FLAT EARTH.

[CrystalDragon]

I'm not sure what you're saying. I believe lunar eclipses occur, I just don't believe its the shadow of the Earth (in front of the sun) on the moon that causes them. I believe the moon gives off its own unique light, separate and different to the light (not reflected) from the sun.

If the moon gives off its own light, why would it have phases?

 

[Joshua_5]

If the moon gives off its own light, why would it have phases?

Genesis 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

Man has used the moon's phases for marking seasons, days and years since the beginning. This phenomena of the moon's phases does not require a spherical Earth, unless one insists that the moon's light is simply reflected sunlight (another unprovable assertion).

 

[Ken Rank]

I'm not sure what you're saying. I believe lunar eclipses occur, I just don't believe its the shadow of the Earth (in front of the sun) on the moon that causes them. I believe the moon gives off its own unique light, separate and different to the light (not reflected) from the sun.

Ah, ok thanks.

 

[SkyWriting]

The more i look into this, the more i lean towards Scripture, which describes a flat surface of the earth (within a spherical whole).

Everyone describes flat. The great salt lake flats are considered flat, despite any curve.

 

[SkyWriting]

Genesis 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

Man has used the moon's phases for marking seasons, days and years since the beginning. This phenomena of the moon's phases does not require a spherical Earth, unless one insists that the moon's light is simply reflected sunlight (another unprovable assertion).

The evidence weighs heavily that the moon reflect sunlight.
Bible believing astronauts have reach the moon and that conclusion.
I asked one of them about it myself.

 

[DarthNeo]

If the moon gives off its own light, why is there a DARK SIDE? There is no dark side of the sun - the light off the moon is a reflection.

 

[Joshua_5]

The evidence weighs heavily that the moon reflect sunlight.
Bible believing astronauts have reach the moon and that conclusion.
I asked one of them about it myself.

If the moon reflected sunlight, moonlight would warm, as sunlight does. The fact that moonlight cools and sunlight warms is evidence the lights do not have the same source, if extrabiblical evidence is required.

With respect to the moon landings, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Even some of the most basic proofs provided by the astronaut teams have turned out to be lies (e.g. the moon rocks which turned out to be fossilised wood). If they can't provide the extraordinary proof required by their extraordinary claims, and even some of their most basic proofs are found to be deceit, how can they be trusted about anything, especially above the infallible word of God? Let God be true, and every man a liar.

 

[Joshua_5]

If the moon gives off its own light, why is there a DARK SIDE? There is no dark side of the sun - the light off the moon is a reflection.

If you have never seen the other side of the moon (i.e. the "dark side"), why do you even believe that it exists?

 

[DarthNeo]

If you have never seen the other side of the moon (i.e. the "dark side"), why do you even believe that it exists?

Dude, men have been on the moon, none indicated it was giving off a glow or light of any kind...

 

[Joshua_5]

Dude, men have been on the moon, none indicated it was giving off a glow or light of any kind...

Men have claimed to have been on the moon. I find their evidence rather lacking for such a bold claim, don't you?

 

[DarthNeo]

Men have claimed to have been on the moon. I find their evidence rather lacking for such a bold claim, don't you?

So why, if you put sticks in the ground and watch the shadows through out the day, the shadows become curved...?

Try it...

 

[Joshua_5]

So why, if you put sticks in the ground and watch the shadows through out the day, the shadows become curved...?

Try it...

Curved, or elongated? Elongation is as a result of trigonometry. The further the sun, the lower the angle the light makes with the stick, the further the shadow cast.

 

[DarthNeo]

Curved, or elongated? Elongation is as a result of trigonometry. The further the sun, the lower the angle the light makes with the stick, the further the shadow cast.

Curved...(and you know it). If the earth was flat, why has NO ONE documented making it to the edge? Cmon...

 

[Joshua_5]

Curved...(and you know it).

