« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 11   Go Down

"Conspiracy" is not a valid argument

  • 320 Replies
  • 76904 Views
*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8738
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« Reply #150 on: June 12, 2008, 04:30:25 PM »
I'm curious why a Christian would not embrace FE when the Bible is a FE book.
Logged
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."
*

lindelof

  • 422
  • DADA IS NOT DEAD. WATCH YOUR OVERCOAT.
Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« Reply #151 on: June 12, 2008, 04:32:00 PM »
First of all, let's not frikkan turn this into a jesus argument.  There are already enuff of those on the internet already.

Secondly,

Quote from: Ski on June 12, 2008, 04:30:25 PM
I'm curious why a Christian would not embrace FE when the Bible is a FE book.

most Christian's don't use the Bible as a science textbook Ski, you should know that.  Really.
Logged
*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« Reply #152 on: June 12, 2008, 04:32:31 PM »
Quote from: Shaydawg on June 12, 2008, 04:25:29 PM
No, I know him personally and he is probably the least gullible person I have ever met. Besides you are not misinterpreting math and physics. Pretty ignorant statement. Sorry but 1 +1 = 2 and there is no other way to interpret that.

Also, saying there is lack of evidence that Jesus was who he said he was, which was not the son of God but actually God himself is there. I am not here to debate his authenticity with you though. I have plenty of forums I can go to and find intelligent debate on the subject. You may want to look into the amount of prophecies he filled to the exact tee before you say such things. Such a statement in an intellectual debate on the subject would discredit you.

Here is just a partial list of fullfilled prophecies. http://christiananswers.net/dictionary/messianicprophecies.html

Again, I am not trying to get you to believe his authenticity, just wanted to show you there is intellectual debate to be had.

Further more saying my friend is deceived is not a valid argument against his claims. You would have to disprove his finding and be knowledgeable enough in Astrophysics to even have a discussion with him of any merit which I doubt you or anyone else on here is capable based solely education and accomplishments. But that is just a guess from seeing what I have seen so far.   

First of all, complex physics and mathematics are not the same as 1+1=2.  If there was no ambiguity to how math should be interpreted then Newton would have been right about gravity (he wasn't) and quantum theory wouldn't be the mystery it is.

Second, I'm not here to get into a religious debate either, but how do you respond to the fact that many intelligent people are Buddhists, or Jews, or Muslims?  The members of all religions but the right one (if such a thing exists) must all be of below average intelligence by your reasoning.

Stupidity != gullibility.

And this is my final word on the subject of religion, but have you looked into all the prophecies that didn't come true, or were altered by the early Church to fit Christian dogma?
Logged
Quote from: wise on August 21, 2018, 11:47:45 PM
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?
*

Shaydawg

  • 245
Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« Reply #153 on: June 12, 2008, 04:33:05 PM »
Quote from: Ski on June 12, 2008, 04:30:25 PM
I'm curious why a Christian would not embrace FE when the Bible is a FE book.

Really?

lol

I dont think there is one account of a prophet or God saying the bible that the earth is flat. Would love to read it though.
Logged
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17933
Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« Reply #154 on: June 12, 2008, 04:33:55 PM »
Quote
No, I know him personally and he is probably the least gullible person I have ever met. Besides you are not misinterpreting math and physics. Pretty ignorant statement. Sorry but 1 +1 = 2 and there is no other way to interpret that.

1 + 1 = 2 is wrong when the math you are using is not in Base 10.

As with the above example, the problem with RE is that the underlying premise is entirely wrong in the first place. You can calculate orbital mechanics and publish it in a scientific journal. You can write a detailed thesis on the physics of a satellite. but none of it matters when it's impossible for any body to orbit the earth in the first place.

Quote
I dont think there is one account of a prophet or God saying the bible that the earth is flat. Would love to read it though.

There are many passages in the Christian Bible which imply that the earth is flat.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2008, 04:38:03 PM by Tom Bishop »
Logged
*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8738
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« Reply #155 on: June 12, 2008, 04:34:41 PM »
Quote from: lindelof on June 12, 2008, 04:32:00 PM
Quote from: Ski on June 12, 2008, 04:30:25 PM
I'm curious why a Christian would not embrace FE when the Bible is a FE book.

most Christian's don't use the Bible as a science textbook Ski, you should know that.  Really.

