Youtube convinces people the earth is flat

[SeventyOne]

He doesn't seem like he would ever have been a Flat Earther. Do you have video evidence that he did ?

I didn't say he would have been a flat earther. I said he cited flat earth experiments and scriptures.

His stuff is on the YouTube channel 'Still Water'. I would post one from there for you, but then according to the original premise of this thread, it would automatically be deemed false.

 

[A_Thinker]

And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is indeed at work in you who believe.

You do realize that the speaker of your reference is Paul, who clearly identified some of his teachings as ... his own viewpoint ...

1 Corinthians 7:12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.

 

[Astrophile]

Yup. I know. I read it. I never made the claim that the whole of the firmament was a nitrogen-oxygen atmosphere.

So why did you give us the link if not to create the impression that the Moon is very close to the Earth?

 

[SeventyOne]

So why did you give us the link if not to create the impression that the Moon is very close to the Earth?

I quoted the article to show science inching closer to the truth. Around 150-200 years ago science was telling us through experimentation that the earth was motionless and the stars and ether rotated above us. Einstein came along and set back science a good century or so with his relativity theory. Every inch away from that screw up is an inch in the right direction.

 

[Astrophile]

I quoted the article to show science inching closer to the truth. Around 150-200 years ago science was telling us through experimentation that the earth was motionless and the stars and ether rotated above us. Einstein came along and set back science a good century or so with his relativity theory. Every inch away from that screw up is an inch in the right direction.

No. 200 years ago, in 1819, it was well established that the Earth (which is spherical) was in orbit around the Sun, and scientists such as Laplace, Gauss and Bouvard were using the heliocentric theory and Newton's theory of dynamics and gravitation to predict the movements of planets, asteroids and comets. Also, what do the luminiferous aether and Einstein's theories of relativity have to do with the shape of the Earth and the distance of the Moon?

 

[SeventyOne]

No. 200 years ago, in 1819, it was well established that the Earth (which is spherical) was in orbit around the Sun, and scientists such as Laplace, Gauss and Bouvard were using the heliocentric theory and Newton's theory of dynamics and gravitation to predict the movements of planets, asteroids and comets. Also, what do the luminiferous aether and Einstein's theories of relativity have to do with the shape of the Earth and the distance of the Moon?

You asked me why I posted it and I've told you why. We'll have to agree to disagree in the implications.

 

[d taylor]

You do realize that the speaker of your reference is Paul, who clearly identified some of his teachings as ... his own viewpoint ...

1 Corinthians 7:12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.

Paul is saying, now it is not Jesus teaching this, because the above verses Paul states not I but the Lord :
A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.
That was what Jesus taught when he was on the earth, now Jesus is not there in person, it is no longer Jesus teaching in person, plus Jesus did not address this in His ministry.
What Paul is addressing now is new revelation for the church and since Jesus is not there in person to give instruction it is Paul and not the Lord there teaching.

 

[Ophiolite]

You asked me why I posted it and I've told you why. We'll have to agree to disagree in the implications.

I do not know what you were implying, but for me the clear inference from your post of an assertion that is totally wrong/completely false/egregiously nonsensical is that your posts should probably be ignored. I imagine you think there is a different implication (but you should think: different inference).

 

[Petros2015]

 

[SeventyOne]

I do not know what you were implying, but for me the clear inference from your post of an assertion that is totally wrong/completely false/egregiously nonsensical is that your posts should probably be ignored. I imagine you think there is a different implication (but you should think: different inference).

Maybe you should go back go ignoring me. You don't seem to have a clue about what I say anyway.

 

[Strathos]

I just thought of another argument against a flat earth: Seismic waves. They can be monitored from earthquakes and volcanic eruptions and tracked as they circle the globe (including through and past Antarctica).

But I suppose all of the seismologists are just in on the conspiracy too, right?