Search results

The scriptures teach that here soon God will recreate the earth, and there's evidence in scripture that this has happened before. It is just one big flat tapestry He's dealing with after all. It's like resetting a large table.

I normally don't do this, but if you're going to keep responding on a flat earth thread, you should at least be aware of some of the basics of the concept. Circumnavigation on a globe and a flat earth both result in a circular course. This video gives a brief simplified overview of the concept...

Again, he said what he said. His words, not mine. You are pitting Newton against Newton.

I never said any of that. I'm not sure we can have these conversations if you aren't even going to attempt to understand it.

Well, no. He didn't. But you are free to keep thinking anything you want. That didn't happen either, but again, your faith is in science, so you do you. At least if you had a deep faith in science, you would examine the issues presented against it. But I suppose you are one of the lukewarm...

If you want to learn about flat earth, I will provide sources of information, but I'm not concerned with convincing you myself. If you really want to know, you'd be willing to put in the work like the rest of us. If not, then you are just looking for an argument.

There's nothing crazy about that, except to those who don't understand it. Learn about its merits and you'll see it's not 'crazy', just different. And then at some point, you'll find it's also accurate as well.

What crazy belief?

How so?

Let me address this a little bit more. These predictions were in place long before Newton, as evidenced through such mechanisms as the Antikythera device. It's not Newton or anything that came from his work that did that. The only thing that arose from that are formulas to show how such things...

Yup. Did you know on both a globe and a flat earth, that course is still circular?

Actually, it was FB that brought Newton up and mentioned him multiple times in the short post I was responding to. It was his attempt to correct me through the 'appeal to authority' logical fallacy. I never mentioned him before that. Afterwords, what you all were responding to was a direct quote...

It says what it says. You're just trying to obfuscate.

Hmm, interesting. Link works now. I'll add it again. Original letter from Isaac Newton to Richard Bentley (Normalized) His work led him to believe gravity in a vacuum was absurd. So if others came along later and said it wasn't, the it wasn't Newton's work, regardless of whose name got slapped...

You mean this Newton? Tis unconceivable that inanimate brute matter should (without the mediation of something else which is not material) operate upon & affect other matter without mutual contact; as it must if gravitation in the sense of Epicurus be essential & inherent in it. And this is one...

That's a problem with science, there are always changes. It's not stable in the least. Besides, 'science' is still telling you that you are hurtling on a ball in the vacuum of space in multiple directions at over 2 million miles per hour, while a gravitational force that cannot be measured keeps...

There actually aren't any parts that don't involve God. Scripture is filled to the brim with type and shadow He has provided us.

Oh, I know there are people who cliam not to believe in God, but I also know that their entire foundation of what they consider knowledge is faith. At some point they have to choose their foundational 'truth', and at that point, their entire foundation becomes faith-based. Atheism is just...

And here is where you lose me for good when you tout your reasoning skills. I'm almost at a loss for words. That was really, really bad.

Ok. Support this claim. "Here is one clue, you cannot use a source to defend a source. In other words you cannot use the Bible to defend the Bible, especially since it does fail quite often." You do realize the Bible isn't one source, but rather a collection of dozens of sources, correct?