The ones that don't have reasons. I just asked why. I didn't say, "You must believe the earth is flat if you believe any part of the Bible." And some Christians do use the Bible as a text book.
Logged
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."
*

lindelof

  • 422
  • DADA IS NOT DEAD. WATCH YOUR OVERCOAT.
Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« Reply #156 on: June 12, 2008, 04:37:52 PM »
Quote from: Ski on June 12, 2008, 04:34:41 PM

The ones that don't have reasons. I just asked why.

Oh.

Probably because the Earth is Round.  And they don't want to religiously believe things that are clearly false.
Logged
*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8738
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« Reply #157 on: June 12, 2008, 04:38:18 PM »
Quote from: Shaydawg on June 12, 2008, 04:33:05 PM
Quote from: Ski on June 12, 2008, 04:30:25 PM
I'm curious why a Christian would not embrace FE when the Bible is a FE book.

Really?

lol

I dont think there is one account of a prophet or God saying the bible that the earth is flat. Would love to read it though.

http://www.hofesh.org.il/articles/science/geocentric.html
Logged
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."
*

Shaydawg

  • 245
Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« Reply #158 on: June 12, 2008, 04:39:55 PM »
Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 12, 2008, 04:32:31 PM
Quote from: Shaydawg on June 12, 2008, 04:25:29 PM
No, I know him personally and he is probably the least gullible person I have ever met. Besides you are not misinterpreting math and physics. Pretty ignorant statement. Sorry but 1 +1 = 2 and there is no other way to interpret that.

Also, saying there is lack of evidence that Jesus was who he said he was, which was not the son of God but actually God himself is there. I am not here to debate his authenticity with you though. I have plenty of forums I can go to and find intelligent debate on the subject. You may want to look into the amount of prophecies he filled to the exact tee before you say such things. Such a statement in an intellectual debate on the subject would discredit you.

Here is just a partial list of fullfilled prophecies. http://christiananswers.net/dictionary/messianicprophecies.html

Again, I am not trying to get you to believe his authenticity, just wanted to show you there is intellectual debate to be had.

Further more saying my friend is deceived is not a valid argument against his claims. You would have to disprove his finding and be knowledgeable enough in Astrophysics to even have a discussion with him of any merit which I doubt you or anyone else on here is capable based solely education and accomplishments. But that is just a guess from seeing what I have seen so far.   

First of all, complex physics and mathematics are not the same as 1+1=2.  If there was no ambiguity to how math should be interpreted then Newton would have been right about gravity (he wasn't) and quantum theory wouldn't be the mystery it is.

Second, I'm not here to get into a religious debate either, but how do you respond to the fact that many intelligent people are Buddhists, or Jews, or Muslims?  The members of all religions but the right one (if such a thing exists) must all be of below average intelligence by your reasoning.

Stupidity != gullibility.

And this is my final word on the subject of religion, but have you looked into all the prophecies that didn't come true, or were altered by the early Church to fit Christian dogma?

I sent you a PM by the way.

People of all those religions dont debate with each other on the validity of a God. It is unprovable by a human hand so it is a moot point. There is plenty of debate between people of those religions you probably just dont care enough about it to look into it. I have been in debates with people of every religion you mentioned as to their authenticity. Doesnt mean they are dumb or gullible. Religion digs a little deeper in the soul for most people then FE vs RE does. The difference is that there is provable evidence when studying the physical universe as opposed to studying the supernatural. Not really the same thing.

And if you knew how the scriptures we have today came to be then you would not use their authenticity as an argument. Like I said, I have spent too many hours on forums where these debates are welcome. It is not something I want to get into here because it has no place in the debate about FE and RE.
Logged
*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« Reply #159 on: June 12, 2008, 04:41:47 PM »
Quote from: Shaydawg on June 12, 2008, 04:39:55 PM
And if you knew how the scriptures we have today came to be then you would not use their authenticity as an argument.

