Somehow,somewhere,somewhen

Skaloop · Nov 12, 2013

Oncedeceived said:
It is only physically possible to see a certain distance away and also atmospheric conditions at something as high as would be needed (still impossible) would counter the height. Regardless, being a flat or round earth is not a factor. The area around the mountain (tree) would be flat anyway. It is simply not a factor in concluding one or the other.

It may not be physically possible to discern any great detail beyond a certain distance, but you could see it.

Why would you need to be very high such that atmospheric conditions would come into effect? If I were standing on a flat surface, my vantage point would be about six feet above that surface. And I'd be able to view the entire surface.

And no, the area around the mountain or tree on a sperical Earth would not be flat.

Oncedeceived · Nov 12, 2013

Subduction Zone said:
He did not write that in 64. He would have been about ten at the time. He was writing about an event, a great fire in Rome, that occurred in 64 AD. Even Christian scholars agree that he wrote his line about Jesus in the second century AD:

Tacitus and Jesus. Christ Myth Refuted. Did Jesus Exist? A Christian Response

"Tacitus was a Roman historian writing early in the 2nd century A.D. "

Tacitus was born roughly 25 years after Jesus' death so he definitely was not an eyewitness.

Absolutely, I stand corrected. The date is in reference of the six day Great Fire of Rome.

The context of the passage is the six-day Great Fire of Rome that burned much of the city in AD 64 during the reign of Roman Emperor Nero.[2] The passage is one of the earliest non-Christian references to the origins of Christianity, the execution of Christ described in the Canonical gospels, and the presence and persecution of Christians in 1st-century Rome.[3][4]

Oncedeceived · Nov 12, 2013

Skaloop said:
It may not be physically possible to discern any great detail beyond a certain distance, but you could see it.

Why would you need to be very high such that atmospheric conditions would come into effect? If I were standing on a flat surface, my vantage point would be about six feet above that surface. And I'd be able to view the entire surface.

And no, the area around the mountain or tree on a sperical Earth would not be flat.

You could not see the entire earth which is the point.

Skaloop · Nov 12, 2013

Oncedeceived said:
You could not see the entire earth which is the point.

You've yet to explain why one could not.

Oncedeceived · Nov 12, 2013

Skaloop said:
You've yet to explain why one could not.

Q: If Earth was flat, would there be a horizon? If so, what would it look like? If the Earth was flat and had infinite area, would that change the answer? | Ask a Mathematician / Ask a Physicist

Skaloop · Nov 12, 2013

Oncedeceived said:
Q: If Earth was flat, would there be a horizon? If so, what would it look like? If the Earth was flat and had infinite area, would that change the answer? | Ask a Mathematician / Ask a Physicist

Did you actually read it? It's talking about an infinite flat Earth, or one of at least inter-stellar dimensions. Our Earth, if it were flat, would not be anywhere near that big. So the gravitational effect on light would be minimal.

pgp_protector · Nov 12, 2013

Skaloop said:
Did you actually read it? It's talking about an infinite flat Earth, or one of at least inter-stellar dimensions. Our Earth, if it were flat, would not be anywhere near that big. So the gravitational effect on light would be minimal.

That and a viewing point that isn't raised up any higher than 6feet

Oncedeceived · Nov 12, 2013

Skaloop said:
Did you actually read it? It's talking about an infinite flat Earth, or one of at least inter-stellar dimensions. Our Earth, if it were flat, would not be anywhere near that big. So the gravitational effect on light would be minimal.

True, but the effect would be similar correct? IF not, please provide how you can determine the whole surface of the earth could be seen from the mountain top or tree.

Subduction Zone · Nov 12, 2013

Oncedeceived said:
True, but the effect would be similar correct? IF not, please provide how you can determine the whole surface of the earth could be seen from the mountain top or tree.

It would depend on how big the world is.

Remember for very primitive tribes the world was very small. The "edge of the Earth" was no more than 25 miles away. At least it was a very rare tribesman in many areas that traveled more than that. As civilizations grew the Earth "grew " too. The Bible was written over a period of over 1,000 years. Who knows how primitive the very earliest writers were.

The Noah's Ark myth was conceivable for ancient tribes because they thought the world was quite small compared to its real size.

Oncedeceived · Nov 12, 2013

Subduction Zone said:
It would depend on how big the world is.

Remember for very primitive tribes the world was very small. The "edge of the Earth" was no more than 25 miles away. At least it was a very rare tribesman in many areas that traveled more than that. As civilizations grew the Earth "grew " too. The Bible was written over a period of over 1,000 years. Who knows how primitive the very earliest writers were.

The Noah's Ark myth was conceivable for ancient tribes because they thought the world was quite small compared to its real size.

So are you going to go back and answer my questions and respond to my points in my posts?

Subduction Zone · Nov 12, 2013

Oncedeceived said:
So are you going to go back and answer my questions and respond to my points in my posts?