You may have to post an example, as I've never seen this. Elongated, yes, slanted, yes. Both due to trignometry. Curved? Never on a flat surface under normal conditions.

If the earth was flat, why has NO ONE documented making it to the edge? Cmon...

That was the same argument used on the Wright brothers explaining to them why flight was impossible. It's illogical. Probably its very difficult to get to the edge while at ground level, because one would have to travel through the inhospitable edge of Antarctica.

Look up Operation Fishbowl in 1962. A strange thing to do atomic tests in the air, don't you think, given the likely fallout. Unless you knew of the edge of the Earth (i.e. the firmament) and were trying to break through.

 

[mmksparbud]

You may have to post an example, as I've never seen this. Elongated, yes, slanted, yes. Both due to trignometry. Curved? Never on a flat surface under normal conditions.

That was the same argument used on the Wright brothers explaining to them why flight was impossible. It's illogical. Probably its very difficult to get to the edge while at ground level, because one would have to travel through the inhospitable edge of Antarctica.

Look up Operation Fishbowl in 1962. A strange thing to do atomic tests in the air, don't you think, given the likely fallout. Unless you knew of the edge of the Earth (i.e. the firmament) and were trying to break through.

You mean no one can go there, let's say, by plane, balloon, helicopter, dog sleds--no way at all?? Should be no problem to get to the top of this dome by plane, where the dome meets the earth, the height will be considerably lower until it touches the edge of this flat earth. Just get as close to this edge of Antarctica as possible, then send up a balloon. it wouldn't have to go very high as it should be very close to the ground right around there.
If it was flat, and there was a dome, there is no way on this earth that someone would not have gone to the edge of the earth, or up to top of this dome by now---several times over.

 

[Joshua_5]

You mean no one can go there, let's say, by plane, balloon, helicopter, dog sleds--no way at all?? Should be no problem to get to the top of this dome by plane, where the dome meets the earth, the height will be considerably lower until it touches the edge of this flat earth. Just get as close to this edge of Antarctica as possible, then send up a balloon. it wouldn't have to go very high as it should be very close to the ground right around there.
If it was flat, and there was a dome, there is no way on this earth that someone would not have gone to the edge of the earth, or up to top of this dome by now---several times over.

There are a lot of prohibitions to exploring Antarctica now, otherwise, I agree that the case likely would have been settled by now.

Arguing that something is impossible simply because it has never been done, or documented, is illogical.

 

[Open Heart]

Agreed, if the "parallax" were actually parallax. Rather than say, a star moving about its origin in the firmament. Neither theory has been proven.

ROTFL A parallax is utterly different than a moving star. They don't look at all like the same thing. In a parallax, you have a star appear to be in two different places AT THE SAME TIME (like what happens with our binocular vision), whereas in movement you have a "star" in two different places at DIFFERENT times, which is what we call PLANETS.

 

[JackRT]

unless one insists that the moon's light is simply reflected sunlight (another unprovable assertion).

That is observed during every lunar eclipse.

If we examine our universe there are a number of observations that must be consistently explained:
1. tidal effects on earth
2. moon's near side "locked' to earth
3. phases of the moon
4. retardation of the moon's 'rising'
5. seasons of the earth
6. seasonal 24 hour days and nights in the arctic and antarctic
7. coreolis effects on earth
8. Foucault's pendulum
9. precession of the earth's axis
10. apparent daily rotation of the "fixed stars" about the pole star
11. motion of the "wandering stars" (planets) including retrograde motion
12. earth-moon centre of gravity orbits
13. eclipses of the sun, moon and planets
14. northern and southern lights
15. meteors, asteroids and comets
16. moons and/or rings around other planets
17. there are certainly other effects that I have missed

There is only one self consistent model that explains all of these observations and that is the present cosmology of our solar system. This does not explain why these objects behave as they do, it only provides a very refined model that accounts for all the observed effects.