What, you mean the ones that were written decades after the events supposedly took place?  ???
Logged
Quote from: wise on August 21, 2018, 11:47:45 PM
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?
*

Shaydawg

  • 245
Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« Reply #160 on: June 12, 2008, 04:42:29 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 12, 2008, 04:33:55 PM
Quote
No, I know him personally and he is probably the least gullible person I have ever met. Besides you are not misinterpreting math and physics. Pretty ignorant statement. Sorry but 1 +1 = 2 and there is no other way to interpret that.

1 + 1 = 2 is wrong when the math you are using is not in Base 10.

As with the above example, the problem with RE is that the underlying premise is entirely wrong in the first place. You can calculate orbital mechanics and publish it in a scientific journal. You can write a detailed thesis on the physics of a satellite. but none of it matters when it's impossible for any body to orbit the earth in the first place.

Quote
I dont think there is one account of a prophet or God saying the bible that the earth is flat. Would love to read it though.

There are many passages in the Christian Bible which imply that the earth is flat.

I am sure there are plenty considering back when it was written people believed it was. Like I said, there is not one prophecy or one place in the bible where God Himself has said it. Not that I know of. You would have to prove it to me but I wouldnt care anyway, it is not what we are here to debate.
Logged
*

Shaydawg

  • 245
Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« Reply #161 on: June 12, 2008, 04:45:05 PM »
Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 12, 2008, 04:41:47 PM
Quote from: Shaydawg on June 12, 2008, 04:39:55 PM
And if you knew how the scriptures we have today came to be then you would not use their authenticity as an argument.

What, you mean the ones that were written decades after the events supposedly took place?  ???

Decades? lol


And the gospels were written by and from the notes of eye witnesses except the book of Mark. Mark was a student of Paul though.

Many of Pauls letters were written well after the fact yes. That proves nothing though because Paul did not write a gospel. Only Mathew Luke and John did.
Logged
*

lindelof

  • 422
  • DADA IS NOT DEAD. WATCH YOUR OVERCOAT.
Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« Reply #162 on: June 12, 2008, 04:45:37 PM »
Guys let's not go down this road.  Nothing good can come of it.
Logged
*

Shaydawg

  • 245
Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« Reply #163 on: June 12, 2008, 04:47:51 PM »
Quote from: lindelof on June 12, 2008, 04:45:37 PM
Guys let's not go down this road.  Nothing good can come of it.

I am trying to avoid it

It is obvious though that those who stay here or have been here for awhile enjoy debating or we would have left a long time ago.

It is like throwing a fat kid in a candy store and telling him not to eat anything.
Logged
*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« Reply #164 on: June 12, 2008, 04:51:50 PM »
Quote from: Shaydawg on June 12, 2008, 04:45:05 PM
Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 12, 2008, 04:41:47 PM
Quote from: Shaydawg on June 12, 2008, 04:39:55 PM
And if you knew how the scriptures we have today came to be then you would not use their authenticity as an argument.

What, you mean the ones that were written decades after the events supposedly took place?  ???

Decades? lol

Decades, that's correct.  The earliest Gospel (Mark) is dated AD 65-70, about 30-40 years after Jesus' death.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2008, 05:00:24 PM by Roundy the Truthinessist »
Logged
Quote from: wise on August 21, 2018, 11:47:45 PM
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?
*

Shaydawg

  • 245
Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« Reply #165 on: June 12, 2008, 05:03:31 PM »
Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 12, 2008, 04:51:50 PM
Quote from: Shaydawg on June 12, 2008, 04:45:05 PM
Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 12, 2008, 04:41:47 PM
Quote from: Shaydawg on June 12, 2008, 04:39:55 PM
And if you knew how the scriptures we have today came to be then you would not use their authenticity as an argument.

What, you mean the ones that were written decades after the events supposedly took place?  ???

Decades? lol

Decades, that's correct.  The earliest Gospel (Mark) is dated AD 65-70, about 30-40 years after Jesus' death.

I understand. For some reason I thought "century" when you wrote decade. I do that sometimes. 

