaller only because they are farther away.

Now, is what I said a valid argument against what you wrote? Would you like to revise/rephrase what you said above?

I merely responded to what you said. In what way did I misrepresent you?

"According to most scholars, Newton was Arian, not holding to Trinitarianism. 'In Newton's eyes, worshipping Christ as God was idolatry, to him the fundamental sin'."--Wiki

This quote is from Wiki, that's what the "--Wiki means". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Isaac_Newton.
When you see text in blue it means there is a link to the source of the quote. Their source appears in footnotes.

Newton is said to have been anti Trinitarian. That means he denied the deity of Christ. There is nothing in Genesis or any where else in the Bible that presents a Copernican Universe. The globe earth begins with pagan Greeks. Newton, as with his predecessors, was attempting a synthesis of Greek cosmology with Biblical Revelation.

"Newton developed truly heretical ideas. Fascinated by the trinity, he was impassioned by the conflict between the orthodox, led by Athanasius in the fourth century, and the disciples of Arius. Arius believed that God was one, and that the trinity could not be. Newton, according to Richard Westfall, became convinced bit by bit “that a massive fraud had perverted the legacy of the early church.” Newton considered the worship of Christ, in place of God, to be idolatrous. But living in a completely orthodox Cambridge where his own master, Barrow, defended the trinity, Newton did not express his views publicly."--ISAAC NEWTON'S FREEMASONRY The Alchemy of Science and Mysticism

Belief in God is not the same thing as belief in the deity of Christ, Christianity is the latter not the former.

--Dave
 

oatmeal

Well-known member
God gave us sensory perception.

We can't live in this physical world without it.

Sensory perception is not why Eve ate the fruit.

That would be like saying God created us with sensory perception so that we would sin.

--Dave

That is right, but unless we use God's instructions on how to use it, we will fall for the same lies that Adam and Eve and every sinner since then has fallen for.

When all else fails, read the instructions!

What did God forbid them to do? Eat the fruit.

The sensory evidence contributed to her sin.

Believers walk by believing not by sight.

Matthew 6:33 is one example. Seek first

a. sensory perception

b. meeting your own needs

c. the kingdom of God and His righteousness

Is the kingdom of God and His righteousness attained by sensory perception?

or by believing?

Mark 9:23

If your senses perceive it then all things are possible?

True or false?
 

DFT_Dave

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
That is right, but unless we use God's instructions on how to use it, we will fall for the same lies that Adam and Eve and every sinner since then has fallen for.

When all else fails, read the instructions!

What did God forbid them to do? Eat the fruit.

The sensory evidence contributed to her sin.

Believers walk by believing not by sight.

Matthew 6:33 is one example. Seek first

a. sensory perception

b. meeting your own needs

c. the kingdom of God and His righteousness

Is the kingdom of God and His righteousness attained by sensory perception?

or by believing?

Mark 9:23

If your senses perceive it then all things are possible?

True or false?

What we can handle, feel, hear and see makes it possible for us to exist in this world as God intended. I will not argue that we cannot be fooled by them at times, because we can. But we can trust our senses in this physical/material world as we move about in this physical/material body.

Eve's eye's were made by God. She could avoid the forbidden fruit because she could see it, not because she could not. If Eve could not see anything how could she find the fruit she could eat and avoid the one she should not eat?

--Dave
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Dave I know you are busy. But if you could....

I gotta know.

Last weekend I was up in Northern Colorado and I looked due east as the moon came up over the horizon. It was HUGE!! I mean... the moon looked MASSIVE as it crept up over the horizon. In fact it looked bigger when it came over the horizon than it looked when it was directly overhead.

Dave, why wasn't the moon really tiny as it came up over the horizon like you claim it should be? Why was the moon just as big as it came over the horizon as it is when it's directly overhead??
 

oatmeal

Well-known member
What we can handle, feel, hear and see makes it possible for us to exist in this world as God intended. I will not argue that we cannot be fooled by them at times, because we can. But we can trust our senses in this physical/material world as we move about in this physical/material body.