Now add into this the experimentally verified non-relativistic laws of motion and of gravity, known as Newtonian or classical mechanics, and we now have the why that explains the model in a near perfect manner. It is so successful that it has enabled us to send people into earth and moon orbits, to the moon itself and even return to earth. We have been able to navigate probes to all the planets and beyond. People have stood on our moon and observed our planet rotating in front of them in real time. Any other cosmology finds it necessary to suspend known laws of science, hypothesize supernatural intervention and invoke a conspiracy theory extending over centuries involving tens of millions of people a great many of whom are Christian.

In Old Testament times it is certainly true that they regarded the earth as flat in a three tiered universe --- flat with a sky-dome (the firmament) overhead. Just like the rapture theory and the trinity theory, the flat earth worldview is nowhere stated explicitly but it is alluded to in many places. There are also many old testament and even a few new testament stories that are only to be understood in a flat earth context. Generally this flat earth was regarded as circular but we are in places told that it has four corners and is supported by pillars and that there are storehouses for the snow and hail. Of course this seems very primitive to us today but we must remember that these scriptures come out of a far less sophisticated culture. A culture that was deeply suspicious of anything Gentile. It may well be that some of the educated elite were aware of the Greek notion of a spherical world but with an illiteracy rate of about 90% the common people certainly were not. The scriptures were most likely written with the naivety of the common people in mind and used language that would not stretch their credulity too far.

In New Testament times, the young Christian church had a similar suspicion of paganism. Over a period of several centuries it systematically destroyed all things pagan. Temples, shrines, academies, libraries and universities were pulled down and burned. Their priests, teachers and professors were tortured and executed often in front of bloodthirsty Christian mobs. They destroyed not just spiritual works but any book even the slightest bit tainted by paganism even if it was on astronomy, medicine, engineering, technology, mathematics, geography, history or architecture. This massive loss of the underpinnings of civilization contributed in part to the decline and fall of the Roman Empire and the subsequent thousand years of the Dark Ages. In AD380 after a yet another wave of persecution, the 95 year-old hierophant Nestorius, ended the Eleusinian Mysteries and announced the predominance of mental darkness over the human race. How very ironic and prophetic!

It is little wonder then that the flat earth notion persisted so long and that the bible was used to support it. After all the flat earth was the biblical worldview. Should it concern us that the bible supported this notion? Not at all! We do not need to rush to its defense and use weasel words to somehow prove to ourselves that the bible authors had the same worldview that we do. We must realize that these authors lived in a historical context and that the language and ideas that they used fit that context as well.

 

[Joshua_5]

ROTFL A parallax is utterly different than a moving star. They don't look at all like the same thing. In a parallax, you have a star appear to be in two different places AT THE SAME TIME (like what happens with our binocular vision), whereas in movement you have a "star" in two different places at DIFFERENT times, which is what we call PLANETS.

I don't think I agree. As I understand, in times past, it was thought that at the same time and place, a star would appear in exactly the same position in the sky.

With newer technology, the belief that the Earth orbits the sun etc., it was found that there are minor discrepancies in position of stars in the sky (by small fractions of a single degree). They took these deviations (e.g. between Summer and Winter), and attributed them to being because the star is so far away, it barely changes in angle between the alleged movement of about 300million or so km of Earth's pupported orbital diameter about the sun. So to calculate the distance, take the discrepancy (a fraction of a single degree), the base of the triangle (300million km or so), and calculate the distance to the star using trignometry (and get a result in the order of several to more light years).

If these minor discrepancies in the positions of the stars in the sky are due to star movement, atmospheric conditions, experimental error, or other factors (or if the Earth is not orbiting the sun at 300million or so km, which has never been proved), such results are meaningless.

 

[mmksparbud]

There are a lot of prohibitions to exploring Antarctica now, otherwise, I agree that the case likely would have been settled by now.

Arguing that something is impossible simply because it has never been done, or documented, is illogical.

LOL! arguing there is a dome and flat earth is illogical!!!