Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Scotty CTA

The Final Globe Earth v Flat Earth Debate

Recommended Posts

When this version of the board goes to the wall I think that’s the post I’ll remember.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On Monday, January 22, 2018 at 4:09 AM, Scotty CTA said:

flat-earth-moon-inverted595.jpg?resize=5

 

On Monday, January 22, 2018 at 2:55 PM, biffer said:

In that very graphic, someone in South America would see the same view of the moon as someone in Europe. But they don't.

Not only that, the whole world would be able to see the moon at the same time!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Toepoke said:

 

Not only that, the whole world would be able to see the moon at the same time!

 

We have two scenarios here, both of which screw FE arguments big time. If the moon is distant, then that’s absolutely true, it would be permanently visible. 

If, though, as generally claimed it’s near, then you wouldn’t see it everywhere. But you’d clearly see it getting smaller the further away you went, and at some point (assuming it’s becoming invisible for distance or perspective reasons) it should be tiny/pinprick size before completely vanishing. At which point it should become visible through a telescope. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Huddersfield said:

We have two scenarios here, both of which screw FE arguments big time. If the moon is distant, then that’s absolutely true, it would be permanently visible. 

If, though, as generally claimed it’s near, then you wouldn’t see it everywhere. But you’d clearly see it getting smaller the further away you went, and at some point (assuming it’s becoming invisible for distance or perspective reasons) it should be tiny/pinprick size before completely vanishing. At which point it should become visible through a telescope. 

Aye the moon wouldn't rise and set but enlarge and contract!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Toepoke said:

Aye the moon wouldn't rise and set but enlarge and contract!

 

Same is true of the Sun - it'd also follow a different path across the sky.

Edited by biffer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, biffer said:

Same is true of the Sun - it'd also follow a different path across the sky.

Yep, sun would never set either, presumably shrinking to become another star in the night sky.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Orraloon said:

I think you guys might be overthinking this a wee bit?:lol:

I reckon in a way it’s a useful exercise. I’ve enjoyed this thread a lot because I started to think to myself can I prove what I think I know, or am I just choosing different books to put my faith in?

So looking at all the images and “arguments” presented & challenging myself to prove why they were wrong in ways I can get hold of (I “know” the ISS is up there but I’ve never been) is a good philosophical exercise. 

In my head though the question then arises about why people still get drawn in to a position that is so easily disprovable & what that says about modern humanity. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Huddersfield said:

I reckon in a way it’s a useful exercise. I’ve enjoyed this thread a lot because I started to think to myself can I prove what I think I know, or am I just choosing different books to put my faith in?

 

Agree with that, and was very impressed with the elegance and simplicity of your proof.

For me though, the keeper from this thread is Scotty's admission that the Bible contains figurative language that should not be taken literally. He's right, of course, but it means he not only fails 'Bible-believing Flat Earther 101', it also undermines any attempt to use Biblical texts to make truth-claims about the nature of the physical world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Huddersfield said:

I reckon in a way it’s a useful exercise. I’ve enjoyed this thread a lot because I started to think to myself can I prove what I think I know, or am I just choosing different books to put my faith in?

So looking at all the images and “arguments” presented & challenging myself to prove why they were wrong in ways I can get hold of (I “know” the ISS is up there but I’ve never been) is a good philosophical exercise. 

In my head though the question then arises about why people still get drawn in to a position that is so easily disprovable & what that says about modern humanity. 

Aye but what's that to do with flat suasages ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, phart said:

Nothing modern about humans ability to deceive themselves.

True, but it's intriguing (to me anyway) that, at least as I perceive it, the more information that is actually available to humanity, the greater the capacity to willfully choose false information.

 

Just now, mariokempes56 said:

Aye but what's that to do with flat suasages ?

I will cut & paste several chapters of verse plus send you my wurst analysis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Huddersfield said:

True, but it's intriguing (to me anyway) that, at least as I perceive it, the more information that is actually available to humanity, the greater the capacity to willfully choose false information.

 

I will cut & paste several chapters of verse plus send you my wurst analysis.

Guid lad..

 

Nah seriously it has been oddly interesting asking questions of myself about "why" this or "that" is so obviously right . And the point you made that despite all the evidence some choose the very other path ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/21/2018 at 11:42 PM, DonnyTJS said:

Are you really so self-blind? Of course I know it could be figurative. That's my whole point. Exactly the same argument could be made, for example, for Isaiah 40:22 (your source for the circularity of the Earth - according to that graphic you posted): "It is he that sitteth upon the  circle of the Earth" - that reads like poetry to me. 

I've repeatedly said all along that the Bible is comprised of history, law, parables, prophecy, literal truth, poetry, song, etc.

You, in sneaky gatekeeper mode as always, keep attempting to set up a 'straw man' that I take everything in the Bible as literal (which has never, and couldn't be, the case).

On 1/21/2018 at 11:42 PM, DonnyTJS said:

 You cannot cherry-pick from the Bible what is figurative and what is literal fact...

I don't.

One can differentiate through study (and not the legalism you use).

I take all of the verses/clues relating to the shape of the earth and arrive at a conclusion.

Playing devil's advocate... the Bible never says anything along the lines of the earth being a 'ball' hurtling through space at tremendous speeds around the sun.

Nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/21/2018 at 9:16 PM, DonnyTJS said:

Take this example from a while back when you were getting all hot and bothered (not true) about naked witches and making false claims about the etymology of hex to mean spell (in a Shay Logan thread of all places):

 

On 1/21/2018 at 10:53 PM, Scotty CTA said:

Hex does mean spell...

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hex

 

On 1/21/2018 at 11:42 PM, DonnyTJS said:

I know it means spell. Trying to muddy the waters, Scotty?

So, what exactly is your problem?

On 1/21/2018 at 11:42 PM, DonnyTJS said:

You were claiming that it means spell because of the Greek word for 'six'. It doesn't, as I showed. It means spell because of the Germanic word for 'hag'.

I didn't because I had no idea of what the Greek word for six was (and I had never heard of the word 'etymology').

(Go back and prove your claim for everyone to see, please.)

I only explained the correlation between 'hex' and 'spell' in relation to six witches casting a spell sitting naked at the six

points of a large painted hexagram on the floor. 

You just got carried away in your own head (again) trying to come up with another 'straw man'.

On 1/21/2018 at 11:42 PM, DonnyTJS said:

But you did say in that thread that what you were claiming was 'the truth'. You have said in this thread that I have never debunked you.

And I stand by that.

Where have you debunked me?

On 1/21/2018 at 11:42 PM, DonnyTJS said:

Anyroad, continue to troll the thread with shite... 

I'm sorry... Who is it that's getting hot and bothered? 

And I can't troll my own thread.

(That can only be your role.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/22/2018 at 1:41 AM, Huddersfield said:

Hi Scotty & welcome back - I hope you enjoyed your trip (did I read somewhere you were in Havana?).

Thank you.

Yes, Havana.

First time there.

Some will know that that I am a keen photographer, and wanted to shoot down there before the Americans started to make 'Western' changes.

Will try and post a couple of pics once I've had time to look through them.

(Will have to read the rest of your post later.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Scotty CTA said:

So, what exactly is your problem?

I didn't because I had no idea of what the Greek word for six was (and I had never heard of the word 'etymology').

(Go back and prove your claim for everyone to see, please.)

I only explained the correlation between 'hex' and 'spell' in relation to six witches casting a spell sitting naked at the six

points of a large painted hexagram on the floor. 

[...]

Where have you debunked me?

If you insist:

On ‎28‎/‎02‎/‎2015 at 6:53 PM, Scotty CTA said:

Why is a 'spell' sometimes referred to as a 'hex'?

Because when casting a (big important) spell it takes 6 witches to sit naked and cross-legged on the points of a HEXagram that has been marked on the floor.

 

On ‎01‎/‎03‎/‎2015 at 11:16 PM, Scotty CTA said:

'Hexa' means 'six' in the relevant 'New Testament' language of Greek btw.

 

On ‎02‎/‎03‎/‎2015 at 5:38 PM, DonnyTJS said:

 What you posted was this: "Why is a 'spell' sometimes referred to as a 'hex'? Because when casting a (big important) spell it takes 6 witches to sit naked and cross-legged on the points of a HEXagram that has been marked on the floor." You are positing a causal relationship between 'hexa' being the Greek word for 'six' and 'hex' being another word for 'spell' (it's the use of 'because' that gives it away). There is no such causal relationship. Your post was incorrect.

I'll give it one more go. A spell isn't sometimes called a hex because of hex being Ancient Greek for six. A spell is sometimes called a hex because the German word for witch is hexe, a word which is comes from the same root as English hag. It entered the English language in the mid-1800s via the German-speaking community in Pennsylvania.

On the off-chance that anyone's actually interested, here's the arithmetic:

hrwvpe.png

2nip4yb.jpg

That's what I mean by 'debunking'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Scotty CTA said:

I've repeatedly said all along that the Bible is comprised of history, law, parables, prophecy, literal truth, poetry, song, etc.

 

I honestly don't think I recall that. But I'll take your word for it. So, as I said, you cherry-pick.

 

4 hours ago, Scotty CTA said:

One can differentiate through study (and not the legalism you use).

I take all of the verses/clues relating to the shape of the earth and arrive at a conclusion.

And so that conclusion is your own human, and therefore fallible, construct. Nothing wrong in that, but since you have chosen (based on study) which verses apply to the natural world and which are merely figurative then you cannot claim any divine basis for their accuracy - the basis for your claims is your faith in your own ability at cherry picking.

4 hours ago, Scotty CTA said:

Playing devil's advocate... the Bible never says anything along the lines of the earth being a 'ball' hurtling through space at tremendous speeds around the sun.

Nothing.

And there's a very good reason for that. The Bible is not a reliable source for accurate descriptions of the nature of the physical cosmos. Since there is no objective difference between Isaiah 40:22 (the Earth is circular) and Revelation 7:1 (the Earth has four corners), it cannot be reliable. All we can say is that you choose to accept the Isaiah verse as literal and the Revelation verse as figurative (interesting that you reject the truth of the New Testament verse, by the way), and your studious opinion, if you don't mind my saying so, isn't a good basis for cosmological theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

then you will know how much you have been duped by the Luciferians in their secret societies headed by the Jesuits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×