-
What are the good fruits of the flat earth position? Please list them.
-
What are the good fruits of the flat earth position? Please list them.
That God is the author of the flat earth.
Earth resides under the dome, with water above and hell below, literally.
Modern science lies about the form of the earth.
Relativity and relativism are the scourge of modern man with a dubious foundation in pagan heliocentric theory.
Scripture tells the truth regarding the form of the earth.
The Church Fathers were not stupid or ignorant when defending flat earth.
The Catholic Church has always taught geocentric flat earth.
Science and flat earth reveal the truth of God.
Heliocentrism comes from pagan roots.
Heliocentrism denies God.
Earth is not a globe.
The Catholic Church has condemned heliocentrism and all related theory.
Science belongs to God and is never at odds with the Catholic Church.
I could go on and on, but the good fruits of flat earth are myriad.
-
What about good fruits in the practical order of things? How can it focus us more on God?
-
What about good fruits in the practical order of things? How can it focus us more on God?
Very good question. Happy to refocus.
*The flat earth is the basis of all things created, including the heavens. That means, simplicity, clarity and reality remain accessible to everyone equally. When someone is "on the level" it means they are being truthful. Flat earth keeps everything and everyone "on the level". Literally. This applies both physically and spiritually. No circular thinking or relative approaches because things really are as they seem. The earth is flat and motionless, as our senses tells us. Up really is up. It isn't a different angle for one person and another angle for another depending where they are on a globe. On a sphere, up is up for some, but down for others. A round earth belief fosters dishonesty because it promotes circular thinking. For instance, the surface of any sum amount of water always remains level in every experiment and never curves because it seeks its own level. Yet, with the ball earth, water surface of the oceans are understood to be curved around the outside of a sphere blasting through space at 67,000 mph and twirling at 1000mph, not to mention 2 other contradictory motions all at the same time. This is ridiculous!
*Flat exposes the spherical lie that is conducive to pride, making some feel superior to others by virtue of their position on earth. For instance, people are familiar with the term that Australians are "down under", a term Australians once considered rude. Now that it has become common, many do not care, or even enjoy the reference, but this was not always so. And for good reason. The suggestion is, Australia(ns) are less, below, under, by comparison to those above them. With proper understanding of the effects of words, one can easily see this misnomer can have less than desirable effects on the way a people may be perceived.
*Flat earth supports the literal interpretation of scripture, of Early Church Fathers, Popes and saints. When God describes the earth as having a face, he means face, surface, plane. Or, He is using a term that is less than accurate for the three dimensional curved section of a ball. God may use allegory and take poetic license but never with the intent or effect of contradicting Himself or His Words, let alone being inaccurate. When God says in scripture that earth is set on pillars not to be moved, He means it is a true foundation. Not a ball hurdling through space, nor a sphere hanging mid-air, as some believe. When God says there is a firmament above the earth, and that water rests above the firmament, and that the sun moon and stars reside within the space above earth, He means it. And it is accepted as such with flat earth. We do not suffer from the vague notion of outer space that creates great distance from God, but know that he resides right above us both literally and spiritually.
*Flat earth quells the psychological repercussions from believing one is hurdling around the sun through space at 67,000, rotating at 1000 mph and exploding out from the Big Bang at 500,000 mph as modern science claims. Such characterizations of our environment are disturbing internally at some level, even if we think it doesn't "feel" that way, and even if we don't think about it much. Seeding chaos is the mark of the demonic and modern science spends inordinate amounts of time and money making sure we know that we know they are the arbiters of all things scientific and if they say there is life on Mars, or that man evolved from protozoa by accident, that we are flying through infinite space with limited resources, a notion conducive to population control, then we all better believe it. Spherical earth is the re-creation of the world in the Devil's image to the advantage of the Elite. It also provides fodder for the propaganda that is used on man to control him. Not to mention that it is driven by, in full communion with and is fully supported by the Kings of the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr.
*Flat earth shows the depth and scope of the power of a lie. One earth sized lie accomplishes many things for evil. It alienates man from God, from His Word, from his own foundations, from reality, from hope, from understanding while it instills fear: Fear of dwindling resources, fear of catastrophic failure. Fear of aliens coming in from distant galaxies to destroy us. Fear of each other, because we do not have similar understanding about such phenomena. With globe earth, there is no common ground and nothing is as it is, but only as it is perceived by the propaganda surrounding the lie. Was man created or the outcome of a Big Bang? What other creatures or humanoids are out there? One of the most hotly defended truths in the Catholic Faith is that Adam and Eve were the first parents to all men who will be saved. The heliocentric pagan model of round earth suggests there are many worlds, with many other kinds of humanoid type beings, a demeaning tactic that undermines Catholic teaching on many levels.
There is so much more, but for those who take the time to reflect, the relationship between man and His Creator become manifest in the flat earth.
-
The supreme irony of this post and all of the others in the same vein is that you are posting your views on a communication device that wouldn't exist without the work and discoveries made by legions of modern scientists that you and other flat-earthers denigrate all the time.
Computers, the internet and instantaneous worldwide communication wouldn't exist without the work of people like Einstein, Schrodinger, Rutherford, Bohr, Heisenberg et al. If they and their works are so evil and ungodly how do you justify using the fruits of their discoveries? You should instead be writing your opinions on parchment with a quill and sending it off with a messenger on horseback.
-
The supreme irony of this post and all of the others in the same vein is that you are posting your views on a communication device that wouldn't exist without the work and discoveries made by legions of modern scientists that you and other flat-earthers denigrate all the time.
Computers, the internet and instantaneous worldwide communication wouldn't exist without the work of people like Einstein, Schrodinger, Rutherford, Bohr, Heisenberg et al. If they and their works are so evil and ungodly how do you justify using the fruits of their discoveries? You should instead be writing your opinions on parchment with a quill and sending it off with a messenger on horseback.
Prove the internet wouldn't exist on a flat earth. In fact you cannot. No one is claiming that but you. Jumping to conclusions without facts is not Catholic, nor is it conducive to fact finding.The only way any electronics work is because earth is flat. Signals do not curve. No one is saying the products of science are intrinsically evil, rather, the imprecision of the model of round earth necessitates lying in order to explain and work within the conditions in which we live. Water cannot stick to the outside of a ball, so the perveyors of that model invented a magic force called gravity, a false theorem incapatable with math and science because it is so riddled with inconsistencies. The vacuum of space is impossible since vacuums by definition must be contained and cannot exist side by side with a non vacuum without serious separation on the grand scale required. Gyroscopes, light houses, sextants, astrolabes, sundial and bubble levels only work on the level and do not work on a globe. The suggestion that flat earth is archaic actually works against the globe because flat earth is found in scripture, yet the globe is a more recent "discovery" is incapatible with scripture. As if the globe means progress and flat earth means we haven't learned to harness the benefits of our world. That is preposterous.
-
Gravity makes no sense.
-
The supreme irony of this post and all of the others in the same vein is that you are posting your views on a communication device that wouldn't exist without the work and discoveries made by legions of modern scientists that you and other flat-earthers denigrate all the time.
Computers, the internet and instantaneous worldwide communication wouldn't exist without the work of people like Einstein, Schrodinger, Rutherford, Bohr, Heisenberg et al. If they and their works are so evil and ungodly how do you justify using the fruits of their discoveries? You should instead be writing your opinions on parchment with a quill and sending it off with a messenger on horseback.
Well, that is about the most ridiculously ignorant remark I have seen in a long while. Do you actually have any idea what you are talking about? Or have you been drinking too much?
Most people complain that flat earth is a youtube born theory, and you are saying we despise technology??! Perhaps they had youtube in the middle ages?
Here are some videos using high zoom cameras (another medieval technology)
http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/t17-objects-over-the-horizon-proofs
Or is it just possible, sarcasm aside, that you haven't done one bit of research into flat earth?
-
Prove the internet wouldn't exist on a flat earth.
Use traceroute
-
The supreme irony of this post and all of the others in the same vein is that you are posting your views on a communication device that wouldn't exist without the work and discoveries made by legions of modern scientists that you and other flat-earthers denigrate all the time.
Computers, the internet and instantaneous worldwide communication wouldn't exist without the work of people like Einstein, Schrodinger, Rutherford, Bohr, Heisenberg et al. If they and their works are so evil and ungodly how do you justify using the fruits of their discoveries? You should instead be writing your opinions on parchment with a quill and sending it off with a messenger on horseback.
I have to give to Irish_Catholic. All the inventors/scientists that developed the technology we use today from PCs/Mobile/GPS/Satellites/Weather monitoring/air travel...heck even the calculations for a mile long sniper shot involve curvature and rotation of the earth. You can't just selectively use bits of the science and proofs to make it fit your ideology. Lets also keep in mind it was the scholars of the Church that were the first to calculate the movement of the planets before Isaac Newton came up with the equations for the microgravity tugs of the moon vs the sun. I believe it is foolish to think we have the full picture about science now, just as 1000 years ago, they didn't know everything back then.
Also to Happensby,
"The flat earth is the basis of all things created, including the heavens. That means, simplicity, clarity and reality remain accessible to everyone equally. When someone is "on the level" it means they are being truthful. Flat earth keeps everything and everyone "on the level". Literally. This applies both physically and spiritually."
This is literally straight from the philosophies of Free Masonry. Its not like its a deep hidden concept. Google the phrase and you can get that pretty much word for word out of a masonic webpage.
-
Hi roughashlar,
It is clear you don't know much about the flat earth position. Why don't you research it first before making such wide-sweeping statements?
Here is a good intro
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGtB-TapXDc
After having watched that, you should know that the technologies you mentioned have nothing to do with the curvature of the earth. There are now engineers, technicians, ballistics experts, snipers who state this very clearly. When you do your research on it, you should find this out. If you have difficultly with that, then you should shoot me a line and I will point you in the right direction.
-
Use traceroute
Traceroute doesn't prove the round earth! You don't know what you are talking about! Are you the IT manager for an elementary school?
Here is an article discussing this very point. The people are attacking the flat earth, but in the end they prove YOU wrong.
https://www.metabunk.org/undersea-cables-on-a-flat-earth.t8133/
-
Hi roughashlar,
It is clear you don't know much about the flat earth position. Why don't you research it first before making such wide-sweeping statements?
Here is a good intro
After having watched that, you should know that the technologies you mentioned have nothing to do with the curvature of the earth. There are now engineers, technicians, ballistics experts, snipers who state this very clearly. When you do your research on it, you should find this out. If you have difficultly with that, then you should shoot me a line and I will point you in the right direction.
Kiwiboy,
While we may disagree with each other on this, I do want to acknowledge you engaging me in a civil and respectful way. That is not often done when two sides disagree on this forum.
I have seen a number of videos, for and against the theory. I also have now watched yours. I am not going to pretend that I get every concept and google, copy and paste rebuttals...i'm sure that has already been done back and forth. I'll just mention a few things, in your video and with the concept that I have a hard time with.
1) The idea that all the astronauts and were hypnotized or really good actors.
2) The international space station is a holographic projection...so everyone is ok with communication, weather and gps satellites in space, but everything else coming from NASA is false.
3) Being able to prove a couple points doesn't shatter the entire global (pun intended) system. Proving one thing right or wrong doesn't validate then entire opposite theory.
4) What is being implied here is that anyone that has a higher degree in the sciences is in on this vast conspiracy. Nautical and aviation instructors, geologist, meteorologist, paleontologist, and scientists dating back hundreds of years have all been in on this monumental conspiracy.
Sorry friend, but I'm going to have to agree to disagree.
-
For me, being able to disregard the notion that I was spinning at 1000 mph on a globe earth, with that globe spinning at 67,000 mph around the sun, being in a galaxy traveling at 670,000,000 mph -- made me feel distant from God.
Now that I know about the freemasonic roots of NASA, the freemasonic backgrounds of the astronauts who allegedly went to the moon, the numerous anomalies surrounding the alleged moon landing, the murder of John Glenn -- and as I recalled all the lies I was "taught" in college and grad school -- I began to research the issue with an open mind.
After reading that the Church fathers taught a flat earth
http://www.philipstallings.com/2015/07/the-biblical-flat-earth-early-church.html
and much more research, I now am much closer to God. He is up there in heaven; I am down here on earth. I have rejected the lies of the mystery of iniquity.
-
Use traceroute
Sorry, this is no answer. Unless you're a prophet or a very special analyst, you should refrain from making unsubstantiated predictions.
-
I have to give to Irish_Catholic. All the inventors/scientists that developed the technology we use today from PCs/Mobile/GPS/Satellites/Weather monitoring/air travel...heck even the calculations for a mile long sniper shot involve curvature and rotation of the earth. You can't just selectively use bits of the science and proofs to make it fit your ideology. Lets also keep in mind it was the scholars of the Church that were the first to calculate the movement of the planets before Isaac Newton came up with the equations for the microgravity tugs of the moon vs the sun. I believe it is foolish to think we have the full picture about science now, just as 1000 years ago, they didn't know everything back then.
Also to Happensby,
"The flat earth is the basis of all things created, including the heavens. That means, simplicity, clarity and reality remain accessible to everyone equally. When someone is "on the level" it means they are being truthful. Flat earth keeps everything and everyone "on the level". Literally. This applies both physically and spiritually."
This is literally straight from the philosophies of Free Masonry. Its not like its a deep hidden concept. Google the phrase and you can get that pretty much word for word out of a masonic webpage.
False. God is simplicity and truth. No one here advocates communism, if that is what you took away from my post.
-
Kiwiboy,
While we may disagree with each other on this, I do want to acknowledge you engaging me in a civil and respectful way. That is not often done when two sides disagree on this forum.
I have seen a number of videos, for and against the theory. I also have now watched yours. I am not going to pretend that I get every concept and google, copy and paste rebuttals...i'm sure that has already been done back and forth. I'll just mention a few things, in your video and with the concept that I have a hard time with.
1) The idea that all the astronauts and were hypnotized or really good actors.
2) The international space station is a holographic projection...so everyone is ok with communication, weather and gps satellites in space, but everything else coming from NASA is false.
3) Being able to prove a couple points doesn't shatter the entire global (pun intended) system. Proving one thing right or wrong doesn't validate then entire opposite theory.
4) What is being implied here is that anyone that has a higher degree in the sciences is in on this vast conspiracy. Nautical and aviation instructors, geologist, meteorologist, paleontologist, and scientists dating back hundreds of years have all been in on this monumental conspiracy.
Sorry friend, but I'm going to have to agree to disagree.
Astronauts were not hypnotized. They are all card carrying freemasons.
-
More astronaut freemason symbolism.
-
Prove the internet wouldn't exist on a flat earth. In fact you cannot. No one is claiming that but you.
Where did I say that the internet wouldn't exist on a flat earth? Please point that out to me.
Your thought processes must be seriously mixed up when you reach a conclusion that is neither mentioned explicitly nor implied in my contribution.
-
Where did I say that the internet wouldn't exist on a flat earth? Please point that out to me.
Your thought processes must be seriously mixed up when you reach a conclusion that is neither mentioned explicitly nor implied in my contribution.
.
You can't have a reasonable conversation with a crypto-Jєω Freemason like happenby.
.
-
The OP asks for fruits and by their contributions, flat-earthers only prove they are bad fruits.
.
The bad fruits of flat-earthism.
.
-
The OP asks for fruits and by their contributions, flat-earthers only prove they are bad fruits.
.
The bad fruits of flat-earthism.
.
Flat earth severs the bond of heliocentric lies that enslave the world. Flat earth exposes the malicious kingpins who steal billions of dollars to indoctrinate the masses. FE destroys scientism, Big Bangism, evolution, global warming, alien invasion, dwindling resources, pole shift, life on other planets and destroys the need for spending billions of dollars on projects that enrich the few who intend to enslave man. Anne Catherine Emmerich says the false sciences taught by demons to Enoch's grandson Hom about the universe and creation, are the 'mothers of all heresies'. Pg 48 Life of Jesus Christ book 1.
When a special key like FE has been provided in order to throw off the chains by which man is enslaved, the good that comes from it is 100% good fruit, 100% of the time. Only the person who desires to remain enslaved within the pagan lie would even suggest that freedom is bad. Unless of course, he himself is one of them.
-
NASA finally telling the truth...
-
Flat earth severs the bond of heliocentric lies that enslave the world. Flat earth exposes the malicious kingpins who steal billions of dollars to indoctrinate the masses. FE destroys scientism, Big Bangism, evolution, global warming, alien invasion, dwindling resources, pole shift, life on other planets and destroys the need for spending billions of dollars on projects that enrich the few who intend to enslave man. Anne Catherine Emmerich says the false sciences taught by demons to Enoch's grandson Hom about the universe and creation, are the 'mothers of all heresies'. Pg 48 Life of Jesus Christ book 1.
When a special key like FE has been provided in order to throw off the chains by which man is enslaved, the good that comes from it is 100% good fruit, 100% of the time. Only the person who desires to remain enslaved within the pagan lie would even suggest that freedom is bad. Unless of course, he himself is one of them.
.
You have my deepest sympathy, for it must be terrible to be so miserable all the time.
.
World enslavement, malicious kingpins, indoctrinated masses, what a sorry state.
.
Whatever you do, don't open your eyes and look, because your golden calf flat-earth might collapse.
.
On second thought, it might be a good idea because a collapsed idol is a GOOD fruit.
.
-
NASA finally telling the truth...
Yes. Memes are displacing thought like emoties are doing to words and derision, argument.
Otherwise, "So what?"
-
I reported the above post for offensive content against purity.
Thanks, you're a pal. Offensive? It's a flat-earth thread and, as with the meme the error or "impurity" is only one possibility which is eliminated by providing adequate context which was the authorial intent. Apparently honesty and reason are offensive too.
Death by snowflake. Sheesh.
-
NASA finally telling the truth...
[Attached presentation-slide:]
"We can only fly in Earth orbit: That is the farthest we can go."
[--]NASA Astronaut Terry Virts 2015
"Truth"!? It's disingenuous at best to ignore the obvious context given by the year shown: 2015. It's not as if there's any biiig closet over in the Vertical Assembly Building at Canaveral that's crammed full of Saturn V stages (i.e.: S-IC, S-II, S-IVB), needing only a serious dusting off plus meticulous inspections of o-rings, to move forward with reäsembly to take U.S. astronauts back to the Moon.
[Sheol], thanks to the former U.S. Muslim-in-Chief (r. 2009--2017)[☪], NASA doesn't even have the less-powerful rockets that were used to launch the Space Shuttle any more [†]. So we must endure the national humiliation of getting our astronauts to-&-from space only when it's convenient for the Russki cosmonauts to let Amerikanskis tag along ("pretty please?"). You remember the Russkis, right? The superpower that failed in the Space Race because they couldn't get the final bugs out of their own Lunar-launch rockets, which exploded on their pads in Kazakhstan S.S.R.? The people who produced a copy-cat orbiter dubbled "Shuttleski" (or somesuch), but never successfully launched it--at least not with any crew? But nowadays there's probably widespread snickering thro'out Mother Russia: "So Amerikanskis won Space Race, da? Can Amerikanskis fly themselves into space now? Nyet! Har, har, har! "
And the presentation-slide quotes a person identified as an "Astronaut", but his name will evoke a "whodat?" from practically everyone who followed the achievements of NASA from Project Mercury thro' Project Apollo; has he even been up yet? Be that as it may, it's disingenuous at best to make wild leaps of interpretation from his straightforward summary of the disappointingly low limit on U.S. national space-flight, as our Space-Shuttle program was wound down to its conclusion in 2011 [†]. The space-flight situation for the U.S.A. as a sovereign state was even worse at the time of the quote in 2015, having deprived ourselves, 4 years earlier, of the capability to place even 1&#man into Earth-orbit.
DO YOU SEE THE PROBLEM HERE?
I sure as [Sheol] do!
The Baby Boomers who were once merely the "new kids on the block", with their fresh diplomas in aerospace engineering still carrying its original sheep aroma, reässuring them that graduation and hiring into NASA Project Apollo as engineers wasn't just some recurring dream, began to retire.
Then someone, by the grace of God, realized that the last people who understood the engineering drawings and descriptions of Project Apollo were in the process of disappearing. It wasn't just a matter of obtaining & archiving docuмents--predominately on paper, maybe surviving only as quaint blueprint copies--the crucial issue was understanding which docuмents are important, and when the engineer-archivists have collected the complete set that would be necessary to reliably reconstruct the Saturn rocket stages, instrumentation, orbiter, and lander, including the necessary programming, and confirm all that by launching them beyond low-Earth orbit for a safe round-trip to the Moon. There's probably lots of important practical knowledge available only in the brains of the otherwise-blue-collar assembly, testing, and transportation workers.
-------
Note †: The final launch being of Atlantis as STS-135, surprisingly long ago, on July 08, 2011 [☪], per Dave Mosher "07.08.11 11:38 am": "The Last Space Shuttle Launches Safely Into Orbit". Wired. <https://www.wired.com/2011/07/final-space-shuttle-launch/ (https://www.wired.com/2011/07/final-space-shuttle-launch/)>
Note ☪: Thus 2_1/2 years (nearly 30 months) into the first term of the former U.S. Muslim-in-Chief. Perversion of U.S. Constitutional role inferred per Ben Shapiro 8 Jan 2015: "6 Times The Obama Administration Said Its Job Was to Promote Islam". <http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/01/08/6-times-the-obama-administration-said-its-job-was-to-promote-islam/ (http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/01/08/6-times-the-obama-administration-said-its-job-was-to-promote-islam/)>.