Three of them were still written by eye witnesses. If you discredit them then you would have to discredit anyone who has ever written a biography if you think writing something well after it happens means it is not valid.

I hope that is not your argument.
Logged
*

Shaydawg

  • 245
Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« Reply #166 on: June 12, 2008, 05:04:19 PM »
And did you get my PM or not Roundy?

Dont know if I sent it correctly since it was my first one on here.
Logged
*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« Reply #167 on: June 12, 2008, 05:16:45 PM »
Quote from: Shaydawg on June 12, 2008, 05:03:31 PM
Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 12, 2008, 04:51:50 PM
Quote from: Shaydawg on June 12, 2008, 04:45:05 PM
Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 12, 2008, 04:41:47 PM
Quote from: Shaydawg on June 12, 2008, 04:39:55 PM
And if you knew how the scriptures we have today came to be then you would not use their authenticity as an argument.

What, you mean the ones that were written decades after the events supposedly took place?  ???

Decades? lol

Decades, that's correct.  The earliest Gospel (Mark) is dated AD 65-70, about 30-40 years after Jesus' death.

I understand. For some reason I thought "century" when you wrote decade. I do that sometimes. 

Three of them were still written by eye witnesses. If you discredit them then you would have to discredit anyone who has ever written a biography if you think writing something well after it happens means it is not valid.

I hope that is not your argument.

I think most people would discredit such a biography if it included the kinds of fantastic details included in the Gospels, but that's beside the point.  It's actually more generally accepted that Mark, Matthew, and Luke did not write the Gospels themselves anymore than John did.  In fact, Matthew and Luke are purported to borrow elements from Mark.  They are not literally eye-witness accounts, that's just how they were presented (the better to gain legitimacy among the people).

In addition, the Gospels were written as propaganda.  Their specific intent was to influence the beliefs of people.  Personally, I don't consider propaganda to have the same level of legitimacy that I consider an authentic historical work to have.
Logged
Quote from: wise on August 21, 2018, 11:47:45 PM
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?
?

Robbyj

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 5459
Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« Reply #168 on: June 12, 2008, 05:21:09 PM »
Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 12, 2008, 05:16:45 PM
Personally, I don't consider propaganda to have the same level of legitimacy that I consider an authentic historical work to have.

Whether a written document is propaganda or authentically historical is a subjective opinion.  History and fact, in general, are not interchangeable.
Logged
Quote from: Raist on January 22, 2009, 09:27:08 PM
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?
*

Shaydawg

  • 245
Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« Reply #169 on: June 12, 2008, 05:27:20 PM »
Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 12, 2008, 05:16:45 PM
Quote from: Shaydawg on June 12, 2008, 05:03:31 PM
Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 12, 2008, 04:51:50 PM
Quote from: Shaydawg on June 12, 2008, 04:45:05 PM
Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 12, 2008, 04:41:47 PM
Quote from: Shaydawg on June 12, 2008, 04:39:55 PM
And if you knew how the scriptures we have today came to be then you would not use their authenticity as an argument.

What, you mean the ones that were written decades after the events supposedly took place?  ???

Decades? lol

Decades, that's correct.  The earliest Gospel (Mark) is dated AD 65-70, about 30-40 years after Jesus' death.

I understand. For some reason I thought "century" when you wrote decade. I do that sometimes. 

Three of them were still written by eye witnesses. If you discredit them then you would have to discredit anyone who has ever written a biography if you think writing something well after it happens means it is not valid.

I hope that is not your argument.

I think most people would discredit such a biography if it included the kinds of fantastic details included in the Gospels, but that's beside the point.  It's actually more generally accepted that Mark, Matthew, and Luke did not write the Gospels themselves anymore than John did.  In fact, Matthew and Luke are purported to borrow elements from Mark.  They are not literally eye-witness accounts, that's just how they were presented (the better to gain legitimacy among the people).

In addition, the Gospels were written as propaganda.  Their specific intent was to influence the beliefs of people.  Personally, I don't consider propaganda to have the same level of legitimacy that I consider an authentic historical work to have.

For one, stop reading Wiki for information.

