- This topic has 6,416 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 1 week, 1 day ago by
.
- Posts
T8: Mike, did you ever wonder why the Trinitarians we debated with were so dismissive of clear evidence? Now you know.
I knew back then, T8. It takes a truly humble person to swallow his pride and forego years of indoctrination when shown evidence that contradicts his long-held beliefs. And there are relatively few people of that caliber in this world.
T8: Ask yourself why it is that you just write off massive amounts of evidence for a globe earth and you will have your answer as to why Trinitarians also throw away a massive amount of evidence.
Ah, but aren’t the Trinitarians the ones with thousands of years of early church fathers and prominent Biblical scholars on their side? Aren’t they the ones with the vast majority of expert consensus working for them? Yet you and I stand justified with a tiny minority in the world, because we have the Biblical truth on our side, right? But according to them, we’re the ones writing off massive amounts of evidence for a Trinity Godhead, right?
So when Jesus says, “I go now to my Father and your Father; to my God and your God”, we recognize that Jesus himself has just identified to us who our God is. Our God is also his God, right? Not him… but his God, right? And no amount of scriptural gymnastics is ever going to change the truth of that direct teaching from our Lord and Savior, right?
Likewise, when God says He created the sun, moon, and stars on day four, humble truth seekers recognize that God Himself has just made it undeniably clear that the sun, moon and stars came three literal 24-hour days after the earth, right? And when Jesus himself says he was there when God laid the foundations of the earth and made firm the skies above, we recognize that our Lord and Savior has told us something true about the world that his and our God, Jehovah, created for us, right? And no amount of scriptural gymnastics is every going to change the truth of those teachings, right? Even if everyone else in the entire world says that we’re writing off massive amounts of evidence, right?
I asked you before how you came to be a Trinitarian in the first place – but you refused to answer (as is usually the case with you these days). My point was going to be that you never became a Trinitarian by simply reading the Bible, ie: looking at the actual observational evidence. No T8, you were made into a Trinitarian by placing man-made traditions and stories above the Bible. That’s how all Trinitarians are made. They learn it from men, who learned it from other men who made up their own illogical stories and traditions that had no relation to the scriptures themselves.
That’s also how you and I became heliocentrists. We surely didn’t learn it from looking at the actual observational evidence. No T8, we learned it from men who learned if from other men who made up their own illogical stories and traditions that have no relation to the world in which we truly live. You were able to humble yourself, accept correction, seek real truth, and get out of the lie of the Trinity. Will you be able to do the same with heliocentrism?
Gene: Mike,.. you accuse us of not believing your BS, but fact is, it’s you who is not believing tons of apsolute proven facts backed up with proven evidence, by thousands of expert people in every aspect of you false presentations. That’s your problem, not ours, because we don’t buy into those false assumption your putting out there, trying to make us believe that imagined lie garbage, you call truth.
Okay Gene… let’s test your theory.
“People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations. For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”
George Ellis, Scientific American, “Thinking Globally, Acting Universally”, October 1995
George Ellis is a famous cosmologist who even co-wrote a book with the great Stephen Hawking. If the heliocentric model is truly based on “absolutely proven facts backed up with proven evidence”, like you say, would Dr. Ellis be able to construct a universe with the earth at its center that cannot be disproved by observations? YES or NO, please?
D4T: I can’t imagine small rubber o-rings that could last for decades in the extreme temperatures of “space”.
Of course they couldn’t. Nor could the aluminum it’s supposedly made from withstand the extreme heat of the thermosphere. The idea of an ISS in outer space is ludicrous. Did you know there’s not one photo of it being constructed? The second biggest achievement of mankind, and we don’t have millions of photos and videos of the construction process? That’s like going to the moon 6 times and taking only a handful of photos of the place we live. Who in their right mind would believe such nonsense? Surely a real mission to the moon would include placing multiple cameras on the moon pointed at earth so we could study the place we live in an entirely different way, right? At the very least there would have been hours of dedicated footage of the earth while they were on the moon, right? But nope, we only got a handful of fake-looking blurry images of our home. Only the most gullible would believe such nonsense after having it pointed out to them.
And no, nobody has yet told me whether they could see a plane from 250 miles or 369 miles away. Nor will they. The people here are much better at obfuscation than conversation. It didn’t used to be that way.
NASA doesn’t even know who took the pictures!
(From an article that looks into this in detail)
The major fact to be noticed is that at the time of the acclaimed photographing of Earth, the astronauts didn’t mention the Earth at all. Moreover, before and after that time they spoke on a totally different subject, they observed possible damage of the Lunar Module’s (LM) descent stage due to the impact at landing.