-
Where did I say that the internet wouldn't exist on a flat earth? Please point that out to me.
Your thought processes must be seriously mixed up when you reach a conclusion that is neither mentioned explicitly nor implied in my contribution.
Actually, you didn't. My bad. I was late that day and snapped back without thoroughly reading. Apologies for skimming and getting it wrong.
-
.
You have my deepest sympathy, for it must be terrible to be so miserable all the time.
.
World enslavement, malicious kingpins, indoctrinated masses, what a sorry state.
.
Whatever you do, don't open your eyes and look, because your golden calf flat-earth might collapse.
.
On second thought, it might be a good idea because a collapsed idol is a GOOD fruit.
.
You're living in slavery to a government hell bent on indoctrinating and then killing you, too. Good luck with that.
-
"Truth"!? It's disingenuous at best to ignore the obvious context given by the year shown: 2015. It's not as if there's any biiig closet over in the Vertical Assembly Building at Canaveral that's crammed full of Saturn V stages (i.e.: S-IC, S-II, S-IVB), needing only a serious dusting off plus meticulous inspections of o-rings, to move forward with reäsembly to take U.S. astronauts back to the Moon.
[Sheol], thanks to the former U.S. Muslim-in-Chief (r. 2009--2017)[☪], NASA doesn't even have the less-powerful rockets that were used to launch the Space Shuttle any more [†]. So we must endure the national humiliation of getting our astronauts to-&-from space only when it's convenient for the Russki cosmonauts to let Amerikanskis tag along ("pretty please?"). You remember the Russkis, right? The superpower that failed in the Space Race because they couldn't get the final bugs out of their own Lunar-launch rockets, which exploded on their pads in Kazakhstan S.S.R.? The people who produced a copy-cat orbiter dubbled "Shuttleski" (or somesuch), but never successfully launched it--at least not with any crew? But nowadays there's probably widespread snickering thro'out Mother Russia: "So Amerikanskis won Space Race, da? Can Amerikanskis fly themselves into space now? Nyet! Har, har, har! "
And the presentation-slide quotes a person identified as an "Astronaut", but his name will evoke a "whodat?" from practically everyone who followed the achievements of NASA from Project Mercury thro' Project Apollo; has he even been up yet? Be that as it may, it's disingenuous at best to make wild leaps of interpretation from his straightforward summary of the disappointingly low limit on U.S. national space-flight, as our Space-Shuttle program was wound down to its conclusion in 2011 [†]. The space-flight situation for the U.S.A. as a sovereign state was even worse at the time of the quote in 2015, having deprived ourselves, 4 years earlier, of the capability to place even 1&#man into Earth-orbit.
I sure as [Sheol] do!
The Baby Boomers who were once merely the "new kids on the block", with their fresh diplomas in aerospace engineering still carrying its original sheep aroma, reässuring them that graduation and hiring into NASA Project Apollo as engineers wasn't just some recurring dream, began to retire.
Then someone, by the grace of God, realized that the last people who understood the engineering drawings and descriptions of Project Apollo were in the process of disappearing. It wasn't just a matter of obtaining & archiving docuмents--predominately on paper, maybe surviving only as quaint blueprint copies--the crucial issue was understanding which docuмents are important, and when the engineer-archivists have collected the complete set that would be necessary to reliably reconstruct the Saturn rocket stages, instrumentation, orbiter, and lander, including the necessary programming, and confirm all that by launching them beyond low-Earth orbit for a safe round-trip to the Moon. There's probably lots of important practical knowledge available only in the brains of the otherwise-blue-collar assembly, testing, and transportation workers.
-------
Note †: The final launch being of Atlantis as STS-135, surprisingly long ago, on July 08, 2011 [☪], per Dave Mosher "07.08.11 11:38 am": "The Last Space Shuttle Launches Safely Into Orbit". Wired. <https://www.wired.com/2011/07/final-space-shuttle-launch/ (https://www.wired.com/2011/07/final-space-shuttle-launch/)>
Note ☪: Thus 2_1/2 years (nearly 30 months) into the first term of the former U.S. Muslim-in-Chief. Perversion of U.S. Constitutional role inferred per Ben Shapiro 8 Jan 2015: "6 Times The Obama Administration Said Its Job Was to Promote Islam". <http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/01/08/6-times-the-obama-administration-said-its-job-was-to-promote-islam/ (http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/01/08/6-times-the-obama-administration-said-its-job-was-to-promote-islam/)>.
As scripture and Fathers of the Church teach, there is a dome above the earth with water above it. Nothing about what you wrote above contains any serious content because science-fictional space is a scam.
-
Dome above, from 50's encyclopedia
-
Kiwiboy,
While we may disagree with each other on this, I do want to acknowledge you engaging me in a civil and respectful way. That is not often done when two sides disagree on this forum.
I have seen a number of videos, for and against the theory. I also have now watched yours. I am not going to pretend that I get every concept and google, copy and paste rebuttals...i'm sure that has already been done back and forth. I'll just mention a few things, in your video and with the concept that I have a hard time with.
1) The idea that all the astronauts and were hypnotized or really good actors.
2) The international space station is a holographic projection...so everyone is ok with communication, weather and gps satellites in space, but everything else coming from NASA is false.
3) Being able to prove a couple points doesn't shatter the entire global (pun intended) system. Proving one thing right or wrong doesn't validate then entire opposite theory.
4) What is being implied here is that anyone that has a higher degree in the sciences is in on this vast conspiracy. Nautical and aviation instructors, geologist, meteorologist, paleontologist, and scientists dating back hundreds of years have all been in on this monumental conspiracy.
Sorry friend, but I'm going to have to agree to disagree.
RoughAshlar,
A few points;
-The hypnotism notion is just a theory.
-We never say that there are no scientific discoveries that come from NASA. Throw enough mud (money in this case) and some of it will stick.
-On "proving a couple of points". Do remember the video is an INTRODUCTION. You are suppose to do your own research after that. The lack of curvature is fundamental to the globe earth theory. It COMPLETELY FALLS APART if there is no curvature. As for proving NASA frauds, it puts suspicion over the organization at the very least, but the main strength of the flat earth position is the lack of curvature. See this link for more infor on that http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/t17-objects-over-the-horizon-proofs
- the scientists being in on the conspiracy point was answered in the video.
It's a pretty radical claim that the earth is flat. Most people are not going to come to it over one Cathinfo post. You have to be interested in doing your own research on it. Otherwise you will just go with the flow of the world.
-
Dome above, from 50's encyclopedia
The ignorance about a major field of earth science, as exemplified by the quoted mention of a "Dome above" (claiming an unidentified "encyclopedia" as its source[†]), is both startling and seriously self-discrediting.
[....] and made exploratory flights over unknown parts of the [Antarctic] continent until Jan. 18, 1956 [....] These flights proved the inland areas to be featureless in character, with a dome 13,000 feet high at about latitude 80°S., longitude 90°E.
Examination of the crude photo of an "encyclopedia" page, despite it being partially covered by a human finger, makes it clear enough that it's referring to 1 of Antarctica's geologic structures termed a "dome"--elevated ground--whether composed of rock or snow & ice. But it certainly does not refer to any celestial hemisphere or firmament dome "above" of the kind that seems to be fundamental to preaching the Flat-Earth interpretation of Genesis.
New mountain ranges were located at about latitude 85°S., longitude 50°W[text covered]
Ah, yes: Mountains. How would the all-encompassing "dome 13,000 feet high", which the terse introduction seems to claim to be "above" everything else in Antarctica, fit its Mt. Vinson, which rises to an altitude more than 16,000 feet, hmmm?
-------
Note †: Another source on the Web identifies it as an article in an edition of the Encyclopedia Americana, flawed by editing out the phrase "snow and ice" from a quote by report about exploration under the command of "Rear Admiral Richard E. Byrd".
-
Dude, WHAT are you talking about?
WHO is the "Dude" from whom this newbie "boy" is rudely demanding an explanation?
E.g., the initial quote in my reply #32 on Aug. 17, 2017 (01:01:18 CDT) provides a link to the terse posting by 'happenby' to which I was replying. Has the newbie not yet noticed that quote boxes that are automatically generated by CathInfo also provide a link to the posting whose text they display?
As for "WHAT", my cited reply is grammatically valid English, free from infusions of potentially confusing nonEnglish Latin, other Indoëuropean, or Semitic vocabulary.
Please try to make your posts somewhat coherent.
Again I ask you, arrogant newbie, WHO?
CathInfo as a forum does not provide threaded display within topics; it's strictly chronological. So a "coherent" post needs to begin with unambiguous identification of the member to whom you're replying. Which you failed to do. Lazy dependence upon readers to accurately identify the member(s) targeted by replies based solely on chronological arrivals of postings in a topic is not acceptable.
-
now to actually answer the thread.
Being flat earth is not a "position".
It is science. It is what we see with our eyes. That some people before thought the earth was round is understandable because they did not have technology to prove otherwise. Technology that we have nowadays.
Therefore the fruits can only be that of being in conformity to the truth.
-
now to actually answer the thread.
Being flat earth is not a "position".
It is science. It is what we see with our eyes. That some people before thought the earth was round is understandable because they did not have technology to prove otherwise. Technology that we have nowadays.
Therefore the fruits can only be that of being in conformity to the truth.
.
How wrong can you be, all in one post?
.
Your flat-earthism is not science, because it ignores what we see with our eyes.
.
All you have to do is observe the phases of the moon, and you can readily see that the surface of the earth is spherical.
.
There is no way the moon can have the appearance it does from earth unless we are observing it from the surface of a sphere.
.
To insist on your flat-earthism in the face of the evidence only proves your determined agenda to ignore the obvious.
.
-
As scripture and Fathers of the Church teach, there is a dome above the earth with water above it. Nothing about what you wrote above contains any serious content because science-fictional space is a scam.
My Douay-Rheims bible with Challoner commentary explains that the firmament mentioned in Genesis refers to the area from the earth's surface to the closest stars, and that the waters separated by the firmament is the water vapor in the clouds separated from the liquid water on the surface of the earth. So maybe you ought to be arguing with Bishop Richard Challoner. Except you're only 2.5 centuries too late!
(https://s17-us2.ixquick.com/wikioimage/c05edb3d3c94c08c3f609b7dd5e82c58.jpg)
-
.
The bad fruits of flat-earthism......
.
-
.
How wrong can you be, all in one post?
.
Your flat-earthism is not science, because it ignores what we see with our eyes.
.
All you have to do is observe the phases of the moon, and you can readily see that the surface of the earth is spherical.
.
There is no way the moon can have the appearance it does from earth unless we are observing it from the surface of a sphere.
.
To insist on your flat-earthism in the face of the evidence only proves your determined agenda to ignore the obvious.
.
can you see this with your eyes?
https://youtu.be/S4oT2EbDONs
-
My Douay-Rheims bible with Challoner commentary explains that the firmament mentioned in Genesis refers to the area from the earth's surface to the closest stars, and that the waters separated by the firmament is the water vapor in the clouds separated from the liquid water on the surface of the earth. So maybe you ought to be arguing with Bishop Richard Challoner. Except you're only 2.5 centuries too late!
(https://s17-us2.ixquick.com/wikioimage/c05edb3d3c94c08c3f609b7dd5e82c58.jpg)
How can the water that is separated by the firmament be vapor clouds, when clearly in scripture it says that there are waters ABOVE the firmament, and that the firmament consists of the sun, moon, and stars? Unless you think that vapor clouds are above the sun, moon, and stars?
Genesis, Douay Rheims Challoner version:
https://www.bible.com/bible/55/GEN.1.7.drc1752
-
https://www.bible.com/bible/55/GEN.1.14.drc1752
From Genesis 1:7 (Douay Rheims, Bishop Challoner version)
"And God made a firmament, and divided the waters that were under the firmament from those that were above the firmament."
We'll jump ahead a little bit to Genesis 1:14 - 1:18:
1:14
"And God said: Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven, to divide the day and the night, and let them be signs, and for seasons, and for days and years."
1:15
"To shine in the firmament of heaven, and to give light upon the earth. And it was done.
1:16
"And God made two great lights: a greater light to rule the day, and a lesser light to rule the night: and the stars."
1:17
"And he set them in the firmament of heaven to shine upon the earth."
1:18
"And to rule the day and the night, and to divide the light and the darkness. And God saw that it was good."
-
.
A most conspicuous bad fruit of flat-earthism is that those outside the Church look at flat-earthers who represent themselves as being extra specially faithful to traditional Church teaching (which is not true) and they respond by saying these guys are a bunch of cretins. Why would they want anything to do with traditional Catholicism if they would have to associate with a throwback mentality?
.
If the Catholic faith is going to have any appeal to outsiders it had best not adopt a patently false cosmology like flat-earthism.
.
It is not by advocating fables and errors that can be shown erroneous by simple observation that we will ever be able to spread the true Faith.
.
-
How can the water that is separated by the firmament be vapor clouds, when clearly in scripture it says that there are waters ABOVE the firmament, and that the firmament consists of the sun, moon, and stars? Unless you think that vapor clouds are above the sun, moon, and stars?
Genesis, Douay Rheims Challoner version:
https://www.bible.com/bible/55/GEN.1.7.drc1752
.
Try reading the notes written by commentators, which give explanation and exegesis for the scripture, some of which were written by Bishop Richard Challoner. If you have an argument with what they're saying, you might do well to re-think your position. Ask yourself for example, does Bishop Challoner say anything whatsoever that gives you the impression that he values the flat-earth model as anything better than utter myth?
.
-
can you see this with your eyes?
https://youtu.be/S4oT2EbDONs
.
I have already given detailed responses to this nonsense video, previously. If you missed it then you ought to go back and read the earlier posts. I'm not going to repeat myself.
.
The video you post is chock full of errors, shallow nonsense and self-contradiction. It shows one thing and tries to claim that it means the opposite. It's astounding that flat-earthers can be so dogmatically narrow-minded and conspicuously blind. Like the blind leading the blind, they both fall into the pit. So you're a fulfillment of prophesy. Congratulations!!
.
-
.
A most conspicuous bad fruit of flat-earthism is that those outside the Church look at flat-earthers who represent themselves as being extra specially faithful to traditional Church teaching (which is not true) and they respond by saying these guys are a bunch of cretins. Why would they want anything to do with traditional Catholicism if they would have to associate with a throwback mentality?
.
If the Catholic faith is going to have any appeal to outsiders it had best not adopt a patently false cosmology like flat-earthism.
.
It is not by advocating fables and errors that can be shown erroneous by simple observation that we will ever be able to spread the true Faith.
.
How can it be a throwback mentality when there were Church Fathers who believed in a flat earth? Unless you mean to say that this form of Tradition is outdated. We simply are going back to an older tradition from before the Protestants, atheists and pagans began to rule the sciences and society in general.
I understand that you are embarrassed by us. As if those who are looking into tradition would want nothing to do with tradition because some trads believe in a flat earth. Well, we are a distinct minority. Most trads believe as you do. And any prospective trads will see that there are divergent opinions regarding this issue, and they can decide for themselves. Hopefully, they will see that our side is more mature and charitable (well, for the most part).
-
.
Try reading the notes written by commentators, which give explanation and exegesis for the scripture, some of which were written by Bishop Richard Challoner. If you have an argument with what they're saying, you might do well to re-think your position. Ask yourself for example, does Bishop Challoner say anything whatsoever that gives you the impression that he values the flat-earth model as anything better than utter myth?
.
I have read the notes, Neil. And not only those by Challoner, but by St. Thomas as well. St. Thomas believed as Bishop Challoner did. Yet the Church allows us to debate this sort of thing, since there hasn't been definitive teaching on it. Other theologians and doctors believed in a flat earth.
-
How can it be a throwback mentality when there were Church Fathers who believed in a flat earth? Unless you mean to say that this form of Tradition is outdated. We simply are going back to an older tradition from before the Protestants, atheists and pagans began to rule the sciences and society in general.
I understand that you are embarrassed by us. As if those who are looking into tradition would want nothing to do with tradition because some trads believe in a flat earth. Well, we are a distinct minority. Most trads believe as you do. And any prospective trads will see that there are divergent opinions regarding this issue, and they can decide for themselves. Hopefully, they will see that our side is more mature and charitable (well, for the most part).
.
There was no "older tradition from before the Protestants" that held the earth was "flat." You're fantasizing, again.
.
Perhaps you don't intend to do so, but all you can possibly accomplish is to give Traditional Catholicism a bad reputation.
.
That is the bad fruit of flat-earthism, in the real world.
.
Of course, it will be an erroneously bad reputation, because Catholics have not been under this mythical flat-earthism as you claim they have been. There has been no definitive teaching of the Church regarding the shape of the earth, because that is not what the Church teaches. Things that are observable with the 5 senses are not the stuff of Church definition. There never has been any dogmatic definition of things that we can test with our own observation today, because that is not what definition is for. So you're barking up the wrong tree.
.
You're barking up the wrong tree, and all you can ever expect to accomplish is DAMAGE. I.e., bad fruit.
.
So long as you keep it up, you will be doing this with the warning, right here, that you are causing damage. Then you will be causing damage willfully, and you will be held responsible for that deliberate act of subterfuge. Fair warning.
.
-
I have read the notes, Neil. And not only those by Challoner, but by St. Thomas as well. St. Thomas believed as Bishop Challoner did. Yet the Church allows us to debate this sort of thing, since there hasn't been definitive teaching on it. Other theologians and doctors believed in a flat earth.
.
There is nothing to "debate."
.
All you have to do is observe the phases of the moon from various points on the earth and compare them.
.
The only way to see what we see every day all over the world is if we are observing it from the surface of a sphere.
.
The facts are the facts and they cannot be refuted.
.
If you persist in claiming the facts are in error or whatever, then you are persisting in your error.
.
By willfully persisting in your error you make yourself culpable and responsible for the damage that you do to the Church's reputation. So I hope you're prepared for the guilt you're heaping on your own heads.
.
-
If you persist in claiming the facts are in error or whatever, then you are persisting in your error.
.
By willfully persisting in your error you make yourself culpable and responsible for the damage that you do to the Church's reputation. So I hope you're prepared for the guilt you're heaping on your own heads.
.
If you want to believe that it's an error, that's your choice.
I'm not surprised that you believe we are guilty of damaging the Church's reputation. After all, you have said before that it can be a mortal sin to disagree with your view. Which is course ridiculous.
There have been saintly Catholic doctors and theologians who believed in a flat earth. Are they guilty of damaging the Church?
I have noticed that you do not ever post anything about geocentrism, even though you have claimed that you are a geocentrist. Is this because you are embarrassed by the geocentric view?
-
I have read the notes, Neil. And not only those by Challoner, but by St. Thomas as well. St. Thomas believed as Bishop Challoner did. Yet the Church allows us to debate this sort of thing, since there hasn't been definitive teaching on it. Other theologians and doctors believed in a flat earth.
.
So you've read the notes, have you?
.
How about this note (found in Genesis):
.
CHAP. 1. Ver. 6. A firmament. By this name is here understood the whole space between the earth, and the highest stars. The lower part of which divideth the waters that are upon the earth, from those that are above in the clouds.
.
So the Church teaches that the firmament is to be understood as the whole space between the earth, and the highest stars. Furthermore, the lower part of the firmament divideth the waters that are upon the earth, from those that are above in the clouds.
.
This is to be CONTRASTED with your comment and erroneous opinion that the waters in the clouds cannot be thought of as being divided by the firmament, and that there must be water in a liquid form somewhere ABOVE the clouds in order for your flat-earth model to work. (Otherwise known as subjectivism, which is objectively erroneous.)
.
So you say you've read the notes, but you in fact have not read the notes. I rest my case.
.
It's a good thing the Church doesn't recognize reverse thinking like yours otherwise we'd be in a lot worse shape than we already are, in this crisis.
.
-
.
Flat-earthers have a lot in common with Mohammedans (aka Moslems).
.
(https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FeLSrwQU.gif&sp=3a1bab6731d1c11822a0c81c7b323aed)
-
.
Women being sucked in to the flat earth position!!
(https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2Fr4DYB-1FZ68%2Fmaxresdefault.jpg&sp=d4394f5ba6a3e8ec1f7523cb166fcb27)
.
-
Has anybody been able to explain the rather bizarre path of this eclipse across the U.S.? Doesn't seem to follow any pattern of any F.E. model that has been presented here on this forum...
(http://www.eclipse2017.org/2017/maps/whole-us.jpg)
-
.
Has anybody been able to explain the rather bizarre path of this eclipse across the U.S.?
.
Doesn't seem to follow any pattern of any F.E. model that has been presented here on this forum...
(http://www.eclipse2017.org/2017/maps/whole-us.jpg)
.
Flat-earthers think that's all part of the great conspiracy.
.
The map is all fabricated and orchestrated by NASA in order to deceive the gullible.
.
They didn't draw the map accurately.