Eve's eye's were made by God. She could avoid the forbidden fruit because she could see it, not because she could not. If Eve could not see anything how could she find the fruit she could eat and avoid the one she should not eat?

--Dave

Good point.

God did give us the five senses and a mind to learn. We could not learn scripture unless we could see and read and think and learn.

We must remember that God gave to us the gift of spirit, holy spirit as well, thus making us body and soul and spirit. I Thessalonians 5:23

We must use them all as God intended.

Romans 12:1-3
 

DFT_Dave

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Good point.

God did give us the five senses and a mind to learn. We could not learn scripture unless we could see and read and think and learn.

We must remember that God gave to us the gift of spirit, holy spirit as well, thus making us body and soul and spirit. I Thessalonians 5:23

We must use them all as God intended.

Romans 12:1-3

Well said. :thumb:

I certainty believe we are body, soul, and spirit.

--Dave
 

DFT_Dave

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Dave I know you are busy. But if you could....

I gotta know.

Last weekend I was up in Northern Colorado and I looked due east as the moon came up over the horizon. It was HUGE!! I mean... the moon looked MASSIVE as it crept up over the horizon. In fact it looked bigger when it came over the horizon than it looked when it was directly overhead.

Dave, why wasn't the moon really tiny as it came up over the horizon like you claim it should be? Why was the moon just as big as it came over the horizon as it is when it's directly overhead??

If I'm not mistaken, the sun and moon are closer and so appear a bit larger at different times of the year since their orbit is elliptical.

I have shown time lapse video of a whole day where you see the size difference from morning to evening as the sun moves across the sky.

I have not as yet seen a video of the moon as it moves across the sky for a whole night.

The big question is is the earth moving through space. We know the moon is moving through space. If we know the moon is moving through space across the sky then why should we not also believe the sun is doing the same?

Is the earth moving around a stationary sun or is the sun moving around/over a stationary earth? I know it's believed the whole galaxy is moving but the sun is still stationary in relation to the planets orbiting it.

View attachment 25814 View attachment 25815

These two pictures tell us how close the sun is and shows the perspective of the sun moving away from us across the flat earth.

We must deny our senses and simple geometry, invent unverifiable theories backed by equations the common person will never understand in order to believe that the earth is a spinning globe instead of what our eyes and senses tell us is the truth.

--Dave
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
If I'm not mistaken, the sun and moon are closer and so appear a bit larger at different times of the year since their orbit is elliptical.

Knight isn't talking about different times of the year, Dave, he's talking about different times of the day. Big difference.

I have shown time lapse video of a whole day where you see the size difference from morning to evening as the sun moves across the sky.

I have not as yet seen a video of the moon as it moves across the sky for a whole night.

The big question is is the earth moving through space. We know the moon is moving through space. If we know the moon is moving through space across the sky then why should we not also believe the sun is doing the same?

Dave, everything is moving through space, the sun, the moon, AND the earth. Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?

Is the earth moving around a stationary sun

No, the earth is moving around a mobile sun.

or is the sun moving around/over a stationary earth?

It is not.

I know it's believed the whole galaxy is moving but the sun is still stationary in relation to the planets orbiting it.

That's probably the smartest thing you've said yet. Yes, in relation to the planets orbiting it, the sun is stationary. But in relation to the center of the galaxy, the sun is moving (and quite fast, too).

View attachment 25814 View attachment 25815

These two pictures tell us how close the sun is and shows the perspective of the sun moving away from us across the flat earth.

No, they don't Dave. Your making your argument off of an illusion that has been clearly explained already.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crepuscular_rays

We must deny our senses and simple geometry,

You're the one denying geometry, Dave.

invent unverifiable theories backed by equations

I assure you that every equation that has ever been discovered (which are remarkably simple, by the way) can be verified and tested. Is that not how most science is done, by using equations that describe the physical laws? Can we not know anything about our universe based on the laws we discover?

the common person will never understand

Dave, you're making people out to be less intelligent than they really are.