Although NASA’s record insists that one of the astronauts took these pictures midway during this minimal dialogue exchange, the agency admits its failure to ascertain who was the photographer. Was it problematic to actually ask the astronauts? Common sense dictates that it shouldn’t have been at all difficult to check with them shortly after the mission. Otherwise one must assume that the astronauts were asked this question but neither of them could remember – which indeed would be most strange.
About the Author
Phil Kouts lives and works in New Zealand.Phil Kouts has a PhD in applied physics and gained considerable experience in applied research, working as research fellow in various universities in the UK as well as an R&D manager in private companies.
http://aulis.com/moon-earth.htm
You wont believe how they got this image!
http://aulis.com/apollo_sky.htm
Notice how they spliced two images together?
What an interesting read. When Kathi and I were discussing that particular photo, I wasn’t even aware of the cut out shadow around the actor. Fantastic find, D!
Mike, I noticed that your new favourite word is “obfuscation”. But in reality we are not doing that. What we are really are people who believe the earth is a globe and that denying all the evidence is paranoia. Because this subject matters little to us, when you ask questions about airplanes visible at 230 miles or whatever it is, it means nothing to us. That is not obfuscation, it’s just that we see airplanes when we look up, and I guess we don’t when they are too far away. Who knows. We don’t go around measuring things like this. Not sure of your point really, but I have seen the ISS float over my house, so does that answer anything for you? But regardless, I have entertained your argument and you have presented nothing that is going to sway a clear thinking person. That is my view at least.
T8: “Mike, I noticed that your new favourite word is “obfuscation”. But in reality we are not doing that. What we are really are people who believe the earth is a globe and that denying all the evidence is paranoia. Because this subject matters little to us, when you ask questions about airplanes visible at 230 miles or whatever it is, it means nothing to us. That is not obfuscation, it’s just that we see airplanes when we look up, and I guess we don’t when they are too far away. Who knows. We don’t go around measuring things like this. Not sure of your point really, but I have seen the ISS float over my house, so does that answer anything for you? But regardless, I have entertained your argument and you have presented nothing that is going to sway a clear thinking person. That is my view at least.”
Who is denying evidence? You say that; “I have seen the ISS float over my house, so does that answer anything for you?”
That’s fine T8 but all we’re trying to do is a simple test to confirm that the ISS should be able to be seen with the unaided eye.
A typical jet airliner can be seen when it is 35,000 feet high, but it is very small. At twice that distance you could not see it with the unaided eye. This is a simple fact of size and distance. On the ground it is a monster but at 35,000 feet it is barely the size of a fly. At twice that distance it would be impossible to see.
The ISS is about the size of a football field. And here is the question which I’m sure you will not obfuscate; could you see a football field from 200 miles away or 1,056,000 feet?
If you don’t want to obfuscate then answer the simple question.
Mike…as i said in the beginning of this nonsense, it’s a waste of time, you simply ignore all real evidence presented to you and make up you already predesposed mind to what you “perfer” to believe, which only proves, you can fool yourself into believing anything that is put out there, by just ignoring the mountain of proofs against it.
This whole subject was a waste of time from the get go, no one but you and Dig4, here have come to believe in any of the flat earth therioies, you have presented.
Peace and love to you and yours. …..gene
WOW! You have to post that on YouTube if the music doesn’t cause any copyright issues!
Well done! The music always adds or subtracts to the video and I’m always aware of this being a musician. You nailed it on the head!!!!
I just went to YouTube and It Was There! Awesome!
My thoughts:
1) You kinda loose it at around 20 miles up!
2) At 50 miles you’re asking yourself, “where the heck am I”.
3) 250 miles up, you don’t have a prayer.
Now, will the ones that claim we deny evidence respond? I doubt it but I must remain hopeful.
At 250 miles up the entire city of Pheonix (yep, we noticed the geography) is only about 4 to 6 football fields in size!
The city of Pheonix is over 518 square miles!!! Think about that!
Now the big question, “should we be able to see the ISS with our unaided eye? Please, no obfuscation.
Thanks for the kind words, D. I could no longer make it out at 25 miles… only 10% of the total.
I don’t monetize my videos, so I think I’m okay using copyrighted materials. In my last one about the train, I used three Ennio Morricone songs, and got a note from YouTube saying that since I used copyrighted music, any money made from my video would go to that copyright holder. I’m cool with that, since I doubt I’d ever get rich from my 3 views per video anyway. 🙂
I wish the FE community could buy the rights to that song! What a classic combination of music and material!
I told a friend of your video and he enjoyed it too. He probably subscribed as well. Never discount small beginnings.
I saw the ISS as a fast moving giant star and you could make out an irregular shape as the light was not even.
A football field is not lit up.
You can’t even see the moon when it is not lit up.
The difference right there.
Nothing to see here folks.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