.
They got all their times wrong, since what they show can't be made to fit the flat-earthism model.
.
The size of the moon's shadow (or whatever it is because flat-earthers don't know what causes an eclipse) is a big LIE.
.
The moon can't be that size because the sun is obviously bigger and they're both the same size.
.
The reason all the collected data about this so-called eclipse (which really did not take place at all!) is so contradictory to the flat-earth model is most definitely the bad fruit of big money interests that have funded this whole pack of lies from the beginning (whenever that was!) in order to discredit the sacred cow doctrine of flat-earthism.
.
Any more questions?
.
Maybe I forgot to include an answer or two. I'm sure I'll be corrected! HAHAHAHAHA
.
-
Any more questions?
Nope... think that answers my question. Thanks Neil. 8)
-
Nope... think that answers my question. Thanks Neil. 8)
.
You're welcome. Anytime -- that I'm here, that is!!
.
-
.
A most conspicuous bad fruit of flat-earthism is that those outside the Church look at flat-earthers who represent themselves as being extra specially faithful to traditional Church teaching (which is not true) and they respond by saying these guys are a bunch of cretins. Why would they want anything to do with traditional Catholicism if they would have to associate with a throwback mentality?
.
If the Catholic faith is going to have any appeal to outsiders it had best not adopt a patently false cosmology like flat-earthism.
.
It is not by advocating fables and errors that can be shown erroneous by simple observation that we will ever be able to spread the true Faith.
.
I am quite suspicious that Happenby a bunch of the 15-post flat-earthers are plants to make Catholics and "conspiracy theorists" look like a bunch of kooks. They take a few truths--NASA can't be trusted; man didn't go to the moon; geocentrism--and make them seem inextricably intwined with the hare-brained notion of flat-earth, proclaimed most ardently by the 10th grade educated, a few puffed-up proud of whom done got that GED, trailer park residents with YouTube smash-hits about alien abductions and describing the tornado that roared through Tin-Can Estates.
-
You're becoming a tad bit unhinged, Neil.
Time for me to bow out of the thread.
-
Gravity makes no sense.
I am confused. One of the reasons given for the globe earth being false is that water would not stick to the globe, due to gravity. So if gravity is false, then why would it also be a reason against the globe earth?
-
.
I have already given detailed responses to this nonsense video, previously. If you missed it then you ought to go back and read the earlier posts. I'm not going to repeat myself.
.
The video you post is chock full of errors, shallow nonsense and self-contradiction. It shows one thing and tries to claim that it means the opposite. It's astounding that flat-earthers can be so dogmatically narrow-minded and conspicuously blind. Like the blind leading the blind, they both fall into the pit. So you're a fulfillment of prophesy. Congratulations!!
.
You're a liar!
the only true thing you say is that gave a a response. But I can respond to the question of "what is your name" with the response "the sky is blue" and not really answer the question.
You NEVER explained as can be seen from the posts where the missing 500 feet came from even taking into account your adjustments. The threads are full of users reminding you of this.
So drop the charade, NASA employee!
-
I am quite suspicious that Happenby a bunch of the 15-post flat-earthers are plants to make Catholics and "conspiracy theorists" look like a bunch of kooks. They take a few truths--NASA can't be trusted; man didn't go to the moon; geocentrism--and make them seem inextricably intwined with the hare-brained notion of flat-earth, proclaimed most ardently by the 10th grade educated, a few puffed-up proud of whom done got that GED, trailer park residents with YouTube smash-hits about alien abductions and describing the tornado that roared through Tin-Can Estates.
Oh I love this. Because we don't waste as much time in front a computer screen as you, we must be trolls!
Your nonsense line about us discrediting Trads has already been hashed over by many before you and it is really quite tiresome. What goes through your head? Are you really so dull as to not do any investigation into it? You have a lot of posts yourself and so have seen a lot of flat earth threads, and all you can do is bark from the sidelines.
You're also being totally dishonest in misrepresenting our arguments. You should know FULL WELL that the basis of the flat earth arguments is NOT that NASA can't be trusted. You KNOW THIS! It is about the lack of curvature. But to make inflate your ego, you skirt around this and make a lot of ad hominem attacks and come up with straw men.
At least Neil makes some kind of quasi scientific attempt to argue with us. You're just a time waster.
-
You're a liar!
the only true thing you say is that gave a a response. But I can respond to the question of "what is your name" with the response "the sky is blue" and not really answer the question.
You NEVER explained as can be seen from the posts where the missing 500 feet came from even taking into account your adjustments. The threads are full of users reminding you of this.
So drop the charade, NASA employee!
.
On the contrary, you (like your buddy kiwiboy) are a liar. Liar, liar, pants on fire!! :jester:
.
I most certainly did go through that video, page by page, and commented on all its errors, but you were not a member at the time so you wouldn't know about it, nonetheless, your saying otherwise makes you a liar. I did comment.
.
The last time someone asked about "the 500 feet we can't see" his question made no sense and I didn't know what he was asking about so I replied, "What 500 feet are you asking about?" But he never replied. Is that my fault?
.
So here you are doing the same thing. Provide a minute number in the video for this missing 500 feet to which you refer and I'll give you a second chance. But if you don't respond, then I'm sorry, you're just like your friend -- impossible.
.
-
.
.
More Bad Fruits of the Flat-Earth Position!!
.
.
-
Oh I love this. Because we don't waste as much time in front a computer screen as you, we must be trolls!
Your nonsense line about us discrediting Trads has already been hashed over by many before you and it is really quite tiresome. What goes through your head? Are you really so dull as to not do any investigation into it? You have a lot of posts yourself and so have seen a lot of flat earth threads, and all you can do is bark from the sidelines.
You're also being totally dishonest in misrepresenting our arguments. You should know FULL WELL that the basis of the flat earth arguments is NOT that NASA can't be trusted. You KNOW THIS! It is about the lack of curvature. But to make inflate your ego, you skirt around this and make a lot of ad hominem attacks and come up with straw men.
At least Neil makes some kind of quasi scientific attempt to argue with us. You're just a time waster.
.
Looks like OCHA has ruffled your feathers, birdbrain. :jester:
.
Flat-tards are trolls, even on their own dark corner nowhere website, which they keep going by conspiracy.
.
What an embarrassment. How do you sleep at night? Wait -- you don't. You stay up posting nonsense HAHAHAHA
.
Get a life and wake up to the reality.
.
Or, on the other hand, you could just go on lying, and lying in wait............. :o
.
-
To date no serious refutation of flat earth, no proof of the globe, either scientific, from reason, or from Tradition. Globalist indoctrination only.
-
You flat-earthers are really missing out.
.
There is a profusion of flat-earther videos posted on YouTube claiming the eclipse was a HOAX!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7Mxy2AMmSU
NASA 100 % PROOF THE SOLAR ECLIPSE WASN'T REAL
.
They whine and moan that there is no moon in the sky while the moon is moving in front of the sun.
.
But their lousy camera equipment has no filters so of course you can't see the moon under overexposure.
.
Then at 4:45 to 4:58 you get the Diamond Ring effect but since they don't know what that is, nobody identifies it!!
.
"IT COVERED THE SUN SUPER FAST AND THEN SAT THERE AND DIDNT MOVE EVER AGAIN" they have on the screen at 5:10.
.
.
The Bad Fruits of Flat-Earthism
.
"Nothing passed in front of the sun!!
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUoL7rniLKk
FAKE ECLIPSE August 21 2017 - Something went Wrong - "Graphics" in The "HOLOGRAPHIC SKY" ...
.
Nothing caused the sun eclipse today! It's a whole new ball game now!
Welcome to Flat-Earth!! NASA, you are SUCH LIARS!!
This was totally unexpected -- there was nothing blocking the sun's light -- just nothing there!!!
Something ELSE eclipsed the sun today, it wasn't the moon! There was no moon there!!!!!!!
We have some very top people working on this!
As soon as we have something, we'll let you know!!!
.
-
To date no serious refutation of flat earth, no proof of the globe, either scientific, from reason, or from Tradition. Globalist indoctrination only.
.
Another flat-tard lying in wait, eh? :jester: :jester: :jester:
.
-
.
Here is "God's flat-earth" and their eclipse explanation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ak2zuFNpxlY
Solar Eclipse Hoax - Exposing the Global Lies from God's Enclosed Flat Earth System
They say, "Never look at the sun" -- what are they trying to HIDE?
.
We are never told, "Never look at the moon."
.
What are they trying to hide?
.
The lies continue, and still people continue to believe
.
Seriously?
.
Hey, maybe you ought to just go ahead and look, then you can prove how wrong they are? Eh? :jester: :facepalm: :sleep:
.
They even quote from the Book of Enoch, which is apocryphal. But they treat it as Scripture. -- NOT!!
The Bad Fruits of the Flat-Earth Position
.
-
.
On the contrary, you (like your buddy kiwiboy) are a liar. Liar, liar, pants on fire!! :jester:
.
I most certainly did go through that video, page by page, and commented on all its errors, but you were not a member at the time so you wouldn't know about it, nonetheless, your saying otherwise makes you a liar. I did comment.
.
The last time someone asked about "the 500 feet we can't see" his question made no sense and I didn't know what he was asking about so I replied, "What 500 feet are you asking about?" But he never replied. Is that my fault?
.
So here you are doing the same thing. Provide a minute number in the video for this missing 500 feet to which you refer and I'll give you a second chance. But if you don't respond, then I'm sorry, you're just like your friend -- impossible.
.
Even if you did write that question (which you didn't), you already know the answer, and thus you are just wasting time. The answer is clear from the the fact that the video shows that we should not see nearly 600 feet of the mountain (500 feet conceding your absurd adjustments).
Pointing to a "minute" in the video is ridiculous. The WHOLE video is about the missing feet that we should not see.
https://youtu.be/S4oT2EbDONs
And another video for those interested in this proof
https://youtu.be/VqD2a-zifYE
-
I was talking to my parish priest about this thread yesterday. At first, he didn't really believe me when I told him that there are groups who argue that you can't be a good Catholic without accepting that the earth is flat. So I brought out my laptop, logged in and let him read.
To say that he was stunned is an understatement. He was very clear that the church totally, absolutely 100% accepts the mainstream scientific teaching on geography, geology, cosmology, physics, astronomy and all the rest. As far as he is concerned, the earth is round, has always been round, and will be round for as long as it exists. One of his comments on those who believe otherwise was 'poor, benighted fools.'
My PP is well connected with the Irish hierarchy, and he was able to tell me categorically that flat-earthism would be laughed out the door of the arch-episcopal palace in +Armagh, down the hill and cross country to the coast, where it would join with the snakes that the Blessed Patrick swept into the sea for us.
-
I was talking to my parish priest about this thread yesterday. At first, he didn't really believe me when I told him that there are groups who argue that you can't be a good Catholic without accepting that the earth is flat. So I brought out my laptop, logged in and let him read.
To say that he was stunned is an understatement. He was very clear that the church totally, absolutely 100% accepts the mainstream scientific teaching on geography, geology, cosmology, physics, astronomy and all the rest. As far as he is concerned, the earth is round, has always been round, and will be round for as long as it exists. One of his comments on those who believe otherwise was 'poor, benighted fools.'
My PP is well connected with the Irish hierarchy, and he was able to tell me categorically that flat-earthism would be laughed out the door of the arch-episcopal palace in +Armagh, down the hill and cross country to the coast, where it would join with the snakes that the Blessed Patrick swept into the sea for us.
well of course new-rome would accept round earth heresy. the earth has to be flat or it couldnt rest on the back of the tortoise.
its just further proof that the vatican II church is out of step with tradition and is in the clutches of satan.
-
Even if you did write that question (which you didn't), you already know the answer, and thus you are just wasting time. The answer is clear from the the fact that the video shows that we should not see nearly 600 feet of the mountain (500 feet conceding your absurd adjustments).
Pointing to a "minute" in the video is ridiculous. The WHOLE video is about the missing feet that we should not see.
https://youtu.be/S4oT2EbDONs
.
I did reply to questions about this video, but I can't find the posts now. Maybe the video was a different version (video number?), when it was more recently released, several months ago. But the one I commented on began the same way with the people walking down the stairs and the measurement from Miramar Beach to Anacapa island.
.
At the start, it begins with a very important inaccuracy, where it has the Camera Height at 3 feet. This is obviously false. You can easily see that the camera is on the sandy beach with rocky pebbles, high above the surf line. The camera might be 3 feet above the sand, but that place on the sand is at least 8 feet above the water level of the ocean, so the camera height is more like 11 feet, not 3 feet.
.
For the next 2 minutes, the video uses this fake beginning as a basis for drawing conclusions, but they're all fake because it started with a wrong elevation.
.
At minute 2 he could easily have had a helper hold a long stick vertically standing at the water's edge (in surveying it's called a Philadelphia Rod - see insert pic) going up to the line of the horizon, and then go measure how high that is (or read the markings on the rod). He doesn't do that because it would show that the camera's height is much greater than the 3 feet that he erroneously claims it is.
.
(https://s15-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.slideplayer.com%2F47%2F11673193%2Fslides%2Fslide_7.jpg&sp=2613ec5cda1a96f9c9eb7371662fa0e0)
.
At 2:47, without explaining what's going on, he suddenly shows footage shot from the top of a hill somewhere and has, "I will compare with this image from 560 ft elevation view." Pause the video at minute 3:00 and pay close attention to the low point of the island on the right side, between West Anacapa and Middle Anacapa. You can clearly see the land of the islands coming to a low point and briefly touching the water line, which is the small channel between the two islands. This is the portion of the shot that he eliminates in a few seconds by scrolling up...
.
Then, to compound his error, at minute 3:13 you can see how he scrolls up the picture to eliminate the lower portion of his view, cutting off the bottom part of the island that you could easily see a few seconds before, and he pretends that's the water line viewed from a higher elevation at the beach. But it's not. It is his cropped picture that cuts off the part you could see plainly a few seconds before, at 3:00. Then the cropped picture wiggles up and down for all to see, and at at 3:32 he labels his arbitrary image "View from 560 ft. elevation" when it's not that at all. He just isn't showing the bottom 300 feet of the island!! He has falsified his own view to make it appear to support his bias. It's so obviously a deliberate distortion.
.
Then he says, "LET'S TRY SEA LEVEL" at 3:40, and starts walking down to the water's edge. At 3:57 (pause it to see) halfway down to the water, the top of a surfer's head is touching the horizon line at the distant island's base. That is the point at which the camera is 5 feet above the water, because the surfer's head is 5 feet above the water's surface -- he is standing on his surfboard with his feet at the water's level and he's about 5 feet tall.
.
At 4:03 he puts his camera down on the sand and you can easily see how the standing surfer out in the water is now with his head up against the sky. The surfer did not rise up, but the camera did lower down, and this lower angle of view changes the appearance of the surfer against the water. You can't see the water surface anymore because it's hidden by the breaking waves.
.
Then at 4:15 the same surfer is shown falling off his surfboard, so you know it's not fake. This is real footage, which is nice to see.
.
At 4:29 the wave washes up toward the camera and you can see the top of the water. The camera is obviously higher than the water's surface (mean sea level) or else you wouldn't be able to see the surface. The fact is, as the waves rush up the sand, the water moves uphill, and the furthest extent of the water's edge is ABOVE sea level by a few feet. This is always the case on the shoreline with breaking waves.
.
If he put his camera down at sea level it would get ruined by the water covering it up, and we wouldn't be seeing any picture at all. Like a periscope on a submarine that isn't quite out of the water yet or gets splashed by a wave.
.
All the way past minute 6 the camera shows views of the water's surface out to sea, proving that the camera is at 3' elevation, or even higher. But he pretends it's at 0, which is clearly false.
.
At 6:00 to 6:08 a surfer paddles past the camera's line of sight, with his head and body entirely below the water's surface in the distance. You would not be able to see that if the camera were at water level. The camera is above water level by at least 3 feet, perhaps 4 feet.
.
And another video for those interested in this proof
https://youtu.be/VqD2a-zifYE
.
That video isn't working.
.
-
An aviator, navigator, or (boat/ship) pilot could tell the same, esp. military, though I guess they're all "in on it" too. Radar, possibly sonar and comms could as well. Wait… "Masons". I forgot.
.
I did reply to questions about this video, but I can't find the posts now. Maybe the video was a different version (video number?), when it was more recently released, several months ago. But the one I commented on began the same way with the people walking down the stairs and the measurement from Miramar Beach to Anacapa island.
.
At the start, it begins with a very important inaccuracy, where it has the Camera Height at 3 feet. This is obviously false. You can easily see that the camera is on the sandy beach with rocky pebbles, high above the surf line. The camera might be 3 feet above the sand, but that place on the sand is at least 8 feet above the water level of the ocean, so the camera height is more like 11 feet, not 3 feet.
.
For the next 2 minutes, the video uses this fake beginning as a basis for drawing conclusions, but they're all fake because it started with a wrong elevation.
.
At minute 2 he could easily have had a helper hold a long stick vertically standing at the water's edge (in surveying it's called a Philadelphia Rod - see insert pic) going up to the line of the horizon, and then go measure how high that is (or read the markings on the rod). He doesn't do that because it would show that the camera's height is much greater than the 3 feet that he erroneously claims it is.
.
(https://s15-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.slideplayer.com%2F47%2F11673193%2Fslides%2Fslide_7.jpg&sp=2613ec5cda1a96f9c9eb7371662fa0e0)
.
At 2:47, without explaining what's going on, he suddenly shows footage shot from the top of a hill somewhere and has, "I will compare with this image from 560 ft elevation view." Pause the video at minute 3:00 and pay close attention to the low point of the island on the right side, between West Anacapa and Middle Anacapa. You can clearly see the land of the islands coming to a low point and briefly touching the water line, which is the small channel between the two islands. This is the portion of the shot that he eliminates in a few seconds by scrolling up...
.
Then, to compound his error, at minute 3:13 you can see how he scrolls up the picture to eliminate the lower portion of his view, cutting off the bottom part of the island that you could easily see a few seconds before, and he pretends that's the water line viewed from a higher elevation at the beach. But it's not. It is his cropped picture that cuts off the part you could see plainly a few seconds before, at 3:00. Then the cropped picture wiggles up and down for all to see, and at at 3:32 he labels his arbitrary image "View from 560 ft. elevation" when it's not that at all. He just isn't showing the bottom 300 feet of the island!! He has falsified his own view to make it appear to support his bias. It's so obviously a deliberate distortion.
.
Then he says, "LET'S TRY SEA LEVEL" at 3:40, and starts walking down to the water's edge. At 3:57 (pause it to see) halfway down to the water, the top of a surfer's head is touching the horizon line at the distant island's base. That is the point at which the camera is 5 feet above the water, because the surfer's head is 5 feet above the water's surface -- he is standing on his surfboard with his feet at the water's level and he's about 5 feet tall.
.
At 4:03 he puts his camera down on the sand and you can easily see how the standing surfer out in the water is now with his head up against the sky. The surfer did not rise up, but the camera did lower down, and this lower angle of view changes the appearance of the surfer against the water. You can't see the water surface anymore because it's hidden by the breaking waves.
.
Then at 4:15 the same surfer is shown falling off his surfboard, so you know it's not fake. This is real footage, which is nice to see.
.
At 4:29 the wave washes up toward the camera and you can see the top of the water. The camera is obviously higher than the water's surface (mean sea level) or else you wouldn't be able to see the surface. The fact is, as the waves rush up the sand, the water moves uphill, and the furthest extent of the water's edge is ABOVE sea level by a few feet. This is always the case on the shoreline with breaking waves.
.
If he put his camera down at sea level it would get ruined by the water covering it up, and we wouldn't be seeing any picture at all. Like a periscope on a submarine that isn't quite out of the water yet or gets splashed by a wave.
.
All the way past minute 6 the camera shows views of the water's surface out to sea, proving that the camera is at 3' elevation, or even higher. But he pretends it's at 0, which is clearly false.
.
At 6:00 to 6:08 a surfer paddles past the camera's line of sight, with his head and body entirely below the water's surface in the distance. You would not be able to see that if the camera were at water level. The camera is above water level by at least 3 feet, perhaps 4 feet.
..
That video isn't working.
.
-
I was talking to my parish priest about this thread yesterday. At first, he didn't really believe me when I told him that there are groups who argue that you can't be a good Catholic without accepting that the earth is flat. So I brought out my laptop, logged in and let him read.
To say that he was stunned is an understatement. He was very clear that the church totally, absolutely 100% accepts the mainstream scientific teaching on geography, geology, cosmology, physics, astronomy and all the rest. As far as he is concerned, the earth is round, has always been round, and will be round for as long as it exists. One of his comments on those who believe otherwise was 'poor, benighted fools.'
My PP is well connected with the Irish hierarchy, and he was able to tell me categorically that flat-earthism would be laughed out the door of the arch-episcopal palace in +Armagh, down the hill and cross country to the coast, where it would join with the snakes that the Blessed Patrick swept into the sea for us.
.
Thanks for this post Irish_Catholic.
.
It's interesting to see you mention the snakes St. Patrick cast out of Ireland. I recently read a cynic claiming that there never were any real snakes in Ireland but this legend is based on the historical reality that the saint got rid of all the druids, which are called "snakes" by allegory. What do you think of that? I'd like your reaction since you have a much better point of observation being located in the place of contention.