I thought I did. Which post? What questions? And isn't it your turn to answer some questions?

Oncedeceived · Nov 13, 2013

Subduction Zone said:
No, I am trying to turn it back to science. I feel the evidence is strongly on my side. The word used in Isaiah refers to a circle, many other verses describe a flat Earth. There are no verses that like the Earth to a ball. Find one and I will admit that I am wrong.

I did give you one and you didn't admit you were wrong. The quote about the rapture was an evident one that you chose to ignore.

The rapture is an event that happens in a blink of the eye and one will be in bed at night and other working in the day.

Oncedeceived · Nov 13, 2013

Subduction Zone said:
It would depend on how big the world is.

Remember for very primitive tribes the world was very small. The "edge of the Earth" was no more than 25 miles away. At least it was a very rare tribesman in many areas that traveled more than that. As civilizations grew the Earth "grew " too. The Bible was written over a period of over 1,000 years. Who knows how primitive the very earliest writers were.

The Noah's Ark myth was conceivable for ancient tribes because they thought the world was quite small compared to its real size.

OK so what you are saying now is that the whole entire earth could not be seen on top the highest mountain nor tree and that it would make sense for a primitive tribe to conclude that their world was 25 miles in all directions?

I want to ask you as well, if the Biblical authors thought the world flat as you say, but that it was a circle how do you explain that there were four corners? How was the earth that was built upon pillars and the foundation hung from nothing? What were the pillars and foundation resting on if the earth was "hung" on nothing?

Oncedeceived · Nov 13, 2013

Subduction Zone said:
I thought I did. Which post? What questions? And isn't it your turn to answer some questions?

Generally when one responds to a point in another's post you make mention of it either by accepting the point, countering the point or discussing it. You seem to bring up a point and then if I answer you dismiss it without comment. So for the most part, you have dismissed the response completely or presented something new without making comment about the older post.

FatBurk · Nov 13, 2013

Oncedeceived said:
Generally when one responds to a point in another's post you make mention of it either by accepting the point, countering the point or discussing it. You seem to bring up a point and then if I answer you dismiss it without comment. So for the most part, you have dismissed the response completely or presented something new without making comment about the older post.

Are you sure SZ is not a creationist? he could be an Atheist who was once a creationist.

Oncedeceived · Nov 13, 2013

FatBurk said:
Are you sure SZ is not a creationist? he could be an Atheist who was once a creationist.

What are you talking about?

FatBurk · Nov 13, 2013

Oncedeceived said:
Generally when one responds to a point in another's post you make mention of it either by accepting the point, countering the point or discussing it. You seem to bring up a point and then if I answer you dismiss it without comment. So for the most part, you have dismissed the response completely or presented something new without making comment about the older post.

FatBurk said:
Are you sure SZ is not a creationist? he could be an Atheist who was once a creationist.

Oncedeceived said:
What are you talking about?

What you described is exactly what creationists do all the time, creationists answer questions with questions,
the reason they do that is because creationism has no answers, that's why they only ever question evolution,
creationism is a story plain and simple so it can not be questioned, all we can do is believe it or reject it,
like Santa Claus or Jack and the beanstalk.

Oncedeceived · Nov 13, 2013

FatBurk said:
What you described is exactly what creationists do all the time, creationists answer questions with questions,
the reason they do that is because creationism has no answers, that's why they only ever question evolution,
creationism is a story plain and simple so it can not be questioned, all we can do is believe it or reject it,
like Santa Claus or Jack and the beanstalk.

FatBurk, you seriously need to change up your arguments. The santa claus and other storybook characters are so trite. Just try something more inventive and creative. Use that mind for something other than old cliches and tired overused dogma. Thanks.

Davian · Nov 13, 2013

Oncedeceived said:
Generally when one responds to a point in another's post you make mention of it either by accepting the point, countering the point or discussing it.
...

Generally. Unless you are cornered. Amirite?

Oncedeceived · Nov 13, 2013

Davian said:
Generally. Unless you are cornered. Amirite?

Originally Posted by Davian

Try a "yes" or a "no" this time.

You are free to concede your claim.

Again: We don't know if they can be actually be tuned, do we? Yes or no.

Answer my question Davian.

Originally Posted by Davian

Try a "yes" or a "no" this time.

You are free to concede your claim.

Again: We don't know if they can be actually be tuned, do we? Yes or no.

Answer my question Davian.

Your answer.....NOPE.

So who was cornered Davian? I told you we would continue if you answered my question, you refused.

Somehow,somewhere,somewhen

Agnostic atheist, pro-choice anti-abortion

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Agnostic atheist, pro-choice anti-abortion

Senior Veteran

Agnostic atheist, pro-choice anti-abortion

Noted strange person

Senior Veteran

Regular Member

Senior Veteran

Regular Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

That should read FayBurk and not FatBurk.

Senior Veteran

That should read FayBurk and not FatBurk.

Senior Veteran

fallible

Senior Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency