"Conspiracy" is not a valid argument

amateurs to observe spacecraft impacting celestial bodies

If you don't mind, could you give me a brief specific example of this?  Is your point that amateurs can observe lunar landings for example, or am I misunderstanding.

You know how fucking long the US/Mexico border is? Obviously not.

Are you seriously insane?

Mexican border:
- Millions of people on both sides (how do you find your target?)
- Communities close to both sides
- Complex landscape
- Plenty of vegetation and wildlife
- Plenty of hiding places
- Signs of humanity everywhere on both sides


Antarctic region:
- 0 people in the area you are protecting
- 0 wildlife, or vegetation
- 360 degree visibility
- No hiding places
- No human tracks except for the ones you are going to shoot



Seriously, your comparison is beyond defense.

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

Perfect.  So since Jebus is the son of god... that means all Buddhists must be gullible or stupid (or the Egyptians, or the Native Americans, or the Australian Aborigines).

And you can't say that god is not the same as FE vs RE.  Because for the purposes of our comparison, a god who is not visible does not count.  If he does not influence the world, then he does not exist to us.

Millions of these people believe in a god who very much influences the world every day.  The Egyptians for example, or the Mayans, might have killed you for saying the existence of god could not be proven.  Were they stupid?


Also:

He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.  -- Psalm 104:5
He shakes the earth from its place and makes its pillars tremble -- Job 9:6
that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it? -- Job 38:13
for he views the ends of the earth and sees everything under the heavens. -- Job 28:24

If he does not influence the world, then he does not exist to us.

That depends on your frame of reference.

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.

I don't argue that fact, but it does nothing to legitimize Christianity for me.  The NT was obviously written with the specific intention of influencing peoples' beliefs.

In fact, I'm not sure that any historical document from the era can be considered fully reliable.  From a historical perspective, why should the NT be regarded any differently?  As a product of its era I would think it should be expected that it not be an accurate representation of the facts.

Quote from: lived_eht_asan on June 12, 2008, 07:42:50 PM

If he does not influence the world, then he does not exist to us.

That depends on your frame of reference.

Very much so.  I am stating the special case in which the comparison is valid (belief in a god who does influence the world observably.  Such as "god made my breakfast this morning, and I filmed it").  This belief exists.

This invalidates the argument that the RE conspiracy is impossible because "people are not stupid enough to believe that"

Quote from: Robbyj 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.

I don't argue that fact, but it does nothing to legitimize Christianity for me.  The NT was obviously written with the specific intention of influencing peoples' beliefs.

In fact, I'm not sure that any historical document from the era can be considered fully reliable.  From a historical perspective, why should the NT be regarded any differently?  As a product of its era I would think it should be expected that it not be an accurate representation of the facts.

Right.  We can still distinguish between Harry Potter and Bill Clinton's "My Life", although both must be considered somewhat fictional and as direct products of their times.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 12, 2008, 07:48:33 PM

Quote from: Robbyj 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.

I don't argue that fact, but it does nothing to legitimize Christianity for me.  The NT was obviously written with the specific intention of influencing peoples' beliefs.

In fact, I'm not sure that any historical document from the era can be considered fully reliable.  From a historical perspective, why should the NT be regarded any differently?  As a product of its era I would think it should be expected that it not be an accurate representation of the facts.

Right.  We can still distinguish between Harry Potter and Bill Clinton's "My Life", although both must be considered somewhat fictional and as direct products of their times.

I lol'd. 

I don't argue that fact, but it does nothing to legitimize Christianity for me.  The NT was obviously written with the specific intention of influencing peoples' beliefs.

In fact, I'm not sure that any historical document from the era can be considered fully reliable.  From a historical perspective, why should the NT be regarded any differently?  As a product of its era I would think it should be expected that it not be an accurate representation of the facts.

I agree.  That was meant to back your position, not his.

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? 

Two words mostly. Duwr and Pehkah are the anglicized words.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 12, 2008, 07:48:33 PM

I don't argue that fact, but it does nothing to legitimize Christianity for me.  The NT was obviously written with the specific intention of influencing peoples' beliefs.

In fact, I'm not sure that any historical document from the era can be considered fully reliable.  From a historical perspective, why should the NT be regarded any differently?  As a product of its era I would think it should be expected that it not be an accurate representation of the facts.

I agree.  That was meant to back your position, not his.

Okay, my mistake then.  I probably should have realized that.

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.

For one, three of the apostles DID write the gospels. I dont even know how you could dispute it. Either way though you are not as informed as you think you are.

Here is some evidence for you. There are many things we could debate thus why I have somewhat avoided doing this and will more then likely continue considering it is off topic.

http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/kking/ntdocs.html

Quote from: messierhunter on June 12, 2008, 07:22:19 PM

amateurs to observe spacecraft impacting celestial bodies

If you don't mind, could you give me a brief specific example of this?  Is your point that amateurs can observe lunar landings for example, or am I misunderstanding.

You must have missed page seven.  This thread is rapidly expanding so that's understandable, but I was referring to impacts, which are quite different than landings.  I'll quote my previous post below.  Impacts are where a spacecraft intentionally slams itself into a celestial body's surface.  Althought there is no fire in space, the energy released by impacts, which occur at speeds measured in kilometers per second, can cause a bright flash.  In the case of the comet impact, it drastically brightened the comet as it exposed more volatile ice.

Back in september of '06 the SMART-1 ESA probe was intentionally crashed into the moon at the end of its mission at a pre-determined location on the night side of the moon.  An amateur with an LX90 (very similar to my scope) set up for the event and caught the flash of impact on the moon with his webcam:


Another thing definately outside the atmosphere are comets.  The Deep Impact mission hit comet tempel 1 on July 4th 2005.  Amateur telescopes were able to see this impact happen exactly as predicted as well. This time-lapse movie from another amateur with an LX200 shows the event:
http://www.oldstarlight.com/All%20page%20content%20consolidation/Deep_Impact_1.5%20hours_5_arc_minute_field.avi

Back in september of '06 the SMART-1 ESA probe was intentionally crashed into the moon at the end of its mission at a pre-determined location on the night side of the moon.  An amateur with an LX90 (very similar to my scope) set up for the event and caught the flash of impact on the moon with his webcam:

I don't see how that little flash of light proves that the craft is beyond the atmosphere of the earth. It's debatable whether the atmosphere extends beyond the altitude of the moon or not.

Quote

Back in september of '06 the SMART-1 ESA probe was intentionally crashed into the moon at the end of its mission at a pre-determined location on the night side of the moon.  An amateur with an LX90 (very similar to my scope) set up for the event and caught the flash of impact on the moon with his webcam:

I don't see how that little flash of light proves that the craft is beyond the atmosphere of the earth. It's debatable whether the atmosphere extends beyond the altitude of the moon or not.

So now it is possible to get to the moon in FET?

Because if it isn't, then the only explanation is that because we can get objects to the moon, FET cannot be correct.

Also, if it is possible to get to the moon in FET, then the entire point of the conpiracy is null and void.
FET is self-defeating!

Quote

Back in september of '06 the SMART-1 ESA probe was intentionally crashed into the moon at the end of its mission at a pre-determined location on the night side of the moon.  An amateur with an LX90 (very similar to my scope) set up for the event and caught the flash of impact on the moon with his webcam:

I don't see how that little flash of light proves that the craft is beyond the atmosphere of the earth.

That little flash of light happened on the moon's dark side (not to be confused with the incorrect terminology for the moon's far side) at exactly the time the probe was supposed to crash into exactly that spot on the moon.  It proves it happened when and where it was supposed to.

It's debatable whether the atmosphere extends beyond the altitude of the moon or not.

This statement is so far gone from anything rational (even by FE standards and logic) it's truly scary.  Even if you assume the moon is much closer than it actually is at 3000 miles distant according to FE, you're still well out of the atmosphere.  And how would a moon inside the atmosphere keep moving without being slowed to a stop by atmospheric drag?  And according to UA, wouldn't this mean that the moon would be shielded by the earth from the "UA field" and come crashing down to earth?  If not, then wouldn't the atmosphere be unshielded from the UA field, separating it from the rest of the atmosphere and causing it to slowly outgas into space?

Lastly, I notice you completely ignored the sighting of Deep Impact's impact on Tempel 1.  I guess I can take that as a concession of defeat.

Quote from: messierhunter 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? 

Two words mostly. Duwr and Pehkah are the anglicized words.

Can also be translated as either ball or circle.  There is no ancient hebrew word that exclusively means sphere.

Quote from: Ski on June 12, 2008, 08:41:54 PM

Two words mostly. Duwr and Pehkah are the anglicized words.

Can also be translated as either ball or circle.  There is no ancient hebrew word that exclusively means sphere.

duwr: means simply round (sphere, circle, ball, curved)
pehkah: is a ball- or knob- as an adornment

I'm not sure what your point is, unless you really think the Jewish people were RE'ers, which would ignore the overwhelming evidence.

Quote from: messierhunter on June 13, 2008, 10:29:42 AM

Quote from: Ski on June 12, 2008, 08:41:54 PM

Two words mostly. Duwr and Pehkah are the anglicized words.

Can also be translated as either ball or circle.  There is no ancient hebrew word that exclusively means sphere.

duwr: means simply round (sphere, circle, ball, curved)
pehkah: is a ball- or knob- as an adornment

I'm not sure what your point is, unless you really think the Jewish people were RE'ers, which would ignore the overwhelming evidence.

My point is that you can't possibly claim to know what shape the jewish people thought the earth was.  The word they used was used in descibing both circles and spheres.  The "overwhelming evidence" is not conclusive either way.

Here is some evidence for you. There are many things we could debate thus why I have somewhat avoided doing this and will more then likely continue considering it is off topic.

http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/kking/ntdocs.html

I'm disappointed.  I thought there might be actual evidence there for what you're saying.  Should've known better. 

Quote from: Shaydawg on June 13, 2008, 05:11:14 AM

Here is some evidence for you. There are many things we could debate thus why I have somewhat avoided doing this and will more then likely continue considering it is off topic.

http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/kking/ntdocs.html

I'm disappointed.  I thought there might be actual evidence there for what you're saying.  Should've known better. 