.
It's not hard to understand that your priest would be stunned. Anyone can observe the direction of the sun's movement by watching the moon in its first quarter phase as it approaches the west after sunset. You ought to tell your priest what flat-earthers say when confronted with this simple sight.
.
They say that the moon's light isn't coming from the sun but comes from inside the moon.
They say that the moon is translucent and you can see stars shining through it.
They say the recent total solar eclipse (Aug 21st) was a HOAX perpetrated by NASA.
They say you can't measure the angle between the sun and moon because that's demonic to measure angles.
They say the sun does not set below the horizon and if you had a telescope you would still see the sun at all hours.
They say the sun and moon are two parts of a celestial battery and they are electric lights.
They say the sun and moon are the same size and the same distance from the earth.
They say sometimes the moon goes behind the sun but we just don't notice that happening.
They cannot answer why the sun and moon don't smash into each other if they're the same distance from earth.
They cannot answer why the sun always appears the same size when they believe it's so close to the earth.
They cannot answer why the sun's angle of rise and descent is perpendicular to the horizon at the equator.
They cannot explain how a sextant only works when used to navigate on a globe.
They claim that honest astronauts and navigators believe in a flat earth.
They claim the Church has always taught the earth is flat but cannot provide any examples of this fabled teaching.
.
They accuse anyone who shows how wrong they are of promoting "heresy" which BTW is directed against your priest!!
.
-
.
Thanks for this post Irish_Catholic.
.
It's interesting to see you mention the snakes St. Patrick cast out of Ireland. I recently read a cynic claiming that there never were any real snakes in Ireland but this legend is based on the historical reality that the saint got rid of all the druids, which are called "snakes" by allegory. What do you think of that? I'd like your reaction since you have a much better point of observation being located in the place of contention.
.
It's not hard to understand that your priest would be stunned. Anyone can observe the direction of the sun's movement by watching the moon in its first quarter phase as it approaches the west after sunset. You ought to tell your priest what flat-earthers say when confronted with this simple sight.
.
They say that the moon's light isn't coming from the sun but comes from inside the moon.
They say that the moon is translucent and you can see stars shining through it.
They say the recent total solar eclipse (Aug 21st) was a HOAX perpetrated by NASA.
They say you can't measure the angle between the sun and moon because that's demonic to measure angles.
They say the sun does not set below the horizon and if you had a telescope you would still see the sun at all hours.
They say the sun and moon are two parts of a celestial battery and they are electric lights.
They say the sun and moon are the same size and the same distance from the earth.
They say sometimes the moon goes behind the sun but we just don't notice that happening.
They cannot answer why the sun and moon don't smash into each other if they're the same distance from earth.
They cannot answer why the sun always appears the same size when they believe it's so close to the earth.
They cannot answer why the sun's angle of rise and descent is perpendicular to the horizon at the equator.
They cannot explain how a sextant only works when used to navigate on a globe.
They claim that honest astronauts and navigators believe in a flat earth.
They claim the Church has always taught the earth is flat but cannot provide any examples of this fabled teaching.
.
They accuse anyone who shows how wrong they are of promoting "heresy" which BTW is directed against your priest!!
.
Wow. You lied to your priest. No one here says the solar eclipse was a hoax, that its demonic to measure angles, or that a telescope would allow one to see the sun at all hours. No one said the sun and moon are the same distance from earth or that the sun's angle of rise and descent is perpendicular to the earth. You failed the astrolabe convo so badly its unbelievable and the sextant can NEVER be used on a globe because it uses line of sight, straight lines and angles to navigate. Catholic teachings are made on flat earth ONLY and NOT ONE SINGLE CATHOLIC TEACHING says that earth is a globe. Either you aren't listening or you cannot understand or you're a liar. You continue to rail without proofs of any kind, yet, scoff at the clues given by Catholic saints, scholars, ancients while shamelessly choosing to believe pagan teaching. Put up proof of a globe. Catholic or otherwise. Skip the garbage that includes the sketchy doctrine of gravity and hopeful nonsense that things just magically stick to a ball and give proof of your pagan theory.
-
Wow. You lied to your priest. No one here says the solar eclipse was a hoax, that its demonic to measure angles, or that a telescope would allow one to see the sun at all hours. No one said the sun and moon are the same distance from earth or that the sun's angle of rise and descent is perpendicular to the earth. You failed the astrolabe convo so badly its unbelievable and the sextant can NEVER be used on a globe because it uses line of sight, straight lines and angles to navigate. Catholic teachings are made on flat earth ONLY and NOT ONE SINGLE CATHOLIC TEACHING says that earth is a globe. Either you aren't listening or you cannot understand or you're a liar. You continue to rail without proofs of any kind, yet, scoff at the clues given by Catholic saints, scholars, ancients while shamelessly choosing to believe pagan teaching. Put up proof of a globe. Catholic or otherwise. Skip the garbage that includes the sketchy doctrine of gravity and hopeful nonsense that things just magically stick to a ball and give proof of your pagan theory.
.
You're wrong, as usual, but this time on two accounts. You're moving up in the world. Sort of. HAHAHAHA
.
You didn't pay attention --- as usual!!
.
It isn't my priest. But in any case, you or your buddies have said the eclipse was a hoax.
.
If you don't think it was, then say so (AS YOU LEFT IT HERE you can later claim you didn't say so). But no, you don't like to be clear because then when you're proven wrong, again, it's embarrassing, and then you have to lie again by saying you're not embarrassed, and so on.
.
You refused to measure the angle between the sun and moon and accused me of practicing the dark arts of Pythagoras by doing so.
.
You have claimed the sun never "sets" as everyone (else) says it does by going DOWN over the horizon, but (you say) it keeps going sideways along the horizon and out of view even though it's still in a line of sight from our viewpoint because (you say) of "perspective." But you fail to describe what this magical thing is, for airplanes disappear over the horizon too, as do satellites and ships. But you just refuse to acknowledge that and say, "No, they don't." Without any evidence.
.
There wasn't any "astrolabe convo" -- you couldn't answer the question I asked. I wasn't bringing up astrolabe, you were (incorrectly). You had no idea what a sextant was, and as soon as I explained it to you, you immediately said it "proves the flat earth" without having ever used one. I have used one, and I know others who can use one, and I gave you websites to watch videos that explain how they work, and somehow you're the only person on earth who thinks that using a sextant requires the operator to think the earth is "flat" to use it properly. Fantasyland!!
.
Lose, lose, lose. You, the loser, are enjoying the loss, I guess. Or else you're enjoying the pain. Are you a masochist?
.
All the rest of your old flat-earth-tards have thrown in the towel at CI but you keep coming back to get more egg on your face.
.
Either you enjoy having egg on your face or you're unable to see it in the mirror. Hey ---- maybe I'm on to something???
.
Where is FlatEarthInquisitor? Where is mw2016? Where is deutschcath? Where is TomGubbinsKimmage? Where is moosey?
.
Every time you post and make a fool of yourself, do I have to remind you that your post leaves proof of the fact you made it?
.
If I could have one thin dime for every puerile peevish reply you have given to my carefully worded and intelligible questions, I could buy a round of drinks for the bar with it. Except I'm not in the bar, I've passed that.
.
-
.
So this isn't your video?
.
https://youtu.be/Q7Mxy2AMmSU
.
Sorry. My mistake.
.
But you ought to be flattered. As soon as I saw "NASA HOAX" I immediately thought of you.
.
Thinking of you!!!
.
-
You flat-earthers are really missing out.
.
There is a profusion of flat-earther videos posted on YouTube claiming the eclipse was a HOAX!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7Mxy2AMmSU
NASA 100 % PROOF THE SOLAR ECLIPSE WASN'T REAL
.
They whine and moan that there is no moon in the sky while the moon is moving in front of the sun.
.
But their lousy camera equipment has no filters so of course you can't see the moon under overexposure.
.
Then at 4:45 to 4:58 you get the Diamond Ring effect but since they don't know what that is, nobody identifies it!!
.
"IT COVERED THE SUN SUPER FAST AND THEN SAT THERE AND DIDNT MOVE EVER AGAIN" they have on the screen at 5:10.
.
.
The Bad Fruits of Flat-Earthism
.
"Nothing passed in front of the sun!!
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUoL7rniLKk
FAKE ECLIPSE August 21 2017 - Something went Wrong - "Graphics" in The "HOLOGRAPHIC SKY" ...
.
Nothing caused the sun eclipse today! It's a whole new ball game now!
Welcome to Flat-Earth!! NASA, you are SUCH LIARS!!
This was totally unexpected -- there was nothing blocking the sun's light -- just nothing there!!!
Something ELSE eclipsed the sun today, it wasn't the moon! There was no moon there!!!!!!!
We have some very top people working on this!
As soon as we have something, we'll let you know!!!
.
.
I really should have posted this and the others related to it on a different thread. Sorry about that.
.
Go to How do Flat-Earthers Explain an Eclipse (https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/how-do-flat-earthers-explain-an-eclipse/30/) thread.
-
As far as he is concerned, the earth is round, has always been round, and will be round for as long as it exists. One of his comments on those who believe otherwise was 'poor, benighted fools.'
Poor benighted fools? Not many--maybe approximately 4. Most are perfidious lampshade/soap factory/incinerator/gas chamber dodgers, and are putting on to discredit trads and non-mainstream thinking.
-
Quote from: Irish_Catholic on August 24, 2017, 12:16:59 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/the-fruits-of-the-flat-earth-position/msg561655/#msg561655)
As far as he is concerned, the earth is round, has always been round, and will be round for as long as it exists. One of his comments on those who believe otherwise was 'poor, benighted fools.'
Poor benighted fools? Not many--maybe approximately 4. Most are perfidious lampshade/soap factory/incinerator/gas chamber dodgers, and are putting on to discredit trads and non-mainstream thinking.
.
They're putting on, and playing the poor benighted fools like a fiddle.
.
(https://s16-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdnan0fzjxntrj.cloudfront.net%2FPictures%2F480xany%2F9%2F2%2F5%2F3925_vengerovmozart1.png&sp=5f964cf1a5cae339ffb7348d1bb1d3e3)
.
Question is, "Does the violin know it's being played?"
-
the sketchy doctrine of gravity
OMG
Just when I thought that these fruitcakes couldn't get any more nutty, I read this.
Firstly, gravity is not a doctrine, sketchy or otherwise. It's a scientific theory. Now, before you start spouting the usual nonsense of the scientifically illiterate that 'it's only a theory' please read up on what a theory actually is.
Back to gravity. Einstein's theory of general relativity is the current best theory of gravity that we have. It has yet to be disproved by any experiment, real or imagined, that has been undertaken. It is one of the most successful theories of 20th century science, and led directly to very many of the technological advances that occurred later in the 20th century that we all now take for granted.
What part of all of that do you not get?
-
Back to gravity. Einstein's theory of general relativity is the current best theory of gravity that we have. It has yet to be disproved by any experiment, real or imagined, that has been undertaken. It is one of the most successful theories of 20th century science, and led directly to very many of the technological advances that occurred later in the 20th century that we all now take for granted.
What part of all of that do you not get?
THIS BIT IRISH!
According to any standard textbook on science Einstein’s GTR of 1915 is an expansion of his STR of 1905 with further revelations.
‘By a series of remarkably creative and idiosyncratic steps, Einstein decided that space is not flat but curved, and the local curvature is produced by the pressure of mass in the universe. Consequently bodies moving through curved space did not travel in straight lines but rather follow the path of least resistance along the contours of curved space. These paths are called geodesics. If this were true there would be no need for a mysterious ‘force of gravity’ that is transmitted instantaneously. Nor would it be necessary to explain the odd coincidence that inertial and gravitational mass are exactly the same.’---J.P. McEvoy and O. Zarate: Introducing S. Hawking, Icon Books UK, p.30.
To begin with, Einstein proposed the universe is a surface-sphere and consequently finite. Goodbye Newton’s ‘infinite’ universal gravity. After that he said space is made up of a 4-dimensional fabric, so to speak, the vertical lines, the horizontal lines, the depth lines and space-time dimension. Add a large cosmic body to it and it creates ‘curves and warps’ in this fabric of space, just as a trampoline bends with the weight of a person. This ‘whirlpool’ will now suck in and hold smaller bodies that will orbit around it. In our part of the universe the sun is the big cosmic body causing the bowl and the planets we know whirl around the sides creating what is known as our solar system.
This idea, pure invention of course, something any science-fictionist could have proposed, has, even we admit, an attractive appeal about it. Is it any wonder then that ‘many physicists believe this theory to be the most perfect and aesthetically beautiful creation in physics, perhaps in all science? ---Jeremy Bernstein: Einstein, p.63.
‘The general theory of relativity is a complicated business. It is said that even by 1919 there were only two people who fully understood it: Einstein and Eddington. (This, let us hasten to add, is based on a quip of Eddington’s.) Even to this day, theorists are not completely united about what follows from Einstein’s theory…’---H. Collins and T. Pinch: The Golem p.43.
The bad news is that the mathematics is extremely difficult. There are some 20 simultaneous equations with 10 unknown quantities. The equations are almost impossible to solve except in situations where symmetry or energy considerations reduce them to simple forms. If we ignore the cosmological constant lambada (which doesn’t belong there anyway) and consider free space where the mass is zero, the equations can be written simply.'--- J.P. McEvoy and O. Zarate: op. cit., p.39.
Later it was disaster for Einstein’s GTR. It seems that when they did the mathematics in the 1980s or so, they found there wasn’t enough matter in the universe to accommodate Einstein’s gravitation theories. So, what did they do? Well, as Newton theory had to invent ‘perturbations,’ for Einstein’s universe they invented ‘dark matter’ to solve their problem. So, where is it? ‘Out there in space, stupid, but because we cannot see it, it is invisible matter.’ And you know what; they spent the last 90 years looking for it. We kid you not. One of the latest searches is described on the Vanderbilt University website like so:
‘Most of the matter in the universe may be made out of particles that possess an unusual, donut-shaped electromagnetic field called an anapole. In the article (http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.0503), titled “Anapole Dark Matter,” the physicists propose that dark matter, an invisible form of matter that makes up 85 percent of the all the matter in the universe, may be made out of a type of basic particle called the Majorana fermion. The particle’s existence was predicted in the 1930’s but has stubbornly resisted detection.’--2013.
The ‘science’ of dark matter now has over 79,000,000 websites, not bad for ‘a hypothetical kind of matter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter) that cannot be seen with telescopes but would account for most of the matter in the universe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe),’ as Wikipedia records.
Impressed, we bet you are, but not Professor Arthur Lynch:
‘“And that’s why your daughter is dumb” as the quack doctor of Moliere concluded, though his arguments seem to me a model of cohesion and clarity compared with this of Einstein. It may be my own deficiency, and if, dear reader, you have made good sense out of this, I admit that your intellect soars at a range inaccessible to me.’[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/T.E.%20The%20Book.doc#_ftn1)
[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/T.E.%20The%20Book.doc#_ftnref1) A. lynch: The Case Against Einstein, p.258.
EINSTEIN'S (EINSTEIN@S) SPECIAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY
‘There was a young lady named Bright.
Whose speed was far faster than light.
She went out one day, in a relative way
And returned on the previous night.[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/T.E.%20The%20Book.doc#_ftn1)
[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/T.E.%20The%20Book.doc#_ftnref1) Reginald Butler (1913) quoted by Al Kelly in the introduction to his book Challenging Modern Physics – Questioning Einstein’s Relativity Theories. Brown Walker Press, Boca Raton, Florida, USA, 2005.
-
OMG
Just when I thought that these fruitcakes couldn't get any more nutty, I read this.
Firstly, gravity is not a doctrine, sketchy or otherwise. It's a scientific theory. Now, before you start spouting the usual nonsense of the scientifically illiterate that 'it's only a theory' please read up on what a theory actually is.
Back to gravity. Einstein's theory of general relativity is the current best theory of gravity that we have. It has yet to be disproved by any experiment, real or imagined, that has been undertaken. It is one of the most successful theories of 20th century science, and led directly to very many of the technological advances that occurred later in the 20th century that we all now take for granted.
What part of all of that do you not get?
Therein lies the problem, people take this stuff for granted and are steered away from information on gravity or lied to, and do not know. Gravity may be a theory, but theories replace theories like people replace old tires on their car, when they no longer work. The scientific establishment is seriously questioning the notion of gravity. When considered in scientific realms, or even by reasonable people, it has become obvious that gravity doesn't "hold water."
Dr. Verlinde is a respected scientist of the heliocentric persuasion, yet even he knows gravity as a theory is passe.
•You might wonder why a string theorist is interested in Newton’s equations. After all Newton was overturned a century ago by Einstein, who explained gravity as warps in the geometry of space-time, and who some theorists think could be overturned in turn by string theorists.
•Those exploding black holes (at least in theory — none has ever been observed) lit up a new strangeness of nature. Black holes, in effect, are holograms — like the 3-D images you see on bank cards.
•http:// (http://www.greenexplored.com/2010/07/gravity-debunked-by-thermodynamics.html)www.greenexplored.com/2010/07/gravity-debunked-by-thermodynamics.html (http://www.greenexplored.com/2010/07/gravity-debunked-by-thermodynamics.html)
The unfolding story of gravity is like the emperor’s new clothes.
“We’ve known for a long time gravity doesn’t exist,” Dr. Verlinde said, “It’s time to yell it.”
Another observation about the impossibility of gravity.
(https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=4476cfffcb&view=fimg&th=15e2f7e0a5090180&attid=0.1&disp=emb&realattid=ii_15e2f7b1716b6279&attbid=ANGjdJ9Vy3lHCyMIVtW4qOZjgSk_uiIIVYy0Xwtr9ogO0WlvV7uOk_2JFAj0lgJєωX8aXXius2zmixtJo-8TJdU75MFsj4jVUVWoJe1jTHpMYI0cBDEOIdS9pfPwC7k&sz=w1086-h396&ats=1504035375884&rm=15e2f7e0a5090180&zw&atsh=1)
-
Two men climbed to the top of the local largest building they could find. One didn't believe gravity exists, the other did.
Go jump then said the one who believes in Gravity. Mr no-gravity jumped.
As he was falling down the yes-gravity friend shouted 'Now do you believe in gravity.'
-
Wait!
Is that the same gravity that pulls oceans but doesn't pull the great lakes? (As the National Ocean service itself admits.)
Sorry lads, even the official science admits that it is a theory.
-
.
-
Two men climbed to the top of the local largest building they could find. One didn't believe gravity exists, the other did.
Go jump then said the one who believes in Gravity. Mr no-gravity jumped.
As he was falling down the yes-gravity friend shouted 'Now do you believe in gravity.'
Oh my, more ignorance. Reality is not explained by gravity, but buoyancy and density. Matter matters. And the denser an object is, the heavier it is in relation to less dense things like the air. Gravity is junk theory used to promote the heliocentric model condemned by the Catholic Church.
-
Wait!
Is that the same gravity that pulls oceans but doesn't pull the great lakes? (As the National Ocean service itself admits.)
Sorry lads, even the official science admits that it is a theory.
No it is not the same gravity. Inertia causes the tides in the oceans ans seas but is diminished or is absent in seas and lakes.
What causes this inertia is another question.
I will continue with happenby's post.
-
Oh my, more ignorance. Reality is not explained by gravity, but buoyancy and density. Matter matters. And the denser an object is, the heavier it is in relation to less dense things like the air. Gravity is junk theory used to promote the heliocentric model condemned by the Catholic Church.
We have had this conversation before happenby but for the sake of those who did not read it here we go again.
Gravity is a WORD used to describe how God's creation operates. It began we could say with Aristotle.
In the Aristotelian world there were four grades of terrestrial reality: mere existence (as in clay or rock), existence with growth (as in trees), existence and growth with sensation (as in beasts), and all these plus reason (as in man). The properties in matter were then only four, called the Four Contraries: hot, cold, moist and dry, and the four elements: fire, air, water and Earth. In the sublunary world – nature in the strict sense – the four elements had all sorted themselves out into their ‘kindly stedes,’ an early concept of gravity. Earth, the heaviest, had found itself at the centre. On the Earth sits the lighter water. Above that is the still lighter air. Fire, the lightest of all, whenever it was free, flies-up to the circuмference of nature and forms a sphere just below the trajectory of the moon.
Gravity then is the NAME given to certain actions we find in the created world. You flatearthers can call it whatever you like, but the rest of us will go along with GRAVITY. So for us it exists. A man falling off a roof we say is caused by gravity. What is ignorant about that?
You seem to be unable to separate the word GRAVITY from THEORIES OF GRAVITY. Buoyancy and density are properties of matter, but how they operate mankind calls GRAVITY.
Theories as to how and why a man falls from roof top if he jumps, or floats in a vacuum are something else happenby. Like you I reject Newton's theory and Einstein's, for I too believe only God knows how GRAVITY works. And God tells us:
“For great is the power of God alone, and he is honoured by the humble. Seek not the things that are too high for thee, and search not into things above thy ability: but the things that God hath commanded thee, think on them always, and in many of his works be not curious. For it is not necessary for thee to see with thy eyes those things that are hid. In unnecessary matters be not over curious, and in many of his works thou shalt not be inquisitive. For many things are shewn to thee above the understanding of men. And the suspicion of them hath deceived man, and hath detained their minds in vanity.” (Ecclus 3:21-26).