If someone would simply apply themselves, they could learn quite a bit about how our universe works.

in order to believe that the earth is a spinning globe instead of what our eyes and senses tell us is the truth.

No, Dave, because it's not just our senses that we must use. We also have a mind to think, and reason, and comprehend something that at first might not make sense, but after studying it for a while we can comprehend how it works.

Let's take an old wind-up pocket watch, for example.

When you look at the watch, you can clearly see that it was designed, and functions as it should; you can tell the time, see the second hand moving, but it appears that the minute hand and hour hand are not moving, however, upon closer inspection, and focus, you can see that the minute hand is in fact moving, but it's motion is not as perceptible as the second hand's motion. You then turn your attention to the hour hand, which appears motionless, but you note it's position on the watch face, and sure enough, when you come back to it an hour later, the hand has moved 1/12th of the way around the face. You have verified it's movement, even though you didn't watch (no pun intended) the hand move to that position.

You then decide to figure out how the watch works, so you pry open the back of it, and taking careful note of where each gear and spring is, you slowly take the first gear out... and the watch stops working, you can no longer hear the tick...tick...tick of the second hand. You turn it over, and sure enough, the second hand and the minute hand have stopped moving, and just to verify, you put the watch down and come back an hour later to find that the hour hand has stopped moving as well.

You proceed to take out the pieces of the watch; gears, springs, screws, eventually all of the pieces lay on the table in front of you. You start to try to put things together, to see if they function together, or if they are incompatible, and discover that some parts are incompatible with others, yet they all came from the same watch, and you know you didn't lose or gain any pieces, and you know the watch was working prior to your disassembling of it, so you wonder why they aren't compatible.

Dave, This is exactly what you have done when it comes to how the universe God created functions. You've taken the universe apart and tried to put two completely incompatible parts of it together that don't go together, and then you complain that they don't function. You've taken God's watch apart, and tried to put it back together the wrong way, and then you wonder why it doesn't work like it did before.

You're trying to put the pieces of His watch back together the wrong way, when there's equations that determine how each part functions and fits together to make a working universe. When you ignore those equations, or even outright reject them, then you are left with a bunch of parts that don't make any sense at all, even though you know they they must fit together somehow to make a working timepiece.
 

DFT_Dave

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Knight isn't talking about different times of the year, Dave, he's talking about different times of the day. Big difference.

Dave, everything is moving through space, the sun, the moon, AND the earth. Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?

No, the earth is moving around a mobile sun.

It is not.

That's probably the smartest thing you've said yet. Yes, in relation to the planets orbiting it, the sun is stationary. But in relation to the center of the galaxy, the sun is moving (and quite fast, too).

No, they don't Dave. Your making your argument off of an illusion that has been clearly explained already.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crepuscular_rays

You're the one denying geometry, Dave.

I assure you that every equation that has ever been discovered (which are remarkably simple, by the way) can be verified and tested. Is that not how most science is done, by using equations that describe the physical laws? Can we not know anything about our universe based on the laws we discover?

Dave, you're making people out to be less intelligent than they really are.

If someone would simply apply themselves, they could learn quite a bit about how our universe works.

No, Dave, because it's not just our senses that we must use. We also have a mind to think, and reason, and comprehend something that at first might not make sense, but after studying it for a while we can comprehend how it works.

Let's take an old wind-up pocket watch, for example.

When you look at the watch, you can clearly see that it was designed, and functions as it should; you can tell the time, see the second hand moving, but it appears that the minute hand and hour hand are not moving, however, upon closer inspection, and focus, you can see that the minute hand is in fact moving, but it's motion is not as perceptible as the second hand's motion. You then turn your attention to the hour hand, which appears motionless, but you note it's position on the watch face, and sure enough, when you come back to it an hour later, the hand has moved 1/12th of the way around the face. You have verified it's movement, even though you didn't watch (no pun intended) the hand move to that position.