Just like your FE theory you are going to not believe anything because your reasoning skills are sub par. And if you spent anytime whatsoever on that site like I have you would know that there is plenty of evidence. I know now that you just looked at it and then clicked out. Pretty ignorant and closed minded but I am talking to a FEr so I am not surprised.

And just so you know I already sent an email to my friend about the debate. But you have failed so far on your end. To be honest I think you are scared to have a real authentic astrophysicist come here because it would ruin your little bullshit FE theory.

Talk about ignorant, Roundy isn't an FEer. Well played.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 13, 2008, 12:55:05 PM

Quote from: Shaydawg on June 13, 2008, 05:11:14 AM

Here is some evidence for you. There are many things we could debate thus why I have somewhat avoided doing this and will more then likely continue considering it is off topic.

http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/kking/ntdocs.html

I'm disappointed.  I thought there might be actual evidence there for what you're saying.  Should've known better. 

Just like your FE theory you are going to not believe anything because your reasoning skills are sub par. And if you spent anytime whatsoever on that site like I have you would know that there is plenty of evidence. I know now that you just looked at it and then clicked out. Pretty ignorant and closed minded but I am talking to a FEr so I am not surprised.

Nothing there convinces me.  What, the early church fathers say they're authentic, so they must be authentic?  They were written during the apostles' lifetimes, so they must have been written by the apostles?  Please.

And just so you know I already sent an email to my friend about the debate. But you have failed so far on your end. To be honest I think you are scared to have a real authentic astrophysicist come here because it would ruin your little bullshit FE theory.

You're right, I'm terrified, please stop sending me PMs.

It would be nice to have an astrophysicist on here.

Yes, please do.  He can laugh at all of shaydawg's posts, and then join is in developing FET.

Quote from: Shaydawg on June 13, 2008, 02:10:38 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 13, 2008, 12:55:05 PM

Quote from: Shaydawg on June 13, 2008, 05:11:14 AM

Here is some evidence for you. There are many things we could debate thus why I have somewhat avoided doing this and will more then likely continue considering it is off topic.

http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/kking/ntdocs.html

I'm disappointed.  I thought there might be actual evidence there for what you're saying.  Should've known better. 

Just like your FE theory you are going to not believe anything because your reasoning skills are sub par. And if you spent anytime whatsoever on that site like I have you would know that there is plenty of evidence. I know now that you just looked at it and then clicked out. Pretty ignorant and closed minded but I am talking to a FEr so I am not surprised.

Nothing there convinces me.  What, the early church fathers say they're authentic, so they must be authentic?  They were written during the apostles' lifetimes, so they must have been written by the apostles?  Please.

Quote

And just so you know I already sent an email to my friend about the debate. But you have failed so far on your end. To be honest I think you are scared to have a real authentic astrophysicist come here because it would ruin your little bullshit FE theory.

You're right, I'm terrified, please stop sending me PMs.

I sent you two keyboard warrior. I am sure you are really tough in person by the way. Keep hiding behind the internet and man up.

 They were apostles you dumbass. That site , since you did not read it gives references from NON CHRISTIAN sources. But like I said, if you read that you would know but you did not. Just like all the other bullshit claims on here you glance and ignore.

LOL at divito saying you are a REr but you arguing the other way. He is another idiot here anyway from what I have read. Hey Divito, you think you have the knowledge and proof to argue with someone who actually knows what they are talking about? I will happily have my friend debate you on FET. You would be a waste of time though from everything I have read.

Anyone that would like to really challenge their idiot FE beliefs please PM me and I will set it up. Until then keep acting like ignorant fucking douche bags who think it is cool to argue both ways and have absolutely zero knowledge on the subject at hand. At least I am able to admit that I am not knowledgeable enough to argue and debate intelligently on the subject with someone who has a doctorate in the field of astrophysics. Unlike Roundy who thinks he knows the issues well enough to even speak on it. Just like he says he studies religion and the authenticity of the scriptures but makes some of the most ignorant statements on the subject I have ever read.

Let me know Roundy if you ever decide to grow a fucking set of balls and man up. If not shut the fuck up.

I know you are terrified just like all the other morons on this site. I know no one here is man enough to take the challenge and I even stated that in my email today. I knew if there was a possibility of it ever happening then the pussies here would back down.

Yes, please do.  He can laugh at all of shaydawg's posts, and then join is in developing FET.

Maybe you should know what is going on before you comment dipshit. He is one of my close friends.

You really should find somewhere else to go play because everything you say is full of fail.

It would be nice to have an astrophysicist on here.

Trust me, they dont really want that. They enjoy living in denial.

Roundy for one has had every opportunity to man up but even pushed it off on TheEngineer because he knew he does not know shit. Just like he does not know shit about religion.

I can forward you the PM he sent me if you like.

The bible was written by believers for believers.  Simple as that.  Personally, I take it more as spiritual and metaphorical truth than literal truth.

At least I am able to admit that I am not knowledgeable enough to argue and debate intelligently

I'm glad we're agreed.  Bring on your friend so that he can laugh with us at your postings.