-
No it is not the same gravity. Inertia causes the tides in the oceans ans seas but is diminished or is absent in seas and lakes.
What causes this inertia is another question.
I will continue with happenby's post.
YES it is the same gravity. It took me a few seconds to google "what causes the oceans tides" to get the official science answer that it is gravity.
The point is clear, that gravity for modern science is the cause of the oceans tides. Perhaps not to geo-centrists like you, but nobody cares about geocentrists anymore. No one ever did really.
-
I really can't believe the stupidity and closed-mindedness of some of these arguments. Belief in God and accepting the realities of the modern world, including science, are not mutually exclusive. You don't have to hark back to a medieval world view to be a good Catholic. God gave us our intellect and enquiring minds for a purpose, and working out how the world he created works is part of that. Pretending that the earth is flat, that gravity is a conspiracy, that space travel is a hoax and that modern science is ungodly just makes you look mad in the eyes of the world at large and it turns people away from God. One of the fundamental duties of a Christian is to spread the word of God and to encourage others to believe. You are doing the exact opposite. I see little that is Christ-like among a lot of the posts on this site. Shame on you.
-
YES it is the same gravity. It took me a few seconds to google "what causes the oceans tides" to get the official science answer that it is gravity.
The point is clear, that gravity for modern science is the cause of the oceans tides. Perhaps not to geo-centrists like you, but nobody cares about geocentrists anymore. No one ever did really.
The phenomenon we call GRAVITY and theories that cause gravity are two different concepts Kiwiboy. Yes Google, combining the two as one, gives us a theory for the tides that I, like you, do not accept. For instance I have seen the moon and sun above me at the seaside with the tides fully out. For all we know the angels could be controlling the tides as St Thomas said they were controlling the rotating sun, moon and stars.
As regards the subject of geocentrism, well it is not true to say no one ever cared about that order. It was only after 1835 when Rome conceded to a heliocentric order that the human race ceased to care, which I suspect you mean. There is not one single history book on the Catholic Faith and on science that does not record the time when geocentrism was considered by all to be the order of the universe and how both churchmen and science abandoned such a CREATION.
But things are changing and the subject is now being revisited. Not because of the subject matter, for that does not affect any human being, but because it is now known that the reasons given for the abandonment of geocentrism by both Church and State no longer holds up. The secularised world cannot allow this to be known because a geocentric order can only be explained by way of a divine Creator, and the churchmen of Rome and the world cannot allow it either because it means they abandoned a papal decree and embraced a heresy on the basis of false science.
-
I really can't believe the stupidity and closed-mindedness of some of these arguments. Belief in God and accepting the realities of the modern world, including science, are not mutually exclusive. You don't have to hark back to a medieval world view to be a good Catholic. God gave us our intellect and enquiring minds for a purpose, and working out how the world he created works is part of that. Pretending that the earth is flat, that gravity is a conspiracy, that space travel is a hoax and that modern science is ungodly just makes you look mad in the eyes of the world at large and it turns people away from God. One of the fundamental duties of a Christian is to spread the word of God and to encourage others to believe. You are doing the exact opposite. I see little that is Christ-like among a lot of the posts on this site. Shame on you.
I hope you mean flatearthism Irish, and do not include geocentrism, but you do write 'how the world he created works' and that could mean geocentrism.
If you mean flatearthism only, I agree with you. The new studies on geocentrism in regard to the Catholic Church and State are threatened by the infiltration of flatearthism.
-
I hope you mean flatearthism Irish, and do not include geocentrism, but you do write 'how the world he created works' and that could mean geocentrism.
If you mean flatearthism only, I agree with you. The new studies on geocentrism in regard to the Catholic Church and State are threatened by the infiltration of flatearthism.
Round earth geocentrism is a recent invention. The saints, Fathers of the Church, and science long ago knew earth is flat. The modern promoters that include Robert Sungenis defend pagan science and scientists in order to dish up error. Observe the sources Robert Sungenis uses for his claims. http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/t103-critique-of-robert-sungenis-article-against-flat-earth
-
For those who usually don't follow a link, this article reveals Robert Sungenis sources are at the very least, questionable. Sungenis is the guru of globe geocentrism, a new spin on heliocentrism, filled with error.
A Short Critique of Robert Sungenis' Critique of the Flat Earth (http://rover.ebay.com/rover/13/0/19/DealFrame/DealFrame.cmp?bm=301&BEFID=96602&aon=%5E1&MerchantID=11314&crawler_id=810718&dealId=0XnoM-sSAcRwBFYs_aefLw%3D%3D&url=http%3A%2F%2Fclick.linksynergy.com%2Flink%3Fid%3DneQRQBqOKtQ%26offerid%3D486460.190211254597%26type%3D15%26murl%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fwww.macys.com%252Fshop%252Fproduct%252Fskechers-womens-earth-fest-upcycle-casual-flat-sneakers-from-finish-line%253FID%253D4364926%2526PartnerID%253DLINKSHARE%2526cm_mmc%253DLINKSHARE-_-91-_-67-_-MP9167%26u1%3D%7Bsdc_id%7D&linkin_id=8058742&Issdt=170830135850&searchID=p1.472ef6828a72d78930c3&DealName=Skechers+Women%27s+Earth+Fest%3A+Upcycle+Casual+Flat+Sneakers+from+Finish+Line&dlprc=59.99&AR=1&NG=3&NDP=5&PN=1&ST=7&FPT=DSP&NDS=&NMS=&MRS=&PD=&brnId=14305&IsFtr=0&IsSmart=0&op=&CM=&RR=1&IsLps=0&code=&acode=307&category=&HasLink=&ND=&MN=&GR=&lnkId=&SKU=190211254597)
by flatterme
This link will take you to Sungenis' pdf article online called,The Flat Earth Frenzy
Unscientific and Unbiblical. http://www.robertsungenis.com/gww/features/Flat%20Earth%20Geography.pdf (http://www.robertsungenis.com/gww/features/Flat%20Earth%20Geography.pdf)
Sungenis starts off right away with accusations against flat earth (http://rover.ebay.com/rover/13/0/19/DealFrame/DealFrame.cmp?bm=301&BEFID=96602&aon=%5E1&MerchantID=11314&crawler_id=810718&dealId=0XnoM-sSAcRwBFYs_aefLw%3D%3D&url=http%3A%2F%2Fclick.linksynergy.com%2Flink%3Fid%3DneQRQBqOKtQ%26offerid%3D486460.190211254597%26type%3D15%26murl%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fwww.macys.com%252Fshop%252Fproduct%252Fskechers-womens-earth-fest-upcycle-casual-flat-sneakers-from-finish-line%253FID%253D4364926%2526PartnerID%253DLINKSHARE%2526cm_mmc%253DLINKSHARE-_-91-_-67-_-MP9167%26u1%3D%7Bsdc_id%7D&linkin_id=8058742&Issdt=170830135850&searchID=p1.472ef6828a72d78930c3&DealName=Skechers+Women%27s+Earth+Fest%3A+Upcycle+Casual+Flat+Sneakers+from+Finish+Line&dlprc=59.99&AR=1&NG=3&NDP=5&PN=1&ST=7&FPT=DSP&NDS=&NMS=&MRS=&PD=&brnId=14305&IsFtr=0&IsSmart=0&op=&CM=&RR=1&IsLps=0&code=&acode=307&category=&HasLink=&ND=&MN=&GR=&lnkId=&SKU=190211254597) and after a few paragraphs finally admits: "...in some cases that NASA is certainly not the highest epitome of truth and honesty."
What an understatement. Let's consider NASA for a few moments:
* Reuters: The original recordings of the first humans landing on the moon 40 (http://rover.ebay.com/rover/13/0/19/DealFrame/DealFrame.cmp?bm=603&BEFID=113&aon=%5E1&MerchantID=523588&crawler_id=523588&dealId=WvapcFNJAO949_RC-tlPaw%3D%3D&url=https%3A%2F%2Fads.midwayusa.com%2Fproduct%2F447470%2Fcalifornia-competition-works-remooner-moon-clip-loading-tool-for-6-shot-full-moon-clips%3Fcm_mmc%3Dpf_ci_ebay-_-Shooting%2B-%2BRange%2BAccessories-_-California%2BCompetition%2BWorks-_-447470%26sdc_id%3DeBay&linkin_id=8058742&Issdt=170830140753&searchID=p29.e2487d1799aa28300cc3&DealName=California+Competition+Works+Remooner+Moon+Clip+Loading+Tool+for+6+Shot+Full+Moon+Clips&dlprc=45.0&AR=5&NG=3&NDP=5&PN=1&ST=7&FPT=DSP&NDS=&NMS=&MRS=&PD=&brnId=14305&IsFtr=0&IsSmart=0&op=&CM=&RR=5&IsLps=0&code=&acode=578&category=&HasLink=&ND=&MN=&GR=&lnkId=&SKU=447470) years ago were erased and re-used NASA officials said on Thursday, July 16, 2009.
* NASA also admitted the Apollo 11 moon trip telecast in its raw format on telemetry data tape of the first Moon landing in 1969 was subsequently lost.
* NASA also says there are 600 boxes, weighing over one ton, of telemetry data missing from EVERY Apollo mission.
That's just the beginning of NASA fakery, mockery, and theft. But this critique really isn't about NASA per se. Let's keep going. Sungenis says early on in his article:
"Scientifically speaking, on the principle that flat earth (http://rover.ebay.com/rover/13/0/19/DealFrame/DealFrame.cmp?bm=301&BEFID=96602&aon=%5E1&MerchantID=11314&crawler_id=810718&dealId=0XnoM-sSAcRwBFYs_aefLw%3D%3D&url=http%3A%2F%2Fclick.linksynergy.com%2Flink%3Fid%3DneQRQBqOKtQ%26offerid%3D486460.190211254597%26type%3D15%26murl%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fwww.macys.com%252Fshop%252Fproduct%252Fskechers-womens-earth-fest-upcycle-casual-flat-sneakers-from-finish-line%253FID%253D4364926%2526PartnerID%253DLINKSHARE%2526cm_mmc%253DLINKSHARE-_-91-_-67-_-MP9167%26u1%3D%7Bsdc_id%7D&linkin_id=8058742&Issdt=170830135850&searchID=p1.472ef6828a72d78930c3&DealName=Skechers+Women%27s+Earth+Fest%3A+Upcycle+Casual+Flat+Sneakers+from+Finish+Line&dlprc=59.99&AR=1&NG=3&NDP=5&PN=1&ST=7&FPT=DSP&NDS=&NMS=&MRS=&PD=&brnId=14305&IsFtr=0&IsSmart=0&op=&CM=&RR=1&IsLps=0&code=&acode=307&category=&HasLink=&ND=&MN=&GR=&lnkId=&SKU=190211254597) advocates must be able to answer all the anomalies in their model, it is rather easy to discredit. Just two simple scientific facts will show this to be the case."
This is outrageous! Sungenis is not able to answer all the anomalies in his model, neither does a flat earth (http://rover.ebay.com/rover/13/0/19/DealFrame/DealFrame.cmp?bm=301&BEFID=96602&aon=%5E1&MerchantID=11314&crawler_id=810718&dealId=0XnoM-sSAcRwBFYs_aefLw%3D%3D&url=http%3A%2F%2Fclick.linksynergy.com%2Flink%3Fid%3DneQRQBqOKtQ%26offerid%3D486460.190211254597%26type%3D15%26murl%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fwww.macys.com%252Fshop%252Fproduct%252Fskechers-womens-earth-fest-upcycle-casual-flat-sneakers-from-finish-line%253FID%253D4364926%2526PartnerID%253DLINKSHARE%2526cm_mmc%253DLINKSHARE-_-91-_-67-_-MP9167%26u1%3D%7Bsdc_id%7D&linkin_id=8058742&Issdt=170830135850&searchID=p1.472ef6828a72d78930c3&DealName=Skechers+Women%27s+Earth+Fest%3A+Upcycle+Casual+Flat+Sneakers+from+Finish+Line&dlprc=59.99&AR=1&NG=3&NDP=5&PN=1&ST=7&FPT=DSP&NDS=&NMS=&MRS=&PD=&brnId=14305&IsFtr=0&IsSmart=0&op=&CM=&RR=1&IsLps=0&code=&acode=307&category=&HasLink=&ND=&MN=&GR=&lnkId=&SKU=190211254597) believer have to provide every detail for flat earth to be true. God has not revealed all secrets of the earth to us. We sure don't have access to the sophisticated equipment available only to the NASA elite. It is therefore impossible to do as Sungenis suggests not to mention that he appears to remove the same duty from himself.
Let's talk globe anomalies:
* Compasses don’t work on a globe
* Gyros don’t work on a globe
* Sundials don’t work on a globe
* Plane sailing doesn’t work on a globe
* Lighthouse don’t work on a globe
* Periscopes don’t work on a globe
* Star trails don’t work on a globe
* Water surface doesn't curve
* Curvature commensurate with a ball 25,000 mi in circuмference has never been demonstrated
* NASA has never even once provided true, untouched photos or videos of the entire earth
Sungenis then leads us to the Russian Space Agency: "These are pictures of Earth taken very recently from the geostationary weather satellite, Elektro‐L, from 22,242 miles high, courtesy of the Russian Federal Space Agency.2"
Here, Sungenis shows a couple of pictures and says:
"Two pictures of Earth taken a few hours apart. Notice the Sun’s light traveling east to west. Conversely, flat‐earthers have never shown a photograph of a flat earth from space. We have never seen anything from flat‐earthers resembling the picture below. All their pictures of a flat‐earth are either drawn by hand or are computer generated graphics CGI."
Flat earthers have never claimed to show authentic pictures of earth. None of them has access to such information and they admit it. However, NASA does have the capability, and yet they only show photo-shopped paintings and CGI composites of a globe earth. So Sungenis has no authentic pictures either. Knowing NASA has engaged in very questionable endeavors like the moon landing, why is Sungenis even turning to them for reference? Even worse, Sungenis pretends these non-photos of earth are authentic when NASA has openly admitted they have no true photos/videos of earth, but all are renderings! Now, either NASA is lying, or NASA is lying about lying. Or Sungenis is just gullible.
Sungenis says: "If we point the telescope toward the opposite edge of the flat earth, on a clear day or night, we should be able to see all the way to the opposite edge, the whole 8,000 mile diameter. But the reality is, we can only see a few hundred miles and the end point is always at the horizon. It is even more problematic for flat‐earthers since they believe the diameter of the Earth is only 4,000 miles."
This answer from Sungenis shows complete lack of understanding of how angles of perspective work to limit human vision to a relatively short distance. At great distances, the angles for an object become too small for the eye to resolve, so visibility is limited to just a few miles. Certainly 4,000 miles is never possible even for a land scope, let alone the naked eye. At ground level the limits on sight are pretty severe, but improve when one elevates the line of sight because the angles are large enough for the eye to resolve the object and therefore one can see further, but only a few miles further. Never the 4000 suggested because the angles of distance to the eye prevent it. The horizon, provably horizontal, however, will rise along with the viewer and stays flat no matter how high one goes, proving earth is a plane, not a ball.
On the moon being visible in the south upside down compared to the north, Sungenis says:
"The inverted image could only happen on a spherical Earth, since everyone on a flat earth is standing with their head pointing north."
This is laughable and Sungenis makes no apologies for not knowing that people can stand facing south and will see one side of the moon right side up. Conversely, facing north from southern regions, while viewing the moon one sees the exact opposite view of the moon in the north looking south because one is viewing from the opposite direction and will see the pattern on the moon upside down. Yes, even on a plane, proven many times over by people in these regions taking photos of the moon at the same time, then switching positions, the moon goes upside down again. This is no proof of a ball earth, but a law of perspective.
Sungenis then blankets his reader with three statements:
1. the Bible does not teach a flat earth
2. neither the Church Fathers nor the Church after them taught a flat earth
3. the scientific data does not support a flat earth.
So, all you have to do is say it, Mr Sungenis? THESE STATEMENTS ARE ALL FALSE:
The Bible absolutely teaches a flat earth and this is verified many times over, first by the texts themselves, secondly by the writings of great Catholic men of history such as Cosmas of Indiocopleustes, many saints, including St. Augustine, much of them verified by historians like Andrew Dickson White who actually disagreed with the flat geocentric assessment of the Church, but references many saints and popes and others who affirm the Catholic Church did indeed hold the flat geocentric earth. See his book: A History of the Warfare of Science With Theology in Christendom, and read it for free online. As for number three, the scientific data, not one shred of evidence points to spherical earth. Unbiased, scientific evidence either proves flat earth or supports it, as this rebuttal in its entirety will show.
Sungenis laughably suggests that bad bible translations and liberal exegeses is responsible for flat earthers believing in a literal dome over the earth and then blames flat earthers for supporting the Big Bang.
Sungenis says:
"Since from the human perspective the heavens appear as dome above a flat earth ሺeven as it appears to us today as we look into the heavens when standing on earthሻ, the NAB translators slant their translation to depict that primitive picture. In turn, this slanted translation allows these modern scholars to disregard the literal teachings of Genesis 1 and make the text appear as fanciful and unscientific ruminations of ancient peoples who were unversed in the real science of how the universe came into being. And here’s the rub. Instead of a miraculous creation in six days spoken into existence by God, these scholars believe in such theories as the Big Bang and evolution as the only way the material world came into being. They have the same disregard for divine miraculous intrusion for all the other narratives in Genesis ሺe.g., the great flood of Noah’s day; the exodus from Egypt, etc.ሻ. Since Genesis 1 teaches, for example, that the Earth was created before the sun, moon and stars..."
Oh dear. Where does one start. Firstly, the literal translation of scripture always demonstrates a flat earth in any translation and contradicts scripture if one tries to fit a spherical earth with the text. Next, I don't use the NAB, I use the Douay Rheims of 1610, so I'm not subject to the white wash Sungenis attempts to paint with. Nor do I stoop to pick up any exegeses from modern scholars as Sungenis suggests. In fact, in this critique I will bypass all pagan garbage proofs and only use scripture and Catholic references. Worse than his ridiculous notion about the dome, Sungenis twists the truth so badly that he winds up inferring that the Big Bang paradigm is the fault of flat earthers.
To make flat earthers feel real stupid, he finishes with this:
"they have been deceived by the Wellhausen scholars and have become the very unsophisticated and clueless Bible‐thumpers that the scholars wish to portray them as."
"Unsophisticated clueless Bible thumpers?" "...make the text appear as fanciful and unscientific ruminations of ancient peoples who were unversed in the real science of how the universe came into being..." Hmm...These quotes say a lot. Sungenis' position, saying such things, shows he has little respect for scripture or for ancient peoples like Moses, Enoch and Cosmas.
Perhaps Sungenis hasn't come to the realization that not all flat earthers read the NAB. Most flat earthers who speak of earth's dome do not even refer to scripture because they aren't even Christian. Of those who are Christian, most read the KJV. Only Catholics read the NAB, and as a group, they don't believe earth is flat (http://rover.ebay.com/rover/13/0/19/DealFrame/DealFrame.cmp?bm=603&BEFID=31515&aon=%5E1&MerchantID=523588&crawler_id=523588&dealId=Cz84rFONDSdXm0yPiyRlxA%3D%3D&url=https%3A%2F%2Fads.midwayusa.com%2Fproduct%2F521733%2Ffirst-lite-brimmed-beanie-merino-wool-dry-earth-large%3Fcm_mmc%3Dpf_ci_ebay-_-Clothing%2B-%2BMen%2527s%2BCasual-_-First%2BLite-_-521733%26sdc_id%3DeBay&linkin_id=8058742&Issdt=170830140737&searchID=p31.d24d7834d2ef8b10baa0&DealName=First+Lite+Brimmed+Beanie+Merino+Wool+Dry+Earth+Large&dlprc=35.0&AR=4&NG=4&NDP=5&PN=1&ST=7&FPT=DSP&NDS=&NMS=&MRS=&PD=&brnId=14305&IsFtr=0&IsSmart=0&op=&CM=&RR=4&IsLps=0&code=&acode=579&category=&HasLink=&ND=&MN=&GR=&lnkId=&SKU=521733). So maybe a couple hundred people are supposed to be responsible for the idea of the dome? This premise is so crippled, it can't even make it out the door before falling down! Had Sungenis grasped at any other straw man, he might have made some kind of case, but that the NAB and a handful of scholars are at fault for thinking earth is covered by a dome? Please. This is downright embarrassing for Sungenis.
After reading the entire 39 pages of this article, there is no mistake, Sungenis's entire approach to flat earth is utterly dishonest. But what is his motive for resorting to obfuscation and misinformation? Money perhaps? Sungenis has written several books and produced a movie showing the modern Geocentric model with the spherical earth. To admit a mistake now would seriously cut off the bulk of his revenue, but even worse, he'd look pretty bad. Sungenis has everything to lose if his spherical Geocentric model is cast aside and the flat truth comes out. His career and income are obvious motives for him to continue all kinds of circular reasoning and defend the indefensible.