You then decide to figure out how the watch works, so you pry open the back of it, and taking careful note of where each gear and spring is, you slowly take the first gear out... and the watch stops working, you can no longer hear the tick...tick...tick of the second hand. You turn it over, and sure enough, the second hand and the minute hand have stopped moving, and just to verify, you put the watch down and come back an hour later to find that the hour hand has stopped moving as well.

You proceed to take out the pieces of the watch; gears, springs, screws, eventually all of the pieces lay on the table in front of you. You start to try to put things together, to see if they function together, or if they are incompatible, and discover that some parts are incompatible with others, yet they all came from the same watch, and you know you didn't lose or gain any pieces, and you know the watch was working prior to your disassembling of it, so you wonder why they aren't compatible.

Dave, This is exactly what you have done when it comes to how the universe God created functions. You've taken the universe apart and tried to put two completely incompatible parts of it together that don't go together, and then you complain that they don't function. You've taken God's watch apart, and tried to put it back together the wrong way, and then you wonder why it doesn't work like it did before.

You're trying to put the pieces of His watch back together the wrong way, when there's equations that determine how each part functions and fits together to make a working universe. When you ignore those equations, or even outright reject them, then you are left with a bunch of parts that don't make any sense at all, even though you know they they must fit together somehow to make a working timepiece.

You should shorten your posts. Here is a better clock example.

The hands on the clock move over a flat circular surface just as the sun and moon moves over the flat circular earth witch is the basis of time and seasons from which the clock is derived. See, short and to the point.

Also you should not comment on a single sentence since many times you take them out of text and context. It can take more than one sentence to make a point.

--Dave
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
You should shorten your posts. Here is a better clock example.

The hands on the clock move over a flat circular surface just as the sun and moon moves over the flat circular earth witch is the basis of time and seasons from which the clock is derived. See, short and to the point.

Also you should not comment on a single sentence since many times you take them out of text and context. It can take more than one sentence to make a point.

--Dave

So instead of responding to my points, you're ignoring them because you don't like how long my posts are? Dave, it's no wonder you can't understand anything when you have the attention span of a goldfish.

Respond to my points please. And feel free to break down my sentences to respond to each part, because if anything that I say is wrong, then the rest of what I say could be wrong.
 

DFT_Dave

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
View attachment 25814

I like this picture it's worth a thousand word's. Here are a few.

We see the flat horizon. It would not be flat if the earth were curved.

We see the rays of the sun coming directly from it showing how distance from or eye's brings the sun lower and lower until it is to far away to be seen over the flat earth.

A motionless flat earth with the sun moving across the sky is exactly what we all on earth see and experience. We see the same thing from higher altitude on commercial air craft. All planes move over a flat motionless earth with no curvature to be seen. The horizon rises with altitude as one would expect on a flat plane.

But we are all supposedly seeing an illusion because the earth is said to be a globe that spins and travels around the sun. So our God created sensory perception is wrong. The world is the opposite of what God makes it seem to us to be.

Makes one wonder what else from God is an illusion?

--Dave
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
View attachment 25814

I like this picture it's worth a thousand word's. Here are a few.

We see the flat horizon. It would not be flat if the earth were curved.

We see the rays of the sun coming directly from it showing how distance from or eye's brings the sun lower and lower until it is to far away to be seen over the flat earth.

A motionless flat earth with the sun moving across the sky is exactly what we all on earth see and experience. We see the same thing from higher altitude on commercial air craft. All planes move over a flat motionless earth with no curvature to be seen. The horizon rises with altitude as one would expect on a flat plane.

But we are all supposedly seeing an illusion because the earth is said to be a globe that spins and travels around the sun. So our God created sensory perception is wrong. The world is the opposite of what God makes it seem to us to be.

Makes one wonder what else from God is an illusion?

--Dave

Dave, if you have two parallel bars, one on each side of your head, and you're looking down their length, do they appear to be getting closer farther away? Do they appear to be pointing at something that's really close?

