What Have The Governments Got to hide?

But--and this is a legitimate but--people 2,000 years ago certainly didn't believe that there were other peoples over here (at least the Church didn't believe it).

Hm... well, it may be a probably true point, but I disagree that it is a legitimate point.  Legitimate in the sense of vindicating Marshy's claims.  He said that certain things were possible on a round Earth because North America was uninhabited at the time.  The RE theory refutes that condition, so it's no longer a sound argument in support of the claim "such-and-such is possible on a round Earth."

As for you, Marshy:

i can argue it like a flat earther.

Try not to simply jump ship on your previous claims.  Don't forget that the whole reason you made the statement was in support of a pro-round-Earth argument, or at least, one that went along the lines of, "That's not evidence for a flat Earth because the same thing would have happened on a round Earth because blah blah blah," where as it turns out the "blah blah blah" is actually nonsense on a round Earth.

-Erasmus

Hm... well, it may be a probably true point, but I disagree that it is a legitimate point. Legitimate in the sense of vindicating Marshy's claims. He said that certain things were possible on a round Earth because North America was uninhabited at the time. The RE theory refutes that condition, so it's no longer a sound argument in support of the claim "such-and-such is possible on a round Earth."

Didn't Marshy say something like "Well, Jesus could've been shown all the kingdoms of the world because people back then thought of their local world as the world."  Except Marshy did say that there weren't any people here on North America at the time.  But the point I was making is that the people who believed the world was localized around them might have thought it correct that Jesus could've been shown all the kingdoms on top of a mountain.  It's an interesting thing... I'll think about it.  But yeah, Marshy's claims could have been arguable had he not provided a false statement to argue it.

"Well, Jesus could've been shown all the kingdoms of the world because people back then thought of their local world as the world."

As a sidenote, I'd like to point out that surely, nobody believed that there were any mountains in Palestine from which you could see, for example, Rome.  Surely, none of the mountains in Palestine were visible from Rome, so why would anybody believe the converse?  In fact, since all the mountains you could see from Rome were in Italia itself, then surely, nobody believed that you could see Rome from any mountains except possibly those in Italia.

-Erasmus

Yeah... I have no idea about all that stuff.  I'll give up and agree with what you're saying.  I've lost motivation to argue this point anyway.

Quote from: "Erasmus"

Hm... well, it may be a probably true point, but I disagree that it is a legitimate point. Legitimate in the sense of vindicating Marshy's claims. He said that certain things were possible on a round Earth because North America was uninhabited at the time. The RE theory refutes that condition, so it's no longer a sound argument in support of the claim "such-and-such is possible on a round Earth."

Didn't Marshy say something like "Well, Jesus could've been shown all the kingdoms of the world because people back then thought of their local world as the world."  Except Marshy did say that there weren't any people here on North America at the time.  But the point I was making is that the people who believed the world was localized around them might have thought it correct that Jesus could've been shown all the kingdoms on top of a mountain.  It's an interesting thing... I'll think about it.  But yeah, Marshy's claims could have been arguable had he not provided a false statement to argue it.

I agree, that was an eroor on my part. i have correctly edited my post.