At this point, Sungenis fails to finish his commentary on the dome firmament, blaming people who call it a dome for the misunderstanding. Then Sungenis magically moves the hot potato of who might be wrong about this into the hands of those flat earth scholars he blames earlier saying: "In turn, these liberal‐minded scholars regards themselves as those “in the know” since they hold firm to the idea that universe came into being by the theories of Einstein, Copernicus and Darwin. Essentially, they think they know better than God as to how the universe should be built."
Unbelievable! This blatantly dishonest twisting of the readers' mind as well as the truth, is so outrageous I'm finding it hard to type my response I'm so angry. How can flat earthers who believe in the domed Geocentric model the Church always held, be responsible for pushing the theories of Einstein, Copernicus and Darwin or support or promote such Heliocentric high priests? Simply because Sungenis equates them with "liberal scholars" who read the NAB and think the firmament is a dome? This the height of arrogance and stupidity! Sungenis actually benefits from the spherical aspects of Heliocentrism. His entire life's work is at stake! So he moves blame for evolution and the Big Bang etc. onto the flat earthers, taking time to distance himself from Heliocentrism using smoke and mirrors. What he's proposing is so convoluted as to boggle the mind. Sungenis is implying that flat earthers, who are all literal creationists, Christians and Catholics, are responsible for the Big Bang and Heliocetrism, as well as promoting silly tales of the unversed ancients.
In order to explain the firmament, what he refers to as, 'outer and inner", guess where Mr S takes us next? Ah, of course, back to Heliocentric authorities and theories! In fact, throughout his critique of flat earth, Sungenis gives 100% of his attention to modern Heliocentric scientists in order to support his theories.
Below, Sungenis accomplishes this using quotes from one Paul C (http://rover.ebay.com/rover/13/0/19/DealFrame/DealFrame.cmp?bm=888&BEFID=92&aon=%5E1&MerchantID=507879&crawler_id=507879&dealId=OKU1SM9SCQF7MCrCw-xxoA%3D%3D&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftracking.searchmarketing.com%2Fclick.asp%3Faid%3D1344969332%26sdc_id%3D%7Bsdc_id%7D&linkin_id=8058742&Issdt=170830140753&searchID=p43.9ee4f980c5d64b8cac0f&DealName=Paul+Sebastian++Fine+Cologne+Spray%2C+2+oz.&dlprc=39.0&AR=2&NG=5&NDP=5&PN=1&ST=7&FPT=DSP&NDS=&NMS=&MRS=&PD=76143745&brnId=14305&IsFtr=0&IsSmart=0&op=&CM=&RR=2&IsLps=0&code=&acode=867&category=&HasLink=&ND=&MN=&GR=&lnkId=&SKU=5900132PAUF1000). W. Davies. But first, a little info on Davies from Wikipedia....
Wiki says Davies' research interests are in the fields of cosmology, quantum field theory, and astrobiology.
"Davies' inquiries have included theoretical physics, cosmology, and astrobiology; his research has been mainly in the area of quantum field theory in curved spacetime (http://rd.bizrate.com/rd?t=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2Fdp%2FB00EDKUZ4O%2Fref%3Dasc_df_B00EDKUZ4O5089996%2F%3Ftag%3Dshopz0d-20%26ascsubtag%3Dshopzilla_mp_1199-20%3BSZ_REDIRECT_ID%26creative%3D395021%26creativeASIN%3DB00EDKUZ4O%26linkCode%3Ddf0&mid=184059&cat_id=412&atom=413&prod_id=&oid=5422545568&pos=1&b_id=18&bid_type=4&bamt=823abe7ec9c4bc8a&cobrand=1&ppr=ea2c15a289e533b3&rf=af1&af_assettype_id=12&af_creative_id=2973&af_id=615103&af_placement_id=1&dv=7ddb500e025727cdc2dc0bcd92a39135). His notable contributions are the so-called Fulling–Davies–Unruh effect, according to which an observer accelerating through empty space will perceive a bath of thermal radiation, and the Bunch–Davies vacuum state, often used as the basis for explaining the fluctuations in the cosmic background radiation left over from the big bang."
Looks like Davies is the very definition of an Heliocentrist! As Sungenis points the finger at the flat earthers for Big Bang Heliocentrism, this pathetic, spherical earth emperor is parading around naked! Davies is not the only one Sungenis uses, either. Sungenis' proofs all come from Heliocentric personalities and their pagan theories. All of them!
Sungenis proves this further when he relies on James Clerk Maxwell saying:
"On the centenary of Maxwell's birthday, Einstein described Maxwell's work as the "most profound and the most fruitful that physics has experienced since the time of Newton".At Trinity he was elected to the elite secret society known as the Cambridge Apostles.He joined the "Apostles", an exclusive debating society of the intellectual elite, where through his essays he sought to work out this understanding.Immediately after earning his degree, Maxwell read his paper On the Transformation of Surfaces by Bending to the Cambridge Philosophical Society."
Interestingly, almost every subject Maxwell studied is related to furthering the cause of pagan Heliocentrism. So fascinating that Sungenis would recommend and quote him so copiously. And lets not forget Einstein loved Maxwell.
Let's see who else Sungenis recommends. Hmm...
Dr. Abhay Ashtekar.
Wiki says of the religious beliefs of Dr. Abhay Ashtekar. "Dr. Abhay Ashtekar is an atheist, though he enjoys reading on Indian and other eastern philosophy, namely the Tao and the Zen traditions. Furthermore, he claims to be inspired from the Bhagwat Gita as regards his attitude towards work." And, "The Bhagavadgita may be treated as a great synthesis of the ideas of the impersonal spiritual monism with personalistic monotheism, of the yoga of action with the yoga of transcendence of action, and these again with yogas of devotion and knowledge."
Again, not exactly someone good Catholics could turn to in so delicate a matter of discerning truth about God's Word. But, after quoting several atheistic scientists, purring about their modern black hole dark matter science including extensive insight to the enigmatic planck* theory, Sungenis goes back to complaining about the Big Bangers and Heliocentrists, who he just got finished praising in the form of certain personages.
Its clear where Sungenis' loyalties lay with heliocentric planck theory thus far, with the new repackaged version of super tiny atom things that still manage to support Heliocentrism condemned long ago. But we will get back to that in a moment. Lets follow as Mr. Sungenis takes on the corners of the earth. He says: "The Bible speaks about the “corners of the Earth,”37 or “ends of the Earth.”38 The latter two terms do not, of course, mean that the Earth has literal corners or ends. Rather, “corners” refers to the four compass points ሺnorth, east, south and westሻ, while “ends” refers to the respective east and west 35 Orthodox Faith, Bk 2, Ch VII. 36 Orthodox Faith, Bk 2, Ch VII. 37 Jb 37:3; Is 11:12; 41:9; Ez 7:2; Ap 7:1; 20:8. 38 Dt 28:64; 33:17; 1Sm 2:10; Jb 28:24; 38:13; Ps 19:4-6; 22:27; 46:9; 48:10; 59:13; 61:2; 65:5; 41:9; Jr 51:16; Dn 4:10-11; Mk 13:27. 35 horizons. Hence, Scripture is not implying that the Earth is flat (http://rover.ebay.com/rover/13/0/19/DealFrame/DealFrame.cmp?bm=603&BEFID=31515&aon=%5E1&MerchantID=523588&crawler_id=523588&dealId=Cz84rFONDSdXm0yPiyRlxA%3D%3D&url=https%3A%2F%2Fads.midwayusa.com%2Fproduct%2F521733%2Ffirst-lite-brimmed-beanie-merino-wool-dry-earth-large%3Fcm_mmc%3Dpf_ci_ebay-_-Clothing%2B-%2BMen%2527s%2BCasual-_-First%2BLite-_-521733%26sdc_id%3DeBay&linkin_id=8058742&Issdt=170830140737&searchID=p31.d24d7834d2ef8b10baa0&DealName=First+Lite+Brimmed+Beanie+Merino+Wool+Dry+Earth+Large&dlprc=35.0&AR=4&NG=4&NDP=5&PN=1&ST=7&FPT=DSP&NDS=&NMS=&MRS=&PD=&brnId=14305&IsFtr=0&IsSmart=0&op=&CM=&RR=4&IsLps=0&code=&acode=579&category=&HasLink=&ND=&MN=&GR=&lnkId=&SKU=521733). Not only does Scripture imply that the Earth is a sphere,39 it never refers to the Earth as being flat."
The above is so preposterous it could take days to unpack all the trash buried in this heap. First of all and most importantly, scripture says 'four corners', not four directions, destroying any possibility that MR S can be permitted to discuss the subject intelligently let alone honestly. This deceptive work buried a game of words is beyond despicable and provides a completely inadequate response. Mr. S cannot just make corners equal to directions just by saying it, pretending, without explanation, provide a ridiculously poor comparison followed by a blanket statement he offers as a legit conclusion? Unbelievable!
But MR S continues: "Job 38:4 shows that the foundation of the Earth is a complicated structure with precise measurements that are unfathomable to Job. Jeremiah 31:37 echoes this perspective as it says “the foundations cannot be discovered.” We understand from this language that the “foundation of the earth” is its core, upon which everything else rests."
Oh really? Because Sungenis draws this conclusion? Another outrage! He concludes that, 'we' understand from this language, and then he draws a conclusion for us? Who are 'we'? Hopefully not to include Mr. S's other recommended scientists discussed earlier. This statement is the height of indecency! Sungenis is completely upside down here.
Sungenis soon diverts attention to slip readers a mickey when he quotes Stephen Hawking, the cheek-speaking wheelchair savant who modern scientists parade around as the odd ball genius of NASA scientism. Hawking is the poster child for modern atheistic science and he appears altogether pathetic, shocking, and brilliant.
Watch closely what Robert Sungenis says:
"So what kind of material substance could the firmament of the heavens be? First, let’s look at some suggestions from modern science (http://rover.ebay.com/rover/13/0/19/DealFrame/DealFrame.cmp?bm=791&BEFID=63715&aon=%5E1&MerchantID=302768&crawler_id=811659&dealId=lcRO_-fWaL2Sr6B7MIKvFA%3D%3D&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.christianbook.com%2FChristian%2FBooks%2Fproduct%3Fitem_no%3D042420%26kw%3D042420%26en%3Dshopping%26p%3D1012505&linkin_id=8058742&Issdt=170830140753&searchID=p19.10fa0c3a6c148c169c3e&DealName=Science+in+the+Ancient+World&dlprc=34.5&AR=2&NG=1&NDP=5&PN=1&ST=7&FPT=DSP&NDS=&NMS=&MRS=&PD=175566658&brnId=14305&IsFtr=0&IsSmart=0&op=&CM=&RR=2&IsLps=0&code=&acode=787&category=&HasLink=&ND=&MN=&GR=&lnkId=&SKU=042420). Interestingly enough, when modern scientists have to describe the Big Bang, they seem to be borrowing from the Bible’s description about the “stretching of the firmament,” but perhaps without even knowing it. Stephen Hawking, no stranger to innovative ideas, describes something unusual in his 2010 book, The Grand Design. Pay special attention to Hawking’s last sentence: …during this cosmic inflation, the universe expanded by a factor of 1 ൈ 1030 in 1 ൈ 10‒35 seconds. It was as if a coin 1 centimeter in diameter suddenly blew up to ten million times the width of the Milky Way. That may seem to violate relativity, which dictates that nothing can move faster than light, but that speed limit does not apply to the expansion of space itself…physicists aren’t sure how inflation happened….But if you go far enough back in time, the universe was as small as the Planck size, a billion‐trillion‐trillionth of a centimeter.
Although we by no means subscribe to the Big Bang theory, Hawking does tell us what modern science (http://rover.ebay.com/rover/13/0/19/DealFrame/DealFrame.cmp?bm=791&BEFID=63715&aon=%5E1&MerchantID=302768&crawler_id=811659&dealId=lcRO_-fWaL2Sr6B7MIKvFA%3D%3D&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.christianbook.com%2FChristian%2FBooks%2Fproduct%3Fitem_no%3D042420%26kw%3D042420%26en%3Dshopping%26p%3D1012505&linkin_id=8058742&Issdt=170830140753&searchID=p19.10fa0c3a6c148c169c3e&DealName=Science+in+the+Ancient+World&dlprc=34.5&AR=2&NG=1&NDP=5&PN=1&ST=7&FPT=DSP&NDS=&NMS=&MRS=&PD=175566658&brnId=14305&IsFtr=0&IsSmart=0&op=&CM=&RR=2&IsLps=0&code=&acode=787&category=&HasLink=&ND=&MN=&GR=&lnkId=&SKU=042420) believes is the fundamental particle. He says it is a particle of “the Planck size.” Modern physics has come to realize that there must be a shortest length for matter—the state in which matter becomes indivisible. It is the entity of indivisibility the Greeks called the “atom.”"
Well, well, what have we here? Sungenis quotes an atheist, to prove modern atheist scientists may have accidentally borrowed from scripture in a way that proves the Heliocentric Planck theory, which is the basis for the Big Bang and Heliocentrism.
So what is planck theory anyway? Wiki tells us: From Wiki, Planck*:
"A Planck particle, named after physicist Max Planck (http://rover.ebay.com/rover/13/0/19/DealFrame/DealFrame.cmp?bm=1008&BEFID=96602&aon=%5E1&MerchantID=481999&crawler_id=481999&dealId=NEwe3XeLHocezoHJTSs7lQ%3D%3D&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.brownells.com%2Ffirearms%2Fshotguns%2Fsemi-auto%2Fintensity-12-gauge-28-realtree-max-5-sku100023266-102749-192584.aspx%3Fcm_mmc%3Dcse-_-Itwine-_-shopping-_-100-023-266%26utm_medium%3Dcse%26utm_source%3Decn%26utm_campaign%3Ditwine%26utm_content%3D100-023-266%26gdffi%3D5e517ec5e60d4cc7bbc235bfc648114c%26gdfms%3D3A6EFCD92C774493A54E273C4B560D98&linkin_id=8058742&Issdt=170830140753&searchID=p15.f250a476e08a68d24f1e&DealName=Franchi+Intensity+12+Gauge+28+Realtree+Max+5&dlprc=999.99&AR=1&NG=5&NDP=5&PN=1&ST=7&FPT=DSP&NDS=&NMS=&MRS=&PD=&brnId=14305&IsFtr=0&IsSmart=0&op=&CM=&RR=1&IsLps=0&code=&acode=1017&category=&HasLink=&ND=&MN=&GR=&lnkId=&SKU=100023266-100023266-370019), is a hypothetical particle defined as a tiny black hole whose Compton wavelength is equal to its Schwarzschild radius.[1] Its mass is thus approximately the Planck mass, and its Compton wavelength and Schwarzschild radius are about the Planck length.[2] Planck particles are sometimes used as an exercise to define the Planck mass and Planck length.[3]They play a role in some models of the evolution of the universe during the Planck epoch."
A quick search shows that this planck epoch is the very beginning of the Big Bang. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units#Cosmology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units#Cosmology)
And just in case my readers don't know anything about Stephen Hawking, here are just a few of the poor, crippled atheist's quotes showing his unique spin on Astro-philosophy:
“The victim should have the right to end his life, if he wants. But I think it would be a great mistake. However bad life may seem, there is always something you can do, and succeed at. While there's life, there is hope.”
― Stephen Hawking
“I think computer viruses should count as life ... I think it says something about human nature that the only form of life we have created so far is purely destructive. We've created life in our own image.”
― Stephen Hawking
“I believe the simplest explanation is, there is no God. No one created the universe and no one directs our fate. This leads me to a profound realization that there probably is no heaven and no afterlife either. We have this one life to appreciate the grand design of the universe and for that, I am extremely grateful.” ― Stephen Hawking
“The role played by time at the beginning of the universe is, I believe, the final key to removing the need for a Grand Designer (http://rover.ebay.com/rover/13/0/19/DealFrame/DealFrame.cmp?bm=74&BEFID=96441&aon=%5E1&MerchantID=90093&crawler_id=1934982&dealId=UtvhKf1_bzJ7ljmIUcLW1Q%3D%3D&url=http%3A%2F%2Fclickserve.dartsearch.net%2Flink%2Fclick%3Flid%3D92700008583285382%26ds_s_kwgid%3D58700000782182495%26ds_s_inventory_feed_id%3D97700000001003763%26ds_e_product_id%3D17148848-000-006%26ci_customer_id%3D1001067%26ci_cse_id%3D1004%26ci_feed_id%3D1001119%26ds_e_product_merchant_id%3D2890843%26ds_e_product_country%3DUS%26ds_e_product_language%3Den%26ds_e_product_channel%3Donline%26ds_url_v%3D2%26ds_dest_url%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.overstock.com%2FHome-Garden%2FCurtains%2F6420%2Fsubcat.html%253Ffeaturedproduct%253D9999543%2526featuredoption%253D15091295%2526cid%253D143974%2526track%253DCSEShopping%2526utm_source%253Decn%2526utm_medium%253Dcse%2526utm_campaign%253Decn%2526countrycode%253DUS&linkin_id=8058742&Issdt=170830140753&searchID=p31.0c25f016607da7559e69&DealName=Grand+Luxe+100-percent+Linen+Medallion+Window+Curtain+Panel+%2895+inch+-+Grey%29%2C+Size+95+Inches&dlprc=101.99&AR=1&NG=3&NDP=5&PN=1&ST=7&FPT=DSP&NDS=&NMS=&MRS=&PD=&brnId=14305&IsFtr=0&IsSmart=0&op=&CM=&RR=1&IsLps=0&code=&acode=82&category=&HasLink=&ND=&MN=&GR=&lnkId=&SKU=17148848-000-006), and revealing how the universe created itself. … Time itself must come to a stop. You can’t get to a time before the big bang, because there was no time before the big bang. We have finally found something that does not have a cause because there was no time for a cause to exist in. For me this means there is no possibility of a creator because there is no time for a creator to have existed. Since time itself began at the moment of the Big Bang, it was an event that could not have been caused or created by anyone or anything. … So when people ask me if a god created the universe, I tell them the question itself makes no sense. Time didn’t exist before the Big Bang, so there is no time for God to make the universe in. It’s like asking for directions to the edge of the Earth. The Earth is a sphere. It does not have an edge, so looking for it is a futile exercise.”
― Stephen Hawking
“What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary.”
― Stephen Hawking
“I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.”
― Stephen Hawking
Hawking also reveals to us what modern science (http://rover.ebay.com/rover/13/0/19/DealFrame/DealFrame.cmp?bm=791&BEFID=63715&aon=%5E1&MerchantID=302768&crawler_id=811659&dealId=lcRO_-fWaL2Sr6B7MIKvFA%3D%3D&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.christianbook.com%2FChristian%2FBooks%2Fproduct%3Fitem_no%3D042420%26kw%3D042420%26en%3Dshopping%26p%3D1012505&linkin_id=8058742&Issdt=170830140753&searchID=p19.10fa0c3a6c148c169c3e&DealName=Science+in+the+Ancient+World&dlprc=34.5&AR=2&NG=1&NDP=5&PN=1&ST=7&FPT=DSP&NDS=&NMS=&MRS=&PD=175566658&brnId=14305&IsFtr=0&IsSmart=0&op=&CM=&RR=2&IsLps=0&code=&acode=787&category=&HasLink=&ND=&MN=&GR=&lnkId=&SKU=042420) believes is the fundamental particle
in the Heliocentric model is a particle of “the Planck size.”
Now, Sungenis has stated at least a couple of times that he by no means subscribes to the Big Bang theory. Yet here he is, busy proving through this spokesman wheel-chair philosopher for pagan science is Sungenis' own foundational basis for the globe. He certainly has not proven globe with scripture or reason, so he wheels in a bunch of Big Bangers and thinks he got the job done.
Sungenis then continues to wax poetic about the contradiction in his theory. All couched in his own techno babble that no reasonable person can make sense of. While he attempts to discredit the flat earth, he pumps up his own theory of a globe suspended in space, supporting it with Heliocentric Planck theory, as well as the pagans he claims he doesn't agree with. I know. If you can make sense of that, you win the booby prize.
Let's compare this next Heliocentric theorist to what Sungenis is teaching.
"Nachmanides the kabbalist...says that although the days [of Genesis I] are 24 hours each, they contain ‘kol yemot ha olam’ --all the ages and all the secrets of the world.... Nachmanides says: There’s only one physical creation, and that creation was a tiny speck.... As this speck expanded out, this substance--so thin that it has no essence-- turned into matter as we know it.... The moment that matter formed from this substanceless substance, time grabs hold.... Einstein’s...E=MC2, tells us that energy can change into matter. And once it changes into matter, time grabs hold... This moment of time before the clock begins for the Bible lasted about 1/100,000 of a second. A minuscule time. But in that time, the universe expanded from a tiny speck (Planck) to about the size of the solar system. From that moment on we have matter, and time flows outward."
Maybe Sungenis ought to quit pointing frantically at the mote in the flat earther's eye and dig the planck out of his own.