If so, does that not contradict the fact that the bars are parallel? I tell you no, it does not. Dave, the illusion comes from one's perspective. If you were standing just next to where one of those beams touched the ground/water, all of the other ones would look like they were pointing to something just above your head, but that isn't the case now, is it?

Dave, optical illusions DO IN FACT exist. They're not just made up.

You're doing exactly what I said you were doing in my post prior to my last post. Go read that post, and respond to it first please.
 

DFT_Dave

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
So instead of responding to my points, you're ignoring them because you don't like how long my posts are? Dave, it's no wonder you can't understand anything when you have the attention span of a goldfish.

Respond to my points please. And feel free to break down my sentences to respond to each part, because if anything that I say is wrong, then the rest of what I say could be wrong.

Let's look at your responses to my points.

"Dave, everything is moving through space, the sun, the moon, AND the earth. Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?"

"No, the earth is moving around a mobile sun."

"It is not."

"No, they don't Dave. Your making your argument off of an illusion that has been clearly explained already."

"You're the one denying geometry, Dave."

"No, Dave, because it's not just our senses that we must use. We also have a mind to think, and reason, and comprehend something that at first might not make sense, but after studying it for a while we can comprehend how it works."

Not much there to respond to. You answer me more often than not with "Dave, your're wrong". I think you like my name, you use it often enough, or you're just being condescending.

Your clock example needs no reply, it's just a long version of, "Dave, you're wrong."

My clock example needs no reply either, I offered it as how the flat earth and time work in the same way. It's not a proof, but a good illustration of flat earth.

And now you compare me with a goldfish, that's condescending. Although, goldfish may feel complimented.

--Dave
 

DFT_Dave

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Dave, if you have two parallel bars, one on each side of your head, and you're looking down their length, do they appear to be getting closer farther away? Do they appear to be pointing at something that's really close?

If so, does that not contradict the fact that the bars are parallel? I tell you no, it does not. Dave, the illusion comes from one's perspective. If you were standing just next to where one of those beams touched the ground/water, all of the other ones would look like they were pointing to something just above your head, but that isn't the case now, is it?

Dave, optical illusions DO IN FACT exist. They're not just made up.

You're doing exactly what I said you were doing in my post prior to my last post. Go read that post, and respond to it first please.

The rays from the sun are not parallel, if that's what you are trying to say.

Two separate lights in the distance can appear to be one light just as two tracks can appear to become one track in the distance. Two suns side by side could also seem as one in the distance as well. But we have one sun therefor not parallel rays as if there were two suns.

--Dave
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
The rays from the sun are not parallel, if that's what you are trying to say.

Two separate lights in the distance can appear to be one light just as two tracks can appear to become one track in the distance. Two suns side by side could also seem as one in the distance as well. But we have one sun therefor not parallel rays as if there were two suns.

--Dave

Dave, As far as I'm aware, no one here has said there are two suns, so please don't make that strawman argument.

Dave, going back to the parallel bars analogy, can those two bars be attached at 90 degrees to the same wall? The obvious answer is yes.

IN THE EXACT SAME WAY, the beams of light that are present in pictures of crepuscular rays are coming from the exact same sun, just different points on the sun, because the sun is a giant sphere that is much larger than the earth. Dave, you think the surface of the earth is flat here? If it were possible to stand on the sun and not burn to a crisp, it would appear as though the sun is even flatter.

Dave, I want you to do an experiment that should show you how these rays are parallel, even though they look like they're pointing at something close by. Here is the experiment:

You will need:
1 hole punch or other object to make holes with
1 piece of black construction paper
1 flashlight
some blocks of wood or other objects to provide elevation above a surface
a room which you can eliminate all or most of the external light from
a table

Procedure:
Take a piece of black construction paper and punch a hole in the center of it, and then place it at least 4 inches above the table using the items you have to do so. Now, turn the lights off and darken the room as much as possible, and hold the flashlight about an inch or so above the paper (while it's on, of course) and compare how big the spot is on the table with how big the hole is, and measure its size. Now hold the flashlight 4 feet away (you may need someone else to help you with this experiment). Measure how big the spot is on the table. It should be smaller. You should also experiment with how the shaft of light changes when you move the flashlight around in other directions, and not just closer and farther away from the paper.