Two, Mathew Luke and John were disciples. They were eye witnesses.

Propaganda? That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Why would anyone write and do the things they did, putting their life on the line, and being under some of serious religious persecution just to spread propaganda? There was no need for another religion. I cant even tell you how dumb of a statement that is. If you had one ounce of knowledge of what the apostles went through you would never have said such a thing. Try reading one chapter in Foxes Book of Martyrs and then we can continue this conversation. Until then Im done.

And thanks for answering my question about the PM. I only asked twice and it was a simple yes or no answer.
Logged
?

Robbyj

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 5459
Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« Reply #170 on: June 12, 2008, 05:52:53 PM »
So, in an attempt to get back on topic:

Quote from: ghazwozza on June 12, 2008, 04:31:57 AM
Also, dyno has explained that these technologies are not so far beyond common experience as you claim.

In this discussion technology is not a valid argument.  Nuclear powered submarines were in use in this period of time that employ much of the same technology used in manufacturing space delivery systems, minus the rocket technology of course.  All the life support and environmental control systems are similar if not identical in both cases.  Also, the use of shielding and superalloys are very similar.  The main discussion point, which was not stated or lost somewhere along the way, is that sustained space flight is not possible in FE.  Not so much due to current technology, but due to the nature of FET itself.
Logged
Quote from: Raist on January 22, 2009, 09:27:08 PM
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?
*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« Reply #171 on: June 12, 2008, 06:03:38 PM »
Quote from: Shaydawg on June 12, 2008, 05:27:20 PM
Propaganda? That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Why would anyone write and do the things they did, putting their life on the line, and being under some of serious religious persecution just to spread propaganda? There was no need for another religion. I cant even tell you how dumb of a statement that is. If you had one ounce of knowledge of what the apostles went through you would never have said such a thing. Try reading one chapter in Foxes Book of Martyrs and then we can continue this conversation. Until then Im done.

It was propaganda, by definition.  And as pointed out, the apostles did not write the Gospels, so I don't see what bearing what they went through has to do with this discussion.  To be honest, I also find it somewhat damning that there is no record of what the apostles went through either, until long after the events took place.  History is silent about Jesus, and his cult, prior to the writing of the Gospels.  And about Herod's atrocities, although it seems to delight in revealing the atrocities committed by the various emperors of the time.  Can you point me to a single contemporary reference outside of the Bible that even mentions the Massacre of the Innocents?

You seem to imply that I don't know what I'm talking about; in fact, religion has been an interest of mine for years, and I've read quite a bit on the subject, running the gamut from theological to philosophical to historical.  I have yet to encounter anything that has led me to consider the Gospels to be a legitimate historical record.

Fox's Book of Martyrs reads like scripture.  Thanks, but I'd rather not.  We can be done with this if you like; arguing with fundies gets tiresome because you tend to be so rigid and unyielding in your commitment to dogma.  Nothing I say will change your mind anymore than anything you say will change my mind, so it's ultimately pointless.  I will point out that what you say about the persecution of Christians can just as easily be said about the early Muslims; does that mean that we should treat the Koran as historical fact?

I did get your PM, by the way.  I'm just not sure what you want me to do with it.



Logged
Quote from: wise on August 21, 2018, 11:47:45 PM
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?
?

Robbyj

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 5459
Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« Reply #172 on: June 12, 2008, 06:09:42 PM »
Everything that we consider today as historical fact from that era is essentially propaganda.  The Roman empire destroyed most literature that was considered to be against the government, as did most conquering nations of that time.  Historical literature is simply the opinion of the most powerful nation of an era, generally speaking.
Logged
Quote from: Raist on January 22, 2009, 09:27:08 PM
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?
*

messierhunter

  • 511
Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« Reply #173 on: June 12, 2008, 06:11:33 PM »
Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 12, 2008, 03:42:20 PM

Tom might very well say that; I'm not so quick to pass judgment.  I think it at least equally likely that your friend has been fooled, just like the rest of us, and unwittingly recruited to spread RE propaganda.