Sungenis bases his entire theory on atheists, as seen above. Here again, Sungenis fondly references another atheist big banger, George Musser, who wrote the book: In Spooky Action at a Distance. Musser sets out to answer the space time planck continuum vacuum question, offering a provocative exploration of nonlocality and a celebration of the scientists who are trying to explain it. Musser guides the reader on a journey into the lives of experimental physicists observing particles acting in tandem, astronomers finding galaxies that look statistically identical, and cosmologists hoping to unravel the paradoxes surrounding the Big Bang.
Have we not all had enough of these Big Bangers? Simultaneously admitting Heliocentrism is a problem, Sungenis fails to face his true feelings about it. The guy is flat out in lust with Big Bangers, and a silly suspended ball earth theory based on the Heliocentric Planck.
Listen to some more of Sungenis' theoretical blather from his article. Just don't dare call it Big Bang theory:
"Of course, it is hard for us to imagine how spheres could have no space between them"...
"This is similar to Zeno’s Paradox"
"If one wants to insist there is space between adjacent Planck‐particles, what substance would constitute the unfilled space? It can’t be “nothing” since, metaphysically speaking, it is impossible for “nothing” to exist."
Sungenis continues...
"So the question remaining is: how small can the radius of matter be such that it remains ponderable matter, yet with no spaces between its independent material particles? Planck‐particles are the closest thing we have to solving that metaphysical and physical conundrum. If there is something else, I am certainly open to see it, but so far the Planck world is the limit. Many other modern physicists have realized that Planck‐dimensions exist. In 1957, Princeton professor John Wheeler was the first to describe the Planck dimensions as “space‐time foam.”
19
Oh, but there IS something else, Robert Sungenis... All the aliens, atheists, black holes, big bangs, curved water, dark matter, evolution, fake gravity, globalism, millions year old earth, NASA's lies, planck theories, relativity, speculative specks, space vacuums, whirling earth, and 1000's other bugaboos disappear with the flat earth. How simple things suddenly become! Up is actually up, for everyone; and down is down, for everyone. Human beings live on a level playing field, not a raucous chaotic contradiction upside down to each other; because God is God and God is good and God is true. Level and true. Scripture describes creation literally and needs no spin. Density and buoyancy explain weight in things without the contradictions of gravity. With flat earth, there's no more head banging about Big Banging.
Mr S hails the atheist modern scientists by theorizing out to infinity and down to the unimaginable tiny
10 to the -35 meters to do what? To dazzle readers with his pseudo-intellectual mumbo-jumbo, distracting to the negative umpteenth power of uncertainty in order to prove that 'simple' cannot be the answer. In his article, you'll see plenty of glittery jargon tantamount to a type of kind of mind candy as he insists that the earth must be a globe hanging in space in a special Geo/Helio hybrid only he and his atheist buddies can understand. While raising this cloud of techno smoke, he hopes to leave readers a little slack-jawed in the wake of all the numeric symbols, but ultimately leads his reader away from how his theories actually work, because we're told there are no other options that he knows of, just accept it. That's not science! Mr. S derides flat earth yet never addresses the bigger questions in any serious way, like water surface being unable to curve, boats disappearing despite lack of curve, or that pesty horizon rising to the eye of the viewer no matter how high he goes. Because the horizon would drop away for the viewer who's rising, if earth were a ball.
As for the list of the final Catholic quotes at the end of Sungenis' article, most are from Catholics who are actually proponents of the flat earth as seen in their writings, and read properly, in context, the quotes are descriptions of flat earth.
-
I really can't believe the stupidity and closed-mindedness of some of these arguments.
Pretending that the earth is flat, that gravity is a conspiracy, that space travel is a hoax and that modern science is ungodly just makes you look mad in the eyes of the world at large and it turns people away from God.
One of the fundamental duties of a Christian is to spread the word of God and to encourage others to believe. You are doing the exact opposite. I see little that is Christ-like among a lot of the posts on this site. Shame on you.
.
Looks like you got under someone's skin with that post. (See the post preceding this one!)
.
Flat-earthers might think they're doing a good work but they're in fact defaming Christianity in the eyes of most modern people these days, and are driving them further away from the Church in particular and from religion in general.
.
Anyone with the most rudimentary experience in physics or engineering can see right through the silly nonsense of flat-earthers.
.
-
.
Looks like you got under someone's skin with that post. (See the post preceding this one!)
.
Flat-earthers might think they're doing a good work but they're in fact defaming Christianity in the eyes of most modern people these days, and are driving them further away from the Church in particular and from religion in general.
.
Anyone with the most rudimentary experience in physics or engineering can see right through the silly nonsense of flat-earthers.
.
Robert Sungenis clearly demonstrates in the above article that he is squarely in the pagan science camp. Again, you show your contempt for truth.
-
For those who usually don't follow a link, this article reveals Robert Sungenis sources are at the very least, questionable. Sungenis is the guru of globe geocentrism, a new spin on heliocentrism, filled with error.
Let's talk globe anomalies:
* Compasses don’t work on a globe
* Gyros don’t work on a globe
* Sundials don’t work on a globe
* Plane sailing doesn’t work on a globe
* Lighthouse don’t work on a globe
* Periscopes don’t work on a globe
* Star trails don’t work on a globe
* Water surface doesn't curve
* Curvature commensurate with a ball 25,000 mi in circuмference has never been demonstrated
* NASA has never even once provided true, untouched photos or videos of the entire earth
.
What a laughable pile of bilge-scuм!!
.
Your so-called anamolies are all wrong.
.
Compasses most certainly do work on a globe. Mariners have been using them for centuries. You know nothing about compasses, apparently. Large ships go to great expense to provide reliable environment for compass location keeping ferrous materials far away from the all-brass enclosure containing the all-important compass you say doesn't work. And their navigation methods all work presuming the spherical shape of the earth, using celestial plotting of stars and dead reckoning by way of projection onto a globe earth. So you're completely wrong.
.
Gyros work just fine on a globe. Sailors and pilots use them all the time, and they're used as well in spacecraft and satellites, which you of course claim are entirely fiction. It's flat-earth that's fiction!!
.
Sundials work very well on a globe. They work in the northern hemisphere and the southern hemisphere, which, by the way, are called hemispheres for a reason!
.
Plane sailing works just fine on a globe, while most sailors don't have to deal with the earth's curvature on a small scale, just as surveyors don't have to, until they have to work with large scale measurements.
.
Lighthouses work just fine, too. What some observers fail to recognize is the reflection of a lighthouse over the surface of the ocean at night enables it to be seen from a greater distance than direct line of sight allows, which is a help for sailors so they can tell the direction of a lighthouse even before it's visible by straight line sight.
.
Periscopes work just fine too. How silly of you to say they don't. You have no evidence whatsoever. Like saying the horizon rises to the eye of the viewer. No, it doesn't. The horizon remains right where it is. You're wrong on all counts, as usual.
.
Star trails work just fine on a globe. They work on earth just like they work on any other planet that has relative motion with the surrounding universe.
.
Water surface curves very well, as you can see inside a bowl, where the water conforms to the curves of the bowl. When water is conforming to the surface of the earth the surface of the water follows the shape of the earth. No problem.
.
The earth's circuмference and curvature is demonstrated everywhere you go, but you just refuse to look.
As often as I have invited you to look you utterly refuse, as soon as you realize your golden calf false god of flat-earthism is in danger of being exposed for the fatuous lie that it is.
.
It doesn't matter what anyone provides for you, you insist it's fake. All the while it's you that's fake.
.
-
Robert Sungenis clearly demonstrates in the above article that he is squarely in the pagan science camp. Again, you show your contempt for truth.
.
Yep, just as I said -- he got under your skin!! :jester: :facepalm:
-
The phenomenon we call GRAVITY and theories that cause gravity are two different concepts Kiwiboy. Yes Google, combining the two as one, gives us a theory for the tides that I, like you, do not accept. For instance I have seen the moon and sun above me at the seaside with the tides fully out. For all we know the angels could be controlling the tides as St Thomas said they were controlling the rotating sun, moon and stars.
So it is a geocentrist thing. Well all the best with that. Flat earth has taken over.
-
.
What a laughable pile of bilge-scuм!!
.
Your so-called anamolies are all wrong.
.
Compasses most certainly do work on a globe. Mariners have been using them for centuries. You know nothing about compasses, apparently. Large ships go to great expense to provide reliable environment for compass location keeping ferrous materials far away from the all-brass enclosure containing the all-important compass you say doesn't work. And their navigation methods all work presuming the spherical shape of the earth, using celestial plotting of stars and dead reckoning by way of projection onto a globe earth. So you're completely wrong.
.
Gyros work just fine on a globe. Sailors and pilots use them all the time, and they're used as well in spacecraft and satellites, which you of course claim are entirely fiction. It's flat-earth that's fiction!!
.
Sundials work very well on a globe. They work in the northern hemisphere and the southern hemisphere, which, by the way, are called hemispheres for a reason!
.
Plane sailing works just fine on a globe, while most sailors don't have to deal with the earth's curvature on a small scale, just as surveyors don't have to, until they have to work with large scale measurements.
.
Lighthouses work just fine, too. What some observers fail to recognize is the reflection of a lighthouse over the surface of the ocean at night enables it to be seen from a greater distance than direct line of sight allows, which is a help for sailors so they can tell the direction of a lighthouse even before it's visible by straight line sight.
.
Periscopes work just fine too. How silly of you to say they don't. You have no evidence whatsoever. Like saying the horizon rises to the eye of the viewer. No, it doesn't. The horizon remains right where it is. You're wrong on all counts, as usual.
.
Star trails work just fine on a globe. They work on earth just like they work on any other planet that has relative motion with the surrounding universe.
.
Water surface curves very well, as you can see inside a bowl, where the water conforms to the curves of the bowl. When water is conforming to the surface of the earth the surface of the water follows the shape of the earth. No problem.
.
The earth's circuмference and curvature is demonstrated everywhere you go, but you just refuse to look.
As often as I have invited you to look you utterly refuse, as soon as you realize your golden calf false god of flat-earthism is in danger of being exposed for the fatuous lie that it is.
.
It doesn't matter what anyone provides for you, you insist it's fake. All the while it's you that's fake.
.
Saying the above does not make it true. It is impossible for a compass to work on a globe because a compass must be level to point its level arrow at a distant point. On a globe, a compass would always be pointing out into space.
Gyros and false horizons on a plane do not work on a globe because their mechanism only works on the level, and they never lead a plane to curve. The gyro keeps a plane level for thousands of miles, impossible on curved surface. Your statement is ridiculous.
Plane sailing mapped out on a flat map cannot work on a globe because these are always flat and level, not curved. If earth was curved, the geometry in plane sailing would lead one to the wrong place every time because straight lines are never curved.
Lighthouse lights would disappear under the curve of a 'horizon' and never do their job if earth were a globe. Obviously.
Periscopes view well beyond the horizon making it impossible for them to be operating on a globe.
Star trails work on earth like other planets that have relative motion? So are you saying earth moves? Or, that you have been on other 'planets' and proven they have star trails while in motion? You're burying yourself, Neil. The above is bad enough, but you're really reaching here.
Water curves in a bowl? And the sides of the bowl makes the surface of the water curve? Do you enjoy suggesting retarded things?
The earth's surface is curved every where I go? No, it's not. Curvature commensurate with a globe 25,000 miles in circuмference has NEVER been demonstrated by anyone. There is more than mile of curvature drop for every 100 miles of surface on a ball that size, something that could be seen easily from the hilltop where I live. The sides of my view do not decline, let alone the horizon, but all remain level. Views from miles up never show curve, either. At least, not without a go pro camera. Again you bring no proof, just words.
If you brought actual proof of globe earth, no one would think it was fake. Thus far, you have brought nothing that any of us can test or prove for ourselves, but it all contradicts our senses and experience, not to mention science and math, so I know they are fake. All of us can test water surface and see its flat, see from a hilltop, mountain or airplane that earth is a flat plane, prove that ships don't disappear behind a curve. But not only do I have empirical proof, scripture never describes a globe, but repeatedly shows from every possible aspect that earth is flat with a dome and water above the dome. The Fathers who teach anything about the shape of the earth support this every time. Popes have condemned heliocentrism, the science of globalists, the science of modern man and the bulwark of the demonic.
-
.
Yep, just as I said -- he got under your skin!! :jester: :facepalm:
Lies got under my skin.
-
Saying the above does not make it true. It is impossible for a compass to work on a globe because a compass must be level to point its level arrow at a distant point. On a globe, a compass would always be pointing out into space.
Gyros and false horizons on a plane do not work on a globe because their mechanism only works on the level, and they never lead a plane to curve. The gyro keeps a plane level for thousands of miles, impossible on curved surface. Your statement is ridiculous.
Plane sailing mapped out on a flat map cannot work on a globe because these are always flat and level, not curved. If earth was curved, the geometry in plane sailing would lead one to the wrong place every time because straight lines are never curved.
Lighthouse lights would disappear under the curve of a 'horizon' and never do their job if earth were a globe. Obviously.
Periscopes view well beyond the horizon making it impossible for them to be operating on a globe.
Star trails work on earth like other planets that have relative motion? So are you saying earth moves? Or, that you have been on other 'planets' and proven they have star trails while in motion? You're burying yourself, Neil. The above is bad enough, but you're really reaching here.
Water curves in a bowl? And the sides of the bowl makes the surface of the water curve? Do you enjoy suggesting retarded things?
The earth's surface is curved every where I go? No, it's not. Curvature commensurate with a globe 25,000 miles in circuмference has NEVER been demonstrated by anyone. There is more than mile of curvature drop for every 100 miles of surface on a ball that size, something that could be seen easily from the hilltop where I live. The sides of my view do not decline, let alone the horizon, but all remain level. Views from miles up never show curve, either. At least, not without a go pro camera. Again you bring no proof, just words.
If you brought actual proof of globe earth, no one would think it was fake. Thus far, you have brought nothing that any of us can test or prove for ourselves, but it all contradicts our senses and experience, not to mention science and math, so I know they are fake. All of us can test water surface and see its flat, see from a hilltop, mountain or airplane that earth is a flat plane, prove that ships don't disappear behind a curve. But not only do I have empirical proof, scripture never describes a globe, but repeatedly shows from every possible aspect that earth is flat with a dome and water above the dome. The Fathers who teach anything about the shape of the earth support this every time. Popes have condemned heliocentrism, the science of globalists, the science of modern man and the bulwark of the demonic.
.
You're getting it wrong so consistently. You would fail science class infallibly!
.
"It is impossible for a compass to work on a globe because a compass must be level to point its level arrow at a distant point. On a globe, a compass would always be pointing out into space."
.
No, not true. A compass is level when it's held that way, and on ships they have it immersed in a liquid environment so it floats all the time. Of course, you don't know what I mean by "floats" because you're a flat-earther. On the globe of the earth, the compass always points toward magnetic north, which if you follow out past the horizon would be pointing out into space, true, but we don't have to follow it that far, obviously. Are you just pretending to be dense or is it the reality?
.
"Again you bring no proof, just words."
.
Every proof I provide you say is "just words." Are you a follower of Friedrich Nietzsche?
He accused the Church and Scripture of being "just words."
(https://s15-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.guim.co.uk%2Fimg%2Fmedia%2F0f58b19a9820bb672ffb84342b4a72d52e66ef41%2F0_562_1055_632%2Fmaster%2F1055.jpg%3Fw%3D300%26amp%3Bq%3D55%26amp%3Bauto%3Dformat%26amp%3Busm%3D12%26amp%3Bfit%3Dmax%26amp%3Bs%3D471d08952c6dc3c8698e0b49b0028758&sp=9f3d2589edca81796c440ad85ae2d843)
(https://s17-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fqph.ec.quoracdn.net%2Fmain-qimg-d095137395ca82ddda86e7c21776996b-c&sp=26e548331b666f0234763c7f9ce26099)
.
-
.
You're getting it wrong so consistently. You would fail science class infallibly!
.
"It is impossible for a compass to work on a globe because a compass must be level to point its level arrow at a distant point. On a globe, a compass would always be pointing out into space."
.
No, not true. A compass is level when it's held that way, and on ships they have it immersed in a liquid environment so it floats all the time. Of course, you don't know what I mean by "floats" because you're a flat-earther. On the globe of the earth, the compass always points toward magnetic north, which if you follow out past the horizon would be pointing out into space, true, but we don't have to follow it that far, obviously. Are you just pretending to be dense or is it the reality?
.
"Again you bring no proof, just words."
.
Every proof I provide you say is "just words." Are you a follower of Friedrich Nietzsche?
He accused the Church and Scripture of being "just words."
(https://s15-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.guim.co.uk%2Fimg%2Fmedia%2F0f58b19a9820bb672ffb84342b4a72d52e66ef41%2F0_562_1055_632%2Fmaster%2F1055.jpg%3Fw%3D300%26amp%3Bq%3D55%26amp%3Bauto%3Dformat%26amp%3Busm%3D12%26amp%3Bfit%3Dmax%26amp%3Bs%3D471d08952c6dc3c8698e0b49b0028758&sp=9f3d2589edca81796c440ad85ae2d843)
(https://s17-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fqph.ec.quoracdn.net%2Fmain-qimg-d095137395ca82ddda86e7c21776996b-c&sp=26e548331b666f0234763c7f9ce26099)
.
Knock knock. Hello. Earth to Neil. If you hold a compass anything but level, the arrow locks up and won't freely point. If I was on the side of the globe in California for instance, and stood facing north, and held the compass level, it would never point north toward the top of the globe. And if it did point to the top of the globe, it would be cockeyed and not level, the top of the globe being at a steep angle below my feet. :ready-to-eat:
-
Knock knock. Hello. Earth to Neil. If you hold a compass anything but level, the arrow locks up and won't freely point. If I was on the side of the globe in California for instance, and stood facing north, and held the compass level, it would never point north toward the top of the globe. And if it did point to the top of the globe, it would be cockeyed and not level, the top of the globe being at a steep angle below my feet. :ready-to-eat:
.
If you don't know how to use a compass, that's not my problem. Level means like the surface of water, not pointing up.
.
Duuuuh.
.
.
.
nαzι flat-earthers --------------------
(https://s16-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fi1.wp.com%2Fwww.wehuntedthemammoth.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2017%2F04%2Fetrehryrd.png%3Fresize%3D600%252C327&sp=cab556b010f562fd8d0098a7b7647509)
-
.
If you don't know how to use a compass, that's not my problem. Level means like the surface of water, not pointing up.
.
Duuuuh.
.
.
.
nαzι flat-earthers --------------------
(https://s16-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fi1.wp.com%2Fwww.wehuntedthemammoth.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2017%2F04%2Fetrehryrd.png%3Fresize%3D600%252C327&sp=cab556b010f562fd8d0098a7b7647509)
Yea, we know you don't get it.
-
I despair, I really do. If this is what the debate on living a good Christian life has come to, it is absolutely no surprise at all that secularism is winning hands down in today's world.
Flat earthers, you really must stop, wake up and smell the coffee (or is the smell of coffee a conspiracy too?). Consider an adolescent trying for the first time to choose a philosophy by which to live. If they saw the posts on here purporting to be from 'Christians', of course they're going to run a mile in the opposite direction.
The canons of Christianity are really very simple: Love God, and love your neighbour as yourself. With your ridiculous arguments you're doing the Catholic church a major disservice. Maybe that is really your objective? Are you in reality agents provocateur tasked with making the Church look ridiculous from within, and pushing it towards destruction? I've said it before, and I'll say it again - shame on you.
When you face your final judgement, and are asked 'what did you do to spread the message of Jesus Christ throughout the world?' do you honestly think that replying that you spent your time and energy trying to refute the fact that the earth is a globe is going to endear you to your creator? If that were me, I would be trembling in fear much more than I am already for my sinful ways.
-
I despair, I really do. If this is what the debate on living a good Christian life has come to, it is absolutely no surprise at all that secularism is winning hands down in today's world.
Flat earthers, you really must stop, wake up and smell the coffee (or is the smell of coffee a conspiracy too?). Consider an adolescent trying for the first time to choose a philosophy by which to live. If they saw the posts on here purporting to be from 'Christians', of course they're going to run a mile in the opposite direction.
The canons of Christianity are really very simple: Love God, and love your neighbour as yourself. With your ridiculous arguments you're doing the Catholic church a major disservice. Maybe that is really your objective? Are you in reality agents provocateur tasked with making the Church look ridiculous from within, and pushing it towards destruction? I've said it before, and I'll say it again - shame on you.
When you face your final judgement, and are asked 'what did you do to spread the message of Jesus Christ throughout the world?' do you honestly think that replying that you spent your time and energy trying to refute the fact that the earth is a globe is going to endear you to your creator? If that were me, I would be trembling in fear much more than I am already for my sinful ways.
You have much more to fear than we do. The Holy Bible describes the Flat Earth in Genesis. We will continue to support the Flat Earth as God commands us to do. We will not be deceived by you NASA Freemasons.
-
I despair, I really do. If this is what the debate on living a good Christian life has come to, it is absolutely no surprise at all that secularism is winning hands down in today's world.
Flat earthers, you really must stop, wake up and smell the coffee (or is the smell of coffee a conspiracy too?). Consider an adolescent trying for the first time to choose a philosophy by which to live. If they saw the posts on here purporting to be from 'Christians', of course they're going to run a mile in the opposite direction.
