Search results

No I don't think you said this. I remember you suggesting something similar. I think this is the first time you made a broad and bold claim about what I haven't perceived. That's a ridiculous claim for you to make, because you don't know what I'm not perceiving. So now it should be asked, what...

Thanks for sharing. Interesting concept, given people claim that gravity would pull earth back into a sphere.

Just because they never said it in your experience does not mean it never happened. You should know this, you are trying to teach me that same principle in this same post! We have a case of textbook irony. Also, it is possible for people to believe ideas because of NASA while denying NASA is...

What would other planets have to do with earth? Does that mean if the earth is oblate, then the globe theory is also not intelligent?

NASA becomes pretty relevant to discuss when NASA is the reason people believe.

The error discredits the math book, yes. The mathematical error damages the reputation of the math book. This is precisely why printing errors are discouraged. The discredit of lunar landings demonstrates the unreliability of those who advocated for the legitimacy of the lunar landing. It's...

Of course it is rational to establish the discredit of an entity when others are relying on the honesty of it. Do not be silly. A discredit of NASA is a discredit of NASA.

unrelated categories... but are relational in a way... unrelated categories... but are relational in a way... unrelated categories... but are relational in a way...

So, "they are unrelated categories, but this doesn't mean they don't have relationships". So it is "unnecessary" to bring up. Thanks. I would agree with you that NASA being known to deceive would not necessarily mean the earth is flat. But it is rational to establish the discredit of NASA when...

So all of a sudden we are starting to talk about how related it all is.

Rmvb, @Adventageous has just established that the location of stars is an unrelated category to the shape of the earth category. So the location of the stars is said to be irrelevant.

Hey, it's alright! I appreciate you being here David! Hope you're having a great week!

Why point people to the stars, when (as @Adventageous established) the shape, movement, and location of the stars is an unrelated category to the shape of the earth category?

According to @Adventageous this is a category error, as you are appealing to the location of the sun (where it disappears), which is an unrelated category to the shape of the earth category.

Ah, so when the subject is the shape of the earth, it would be a categorical fallacy to refer to the sun, moon, and stars when trying to disprove flat earth. Thanks.

I didn't say left or right. You are quick to reject something you haven't thought carefully enough about. I said left to right. If you are looking forward, you are not seeing what's behind you. You're seeing half of the distance. Yet depending on your peripheral you see both left and right...

People say objects past the horizon are hidden by Earth's curvature, yet what you see from left to right is generally twice the distance from what is hidden beyond the horizon in front of you, and apparently no curvature is reliably demonstrated from left to right.

Let him be to you. Jesus also said no man can be plucked from His hand.

You're asking someone who's not convinced what your question presupposes. With worldly matters I come from a default position of skepticism, God's Word is my authority. NASA renditions of what they call Mars doesn't convince me. The moon is believed by some to be made of plasma, with stars said...

Christians: "Sin leads to condemnation for the believer!" GOD: "Where sin abounds, Grace abounds." Romans 5:20