You can't even suggest how it's possible to fake satellite observations as described, let alone astronomical phenomenon caused by spacecraft, yet for no reason at all it's not just possible, but "equally likely" that I've been fooled?  No bias there, no sir, surely yours are the words of wisdom.

You say that Tom never claimed all amateurs were part of the conspiracy, but I put it to you that unless we are part of the conspiracy then FE theory has already been proven to be wrong by amateur observations.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2008, 06:28:58 PM by messierhunter »
Logged
*

messierhunter

  • 511
Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« Reply #174 on: June 12, 2008, 06:22:58 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 12, 2008, 04:33:55 PM

As with the above example, the problem with RE is that the underlying premise is entirely wrong in the first place. You can calculate orbital mechanics and publish it in a scientific journal. You can write a detailed thesis on the physics of a satellite. but none of it matters when it's impossible for any body to orbit the earth in the first place.
According to FE, you're right Tom, space travel SHOULD be impossible.  That's why successfully observing satellites repeatedly using only their orbital information and your own location on earth should be equally impossible.  It should also be impossible to observe said spacecraft impacting various astronomical bodies, yet all are observed by amateurs all the time.  Either amateurs are part of the conspiracy or there is no conspiracy.
Logged
*

messierhunter

  • 511
Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« Reply #175 on: June 12, 2008, 06:25:59 PM »
Quote from: Ski on June 12, 2008, 04:30:25 PM
I'm curious why a Christian would not embrace FE when the Bible is a FE book.
One question Ski, can you tell me what the ancient hebrew word for "sphere" is?  That's all I'm going to say on this subject.  It's so far from the point of this thread that I have no real desire to debate it.  Just thought I'd throw that out there for Shaydawg's sake.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2008, 06:27:53 PM by messierhunter »
Logged
*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« Reply #176 on: June 12, 2008, 07:01:50 PM »
Quote from: messierhunter on June 12, 2008, 06:11:33 PM
You say that Tom never claimed all amateurs were part of the conspiracy, but I put it to you that unless we are part of the conspiracy then FE theory has already been proven to be wrong by amateur observations.

I guess we'll just have to disagree. *shrug*
Logged
Quote from: wise on August 21, 2018, 11:47:45 PM
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?
?

Robbyj

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 5459
Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« Reply #177 on: June 12, 2008, 07:06:23 PM »
Quote from: messierhunter on June 12, 2008, 06:25:59 PM
One question Ski, can you tell me what the ancient hebrew word for "sphere" is? 

Your attempt at a trick question is a subjective opinion.  The fact that they did not have a word for sphere in the Hebrew language does not mean that they implied a sphere when saying circle.
Logged
Quote from: Raist on January 22, 2009, 09:27:08 PM
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?
*

messierhunter

  • 511
Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« Reply #178 on: June 12, 2008, 07:20:55 PM »
Quote from: Robbyj on June 12, 2008, 07:06:23 PM
Quote from: messierhunter on June 12, 2008, 06:25:59 PM
One question Ski, can you tell me what the ancient hebrew word for "sphere" is? 

Your attempt at a trick question is a subjective opinion.  The fact that they did not have a word for sphere in the Hebrew language does not mean that they implied a sphere when saying circle.

The fact that they did not have a separate word for sphere (in fact they would have used the same word "chuwg" if they meant sphere as if they meant circle) means that you cannot know what 3 dimensional shape they thought the earth was, you can only assume it based on how you want to translate their word for circle or sphere in those instances.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2008, 07:23:15 PM by messierhunter »
Logged
*

messierhunter

  • 511
Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« Reply #179 on: June 12, 2008, 07:22:19 PM »
Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 12, 2008, 07:01:50 PM
Quote from: messierhunter on June 12, 2008, 06:11:33 PM
You say that Tom never claimed all amateurs were part of the conspiracy, but I put it to you that unless we are part of the conspiracy then FE theory has already been proven to be wrong by amateur observations.

I guess we'll just have to disagree. *shrug*

I guess that means you know how it's possible in FE for amateurs to observe spacecraft impacting celestial bodies then?  Let's hear it.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 11   Go Up
« previous next »