You don't get it. You can quote your 95% figure, but when I point out that that means a ridiculously large part of space that makes the earth utterly insignificant, you can't just go and suddenly deny all of the science behind it, because you are quoting a figure based on that science in the first place.
Stolen Concept Fallacy
Hilarious. 95% is still 95%, regardless of the size of the pie. And frankly, the size of the standard model pie is totally unproven and based on the most groundless assumptions smh.
This is a complete non-sequitur.
Not sure why you'd say that. Either you can experimentally bounce radio waves off ionised air or you can't. I don't think it's possible.
The shape of the earth is not clearly stated in the Bible. Why would it be?
It is, the other centrepiece of God's creation. As in Gen 1:1, and the new heavens and new earth in Rev 21:1. So Biblical cosmology is a thing.
They understood less than we do now about the universe that God created. God was trying to instruct us on spiritual matters. He figures we can learn natural matters on our own.
You seem sure of that. And I say they had a more accurate basic model, being flat stationary and enclosed.
You're evading the question. If you think there are not literal bottles, wineskins, or such containers in the sky where rain comes from, and it is simply a metaphor for clouds, then you are being inconsistent. Because if your interpretation of verses suggesting a flat earth was applied to this verse too, you would be claiming a giant conspiracy to hide where rain really comes from.
No, I think the evidence of the flood is in the sky, in the form of the Great Rift (which moderns call the Milky Way for some strange reason). That would be the stitch-ed up rift in the heavens through which the water flowed freely when it inundated the earth back in the Days of Noah.
But comparing a wineskin to a cloud is a fairly straight-up analogue. I'm asking you for Biblical analogues to the spinning hurtling waterball earth with a relatively stationary sun, around which the planets revolve.
I've heard all of these nonsensical arguments before. I clearly saw it dip below the horizon and could not see it again, binoculars or no.
Mate, the optics of anything creates the illusion of merging with the horizon-line bottom first. That's due to the temperature zone just above the surface and how the brain processes the resolving power of the eye at its limits. So many examples of this. That's what I mean about putting predilections aside - don't be jumping to conclusions or making assumptions as to cause.
Again, how do you explain the appearance of the horizon line behind an object that ought to have receded over the horizon? Can't do it, and that's powerful proof.
And of course, you accuse all evidence disproving you of being part of the conspiracy. That's how conspiracy theories work. It's impossible to ever convince their proponents otherwise since they just say that everything is part of the conspiracy.
No, it's called the absence of a means of independent verification.
The US and USSR, who almost wiped each other out with nuclear weapons multiple times, were both cooperating on everything.
Almost lol. Like in the movie War Games.
he US and USSR, who almost wiped each other out with nuclear weapons multiple times, were both cooperating on everything.
Well, if you read books like Wall Street and the Rise of Communism by Anthony Sutton, you'll see the minutiae of evidence in the form of directorships, receipts, purchase orders etc showing that the owners of big industry in the US and USSR were identical. Read 'The Best Enemies Money Can Buy'.
Every airline pilot, professional and amateur astronomer, geodesist, cartographer, sailor, and about 100 other occupations, comprised of people from all over the world with vastly different political and religious philosophies, stretching back 2.5 millennia, are all in on it.
No, they're just conditioned into accepting a certain model. But for thouseands of years, all navigators, sailors, adventurers etc all used GEOCENTRIC coordinate reference systems. Basically they still do.
And there are many declassified hi-tech military white papers around showing how missiles, ballistics, and guidance systems are all developed based on the assumption of a 'flat non-rotating earth'. The evidence is really overwhelming.
Don't you want the final word? Go on.