Now, puch out some holes around the first one, and repeat the experiment with the flashlight at different distances, noting the size of the spots made by the flashlight, and also their distance from each other.

Now, and here's the most relevant part of the experiment, point the flashlight at the holes at 60, 45, 30, and 15 degree angles, with the light being 4 inches away, and then again at 4 feet away. What happens to the rays at 4 inches? 4 feet?
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
You should shorten your posts. Here is a better clock example.

The hands on the clock move over a flat circular surface just as the sun and moon moves over the flat circular earth witch is the basis of time and seasons from which the clock is derived. See, short and to the point.

Also you should not comment on a single sentence since many times you take them out of text and context. It can take more than one sentence to make a point.

--Dave
Dave,

This unresponsiveness on your part is the reason you've driven everyone nearly insane on this thread.

Why are you afraid to address the arguments?

Do you believe that it is a rationally valid to ignore counter arguments and to simply jump from one refuted argument to the next? Is that how you developed your doctrine?

Why do you not only tolerate but actively display an attitude toward cosmology that neither you nor any rational third-grade child would permit into their doctrine?

It is precisely this sort of sloppy, mental laziness and irrationality that you've displayed on this thread that causes countless people to reject Christianity. You sound like a Yahweh Ben Yahweh for crying out loud. Not doctrinally, of course, but in the manner of reasoning.

You can never be convinced by arguments that you do not pay any attention too. And that is what you are doing. I've been doing this long enough to tell when someone isn't listening. Its as likely as not that you didn't even read most of JR's post.

Clete
 

DFT_Dave

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Dave, As far as I'm aware, no one here has said there are two suns, so please don't make that strawman argument.

Dave, going back to the parallel bars analogy, can those two bars be attached at 90 degrees to the same wall? The obvious answer is yes.

IN THE EXACT SAME WAY, the beams of light that are present in pictures of crepuscular rays are coming from the exact same sun, just different points on the sun, because the sun is a giant sphere that is much larger than the earth. Dave, you think the surface of the earth is flat here? If it were possible to stand on the sun and not burn to a crisp, it would appear as though the sun is even flatter.

Dave, I want you to do an experiment that should show you how these rays are parallel, even though they look like they're pointing at something close by. Here is the experiment:

You will need:
1 hole punch or other object to make holes with
1 piece of black construction paper
1 flashlight
some blocks of wood or other objects to provide elevation above a surface
a room which you can eliminate all or most of the external light from
a table

Procedure:
Take a piece of black construction paper and punch a hole in the center of it, and then place it at least 4 inches above the table using the items you have to do so. Now, turn the lights off and darken the room as much as possible, and hold the flashlight about an inch or so above the paper (while it's on, of course) and compare how big the spot is on the table with how big the hole is, and measure its size. Now hold the flashlight 4 feet away (you may need someone else to help you with this experiment). Measure how big the spot is on the table. It should be smaller. You should also experiment with how the shaft of light changes when you move the flashlight around in other directions, and not just closer and farther away from the paper.

Now, puch out some holes around the first one, and repeat the experiment with the flashlight at different distances, noting the size of the spots made by the flashlight, and also their distance from each other.

Now, and here's the most relevant part of the experiment, point the flashlight at the holes at 60, 45, 30, and 15 degree angles, with the light being 4 inches away, and then again at 4 feet away. What happens to the rays at 4 inches? 4 feet?

The sun is a singular light source, your parallel lines argument does not apply.

The sun is much smaller than the earth and is close, not far away, if we go by the rays of the sun.

--Dave
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
The sun is a singular light source, your parallel lines argument does not apply.

The sun is much smaller than the earth and is close, not far away, if we go by the rays of the sun.

--Dave

Did you do the experiment I gave you?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top