The canons of Christianity are really very simple: Love God, and love your neighbour as yourself. With your ridiculous arguments you're doing the Catholic church a major disservice. Maybe that is really your objective? Are you in reality agents provocateur tasked with making the Church look ridiculous from within, and pushing it towards destruction? I've said it before, and I'll say it again - shame on you.
When you face your final judgement, and are asked 'what did you do to spread the message of Jesus Christ throughout the world?' do you honestly think that replying that you spent your time and energy trying to refute the fact that the earth is a globe is going to endear you to your creator? If that were me, I would be trembling in fear much more than I am already for my sinful ways.
.
Good questions, Irish_Catholic!
.
-
.
Good questions, Irish_Catholic!
.
Jesus is leading me to continue to promote the flat earth. Just imagine someone from cathinfo.com going to the judgment claiming they didn't know the flat earth is described in Genesis. We told them so. The people who refuse to believe the descriptions of the flat earth in Genesis have no good excuse as to why they keep endorsing the Freemasonic agenda. I believe the vast majority of Catholics' who refuse to believe the Genesis descriptions of the Flat Earth also refuse to believe all Infallibly Define Dogma of the Council of Trent. I believe their fruit is rotten to the core.
-
Neil, before you give this crowd another "feeding", remember that for those who are so hopelessly confused about the difference between doctrine and allegory, tenets of Faith versus idioms, there is precious little hope of edification.
These people have shown they'll deny their own 5 senses in favor of some whackjob with nonsensical, but bright and pretty animations on youtube, so what chance that they will ever want to to understand rational discussion?
I had thought the midnight sun in the arctic/antarctic circles would give them enough pause to wake the left side of at least one such brain, but no! There's a youtube "explanation" for that too - Antarctica doesn't exist, and the sun is always above the pizza-earth, but only radiates a conical beam of light. How incredibly, mind-bogglingly idiotic!
* I personally know a guy who did a 9 month tour at South Pole Station. It really exists.
-
The only thing mind bogglingly idiotic is believing trillions of gallons of water stick to a giant spinning ball hurdling through space at 1,050, 67,000mph and 500,000 mph as NASA and modern science claims.
-
Neil, before you give this crowd another "feeding", remember that for those who are so hopelessly confused about the difference between doctrine and allegory, tenets of Faith versus idioms, there is precious little hope of edification.
These people have shown they'll deny their own 5 senses in favor of some whackjob with nonsensical, but bright and pretty animations on youtube, so what chance that they will ever want to to understand rational discussion?
I had thought the midnight sun in the arctic/antarctic circles would give them enough pause to wake the left side of at least one such brain, but no! There's a youtube "explanation" for that too - Antarctica doesn't exist, and the sun is always above the pizza-earth, but only radiates a conical beam of light. How incredibly, mind-bogglingly idiotic!
* I personally know a guy who did a 9 month tour at South Pole Station. It really exists.
I have seen the Flat Earth Horizon with my own 2 eyes; It is you who denies what is clearly perceived through the senses.
-
Jesus is leading me to continue to promote the flat earth. Just imagine someone from cathinfo.com going to the judgment claiming they didn't know the flat earth is described in Genesis. We told them so. The people who refuse to believe the descriptions of the flat earth in Genesis have no good excuse as to why they keep endorsing the Freemasonic agenda. I believe the vast majority of Catholics' who refuse to believe the Genesis descriptions of the Flat Earth also refuse to believe all Infallibly Define Dogma of the Council of Trent. I believe their fruit is rotten to the core.
Now it is all very well sparring about a flat-Earth or a global-Earth but when this debate enters the realm of Church teaching it is a very serious matter. This is what you flat-Earthers are now doing, insisting a flat-earth is Church teaching, and it seems some are actually falling for this unorthodoxy. The Church teaches no such thing. You may believe it yes, but you cannot insist anyone else believes it on canonical grounds.
Here are the rules, so let us see what Pope Leo XIII's Providentissimus Deus said about a FLAT EARTH in Scripture:
’18: To understand how just is the rule here formulated [BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION] we must remember, first, that the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost “Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation.” (St Augustine) Hence they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even by the most eminent men of science. Ordinary speech primarily and properly describes what comes under the senses; and somewhat in the same way the sacred writers - as the Angelic Doctor also reminds us – “went by what sensibly appeared,” [LIKE A FLAT EARTH] or put down what God, speaking to men, signified, in the way men could understand and were accustomed to. The unshrinking defense of the Holy Scripture, however, does not require that we should equally uphold all the opinions which each of the Fathers [as distinct from ALL OF THE FATHERS] or the more recent interpreters have put forth in explaining it; for it may be that, in commenting on passages where physical matters occur, they have sometimes expressed the ideas of their own times, and thus made statements which in these days have been abandoned as incorrect. Hence, in their interpretations, we must carefully note what they lay down as belonging to faith, or as intimately connected with faith, what they are unanimous in. For “in those things which do not come under the obligation of faith, the Saints were at liberty to hold divergent opinions, just as we ourselves are,” according to the saying of St. Thomas Aquinas. And in another place he says most admirably: “When philosophers are agreed upon a point, and it is not contrary to our faith, it is safer, in my opinion, neither to lay down such a point as a dogma of faith, even though it is perhaps so presented by the philosophers, nor to reject it as against faith, lest we thus give to the wise of this world an occasion of despising our faith.” The Catholic interpreter, although he should show that those facts of natural science which investigators affirm to be now quite certain are not contrary to the Scripture rightly explained, must nevertheless always bear in mind, that much which has been held and proved as certain has afterwards been called in question and rejected.’
So dear Truth is Eternal, to suggest a flat-earth interpretation of the Bible is Catholic teaching according to Trent is what a Protestant might say. Now you can believe what you like but please do not present this nonsense, proven so by the science of geodesy, [ Earth measurement on a large scale] as infallible Catholic teaching.
-
Neil, before you give this crowd another "feeding", remember that for those who are so hopelessly confused about the difference between doctrine and allegory, tenets of Faith versus idioms, there is precious little hope of edification.
These people have shown they'll deny their own 5 senses in favor of some whackjob with nonsensical, but bright and pretty animations on youtube, so what chance that they will ever want to to understand rational discussion?
I had thought the midnight sun in the arctic/antarctic circles would give them enough pause to wake the left side of at least one such brain, but no! There's a youtube "explanation" for that too - Antarctica doesn't exist, and the sun is always above the pizza-earth, but only radiates a conical beam of light. How incredibly, mind-bogglingly idiotic!
* I personally know a guy who did a 9 month tour at South Pole Station. It really exists.
No flat earth proponent of whom I am aware has ever claimed that the "South Pole" doesn't exist. That is a perfect example of a straw man argument. At least look at a map of the flat earth to see where Antarctica is.
-
Neil, you say
There is a profusion of flat-earther videos posted on YouTube claiming the eclipse was a HOAX!
Anyone with an open mind on the issue would understand that the NASA/freemasonic/ public education/ mystery of iniquity complex would attempt to neutralize opposition to their brainwashing by use of such whacko straw man videos.
Aside from the bad music, this one is a good explanation of the eclipse.
-
I was talking to my parish priest about this thread yesterday. At first, he didn't really believe me when I told him that there are groups who argue that you can't be a good Catholic without accepting that the earth is flat. So I brought out my laptop, logged in and let him read.
To say that he was stunned is an understatement. He was very clear that the church totally, absolutely 100% accepts the mainstream scientific teaching on geography, geology, cosmology, physics, astronomy and all the rest. As far as he is concerned, the earth is round, has always been round, and will be round for as long as it exists. One of his comments on those who believe otherwise was 'poor, benighted fools.'
My PP is well connected with the Irish hierarchy, and he was able to tell me categorically that flat-earthism would be laughed out the door of the arch-episcopal palace in +Armagh, down the hill and cross country to the coast, where it would join with the snakes that the Blessed Patrick swept into the sea for us.
No surprise here. We have all been brainwashed into the spinning globe spinning around the sun, spinning around the galaxy theory.
-
Two men climbed to the top of the local largest building they could find. One didn't believe gravity exists, the other did.
Go jump then said the one who believes in Gravity. Mr no-gravity jumped.
As he was falling down the yes-gravity friend shouted 'Now do you believe in gravity.'
Gravity to a layman means what goes up must come down.
Gravity to the "modern, educated (brainwashed) scientist" means that although we would logically expect that since we are spinning around a globe earth at a high speed, the oceans should slosh around, the clouds should be affected and those in Australia should fall off. The reason these things do not happen is due to the modern scientific theory of "gravity."
-
.
There is nothing to "debate."
.
All you have to do is observe the phases of the moon from various points on the earth and compare them.
.
The only way to see what we see every day all over the world is if we are observing it from the surface of a sphere.
.
The facts are the facts and they cannot be refuted.
.
If you persist in claiming the facts are in error or whatever, then you are persisting in your error.
.
By willfully persisting in your error you make yourself culpable and responsible for the damage that you do to the Church's reputation. So I hope you're prepared for the guilt you're heaping on your own heads.
.
I once thought and said exactly what you are saying.
Then I researched the minority view. To my shock and dismay, they have an alternative theory that is intrinsically coherent which also includes detailed explanations for the phases of the moon from various points on the earth.
One who truly loves the Truth has an obligation to seek it.
-
Neil, you say
There is a profusion of flat-earther videos posted on YouTube claiming the eclipse was a HOAX!
Anyone with an open mind on the issue would understand that the NASA/freemasonic/ public education/ mystery of iniquity complex would attempt to neutralize opposition to their brainwashing by use of such whacko straw man videos.
Aside from the bad music, this one is a good explanation of the eclipse.
.
The flat-earther video makers might not be aware that they're agreeing with Mohammedans.
.
Are you becoming Mohammedan, too?
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVhsVjXJzKM
.
-
Jesus is leading me to continue to promote the flat earth. Just imagine someone from cathinfo.com going to the judgment claiming they didn't know the flat earth is described in Genesis. We told them so. The people who refuse to believe the descriptions of the flat earth in Genesis have no good excuse as to why they keep endorsing the Freemasonic agenda. I believe the vast majority of Catholics' who refuse to believe the Genesis descriptions of the Flat Earth also refuse to believe all Infallibly Define Dogma of the Council of Trent. I believe their fruit is rotten to the core.
.
But Genesis does not say "the earth is flat."
.
Maybe you've been confusing Genesis with the Quran?
.
(https://s16-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2FQNRLnSeLP3U%2Fhqdefault.jpg&sp=d27ab20beee5918927ce546e3731646b)
-
.
But Genesis does not say "the earth is flat."
.
Maybe you've been confusing Genesis with the Quran?
.
(https://s16-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2FQNRLnSeLP3U%2Fhqdefault.jpg&sp=d27ab20beee5918927ce546e3731646b)
Genesis in the Holy Bible describes the Flat Earth.
-
Genesis in the Holy Bible describes the Flat Earth.
.
The Book of Genesis does not contain the word "flat" except for this:
"Abram fell flat on his face" (Gen. 17:3).
.
Perhaps you're confusing the Bible with the Quran.
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FaNg_nxqns
.
-
.
The Book of Genesis does not contain the word "flat" except for this:
"Abram fell flat on his face" (Gen. 17:3).
.
Perhaps you're confusing the Bible with the Quran.
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FaNg_nxqns
.
I said Genesis describes the Flat Earth.
[6] And God said: Let there be a firmament made amidst the waters: and let it divide the waters from the waters. [7] And God made a firmament, and divided the waters that were under the firmament, from those that were above the firmament, and it was so. [8] And God called the firmament, Heaven; and the evening and morning were the second day. [9] God also said: Let the waters that are under the heaven, be gathered together into one place: and let the dry land appear. And it was so done. [10] And God called the dry land, Earth; and the gathering together of the waters, he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.
-
These people have shown they'll deny their own 5 senses in favor of some whackjob with nonsensical, but bright and pretty animations on youtube, so what chance that they will ever want to to understand rational discussion?
I had thought the midnight sun in the arctic/antarctic circles would give them enough pause to wake the left side of at least one such brain, but no! There's a youtube "explanation" for that too - Antarctica doesn't exist, and the sun is always above the pizza-earth, but only radiates a conical beam of light. How incredibly, mind-bogglingly idiotic!
* I personally know a guy who did a 9 month tour at South Pole Station. It really exists.
I have debated a lot of globalists like you, and just to give you a piece of advice, if you start with the presumption that flat earthers are stupid, you are going to end up with egg on your face.
So here's the deal, explain to me how we can see objects over the horizon that the math says should not be there, or else go away, and stop wasting our time. You don't know what you are talking about.
Here is a start: http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/t17-objects-over-the-horizon-proofs
-
I despair, I really do. If this is what the debate on living a good Christian life has come to, it is absolutely no surprise at all that secularism is winning hands down in today's world.
Flat earthers, you really must stop, wake up and smell the coffee (or is the smell of coffee a conspiracy too?). Consider an adolescent trying for the first time to choose a philosophy by which to live. If they saw the posts on here purporting to be from 'Christians', of course they're going to run a mile in the opposite direction.
The canons of Christianity are really very simple: Love God, and love your neighbour as yourself. With your ridiculous arguments you're doing the Catholic church a major disservice. Maybe that is really your objective? Are you in reality agents provocateur tasked with making the Church look ridiculous from within, and pushing it towards destruction? I've said it before, and I'll say it again - shame on you.
When you face your final judgement, and are asked 'what did you do to spread the message of Jesus Christ throughout the world?' do you honestly think that replying that you spent your time and energy trying to refute the fact that the earth is a globe is going to endear you to your creator? If that were me, I would be trembling in fear much more than I am already for my sinful ways.
A tad bit melodramatic.
Do you even go to a resistance Mass? I suspect you don't.
Do you realise this is a resistance forum?
What are you doing posting here if you harbour a secret hatred of it?
-
.
The Book of Genesis does not contain the word "flat" except for this:
"Abram fell flat on his face" (Gen. 17:3).
.
Perhaps you're confusing the Bible with the Quran.
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FaNg_nxqns
.
Give it up Neil.
As an employee of NASA you are completely exposed as being partisan in this discussion.
-
I said Genesis describes the Flat Earth.
.
Genesis doesn't even mention the "Flat Earth."
.
-
[6] And God said : Let there be a firmament made amidst the waters : and let it divide the waters from the waters.*
* CHAP. 1. Ver. 6. A firmament. By this name is here understood the whole space between the earth, and the highest stars. The lower part of which divideth the waters that are upon the earth, from those that are above in the clouds.
.
Directly from the Bible that you have never read.
.
Give it up Neil.
As an employee of NASA you are completely exposed as being partisan in this discussion.
.
You're so funny. :jester:
.
Thank you so much for being a reliable source of entertainment.
.
Now go read the Bible, for once. ;D
.
-
.
The flat-earther video makers might not be aware that they're agreeing with Mohammedans.
.
Are you becoming Mohammedan, too?
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVhsVjXJzKM
.
As Catholics, we should be able to remain civil with each other while disagreeing over two opposing theories. Name calling is not civil.
-
I once thought and said exactly what you are saying.
Then I researched the minority view. To my shock and dismay, they have an alternative theory that is intrinsically coherent which also includes detailed explanations for the phases of the moon from various points on the earth.
One who truly loves the Truth has an obligation to seek it.
Providing that one either has it, or doesn't have adequate motive to doubt what one has, no?
Doesn't one who loves seek the object of said love, for sake of love? Granted, this doesn't have to exclude obligation.
-
You have much more to fear than we do. The Holy Bible describes the Flat Earth in Genesis. We will continue to support the Flat Earth as God commands us to do. We will not be deceived by you NASA Freemasons.
LOL. If this weren't so sad it would be hilarious.
I am not, nor have I ever been, a freemason. Nor do I have any connection with NASA. I'm just a simple Irish Catholic, who happens to have a degree in physics and a master's degree in electron microscopy from a good university. I have had numerous conversations with priests and bishops about being both a scientist and a Christian, and there is no incompatibility between the two. I believe what the church teaches, and I know what I know about the natural world and how it works.
I find it heartbreaking that there are people who are quite prepared to have the world believe that to be a good Catholic you have to accept the nonsense the flat earths espouse. You can believe what you want, but when it brings the Church I love into disrepute and leaves us all open to ridicule I will continue to point out to the world that you're just a lunatic fringe of no consequence.
-
LOL. If this weren't so sad it would be hilarious.
I am not, nor have I ever been, a freemason. Nor do I have any connection with NASA. I'm just a simple Irish Catholic, who happens to have a degree in physics and a master's degree in electron microscopy from a good university. I have had numerous conversations with priests and bishops about being both a scientist and a Christian, and there is no incompatibility between the two. I believe what the church teaches, and I know what I know about the natural world and how it works.
I find it heartbreaking that there are people who are quite prepared to have the world believe that to be a good Catholic you have to accept the nonsense the flat earths espouse. You can believe what you want, but when it brings the Church I love into disrepute and leaves us all open to ridicule I will continue to point out to the world that you're just a lunatic fringe of no consequence.
I too cannot believe this lunatic submission to the idea that the earth is flat, that the Scriptures say it is and that it enhances one's Catholic faith to believe in it in the name of Jesus Christ. There is something very weird in this faith and it is obvious now that there is something demonic about it. To deny the science of geodesy, the fact that there are photographs that provide evidence of a curved earth, demonstrated by way of eclipses, all in the name of Catholicism, is to bring the Catholic faith into disrepute as St Augustine warned.
That said, it is equally false to state today's faith and science are mutually compatible, no matter how many popes, bishops, priests, nuns or lay people claim it is. It may be compatible to them, but not in fact. Today's science operates under the philosophy that there is no Creator nor ever was. Catholic faith is based on the fact that there is a Creator Who keeps all thing in existence and working by His will alone,
The first dogma of the Catholic Church recorded in Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma: ‘God, our Creator and lord, can be known with certainty, by the natural light of reason from created things.’ (De fide.) Does today's science adhere to this faith? No it does not. It has invented theory after theory to ELIMINATE this dogma from the minds of mankind, first by asserting that the geocentrism of the senses, of the Scriptures, of the Fathers, of the Council of Trent, of the papal decrees of 1616-1664, HAD BEEN PROVEN FALSE.
Having achieved this foundation stone that provided the first evolutionary theory of modern science, everything else revealed in Scripture came under attack. This required three encyclicals to try to stem, but because even popes had fallen for this WEAPON OF PRIDE SET UP BY SATAN, the damage to the credibility of Catholicism revealed in Genesis could not be stopped. Since Galileo's Pontifical Academy of Science was set up, popes could not wait to share their intellectual pride in the Big Bang, long ages, evolution of everything, including Adam's body with the atheists members who applauded them. One of these 'members' is Stephen Hawking:
Carl Sagan, self professed agnostic for example, wrote in his preface to Stephen Hawking’s book ‘A Brief History of Time’:
‘This is also a book about God… or perhaps the absence of God. The word God fills these pages. Hawking embarks on a quest to answer Einstein’s famous question about whether God had any choice in creating the universe. Hawking is attempting, as he states, to understand the mind of God.’[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/T.E.%20The%20Book.doc#_ftn1)
There is however, something more all should know about Stephen Hawking:
‘Hawking and the mind of God. He does not believe in anything resembling the Christian God… his theory of everything has no place at all for a Creator…. By his playing the God card, Hawking [the atheist] has cleverly fanned the flames of his own publicity appeal directly to the popular allure of scientist as priest.’[2] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/T.E.%20The%20Book.doc#_ftn2)
[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/T.E.%20The%20Book.doc#_ftnref1)Stephen Hawking: Brief History of Time, Bantam Press, 1988.
[2] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/T.E.%20The%20Book.doc#_ftnref2) Peter Coles: Hawking, Postmodern Encounters, Icon Books, 2000, p.47.
HERE IS WHERE WE ARE NOW:
The Big Bang, which scientists believe led to the formation of the universe some 13.8 billion years ago, was all part of God’s plan, Pope Francis has declared.
“For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.” Colossians 1:16,17 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Col&c=1&v=16&t=KJV#s=1108016)
The Pope said the scientific account of the beginning of the universe (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2809915/The-Big-Bang-evolution-real-carried-God-says-Pope-embraces-modern-science.html) and the development of life through evolution are compatible with the Catholic Church’s vision of creation. He told a meeting of the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy for Sciences: ‘The Big Bang, which today we hold to be the origin of the world, does not contradict the intervention of the divine creator but, rather, requires it.’
Well Pope Frances, I do not believe you. Nor do these lads:
‘Every so often, you have to unlearn what you thought you knew, and replace it by something more subtle. This process is what science is all about, and it never stops. It means that you shouldn’t take everything we say as gospel, either, for we belong to another equally honourable profession; liar-to-readers.’[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/T.E.%20The%20Book.doc#_ftn1)
[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/T.E.%20The%20Book.doc#_ftnref1)Terry Pratchett, Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen: The Science of Discworld, Ebury Press, Random House, 1999, p.39.
-
I too cannot believe this lunatic submission to the idea that the earth is flat, that the Scriptures say it is and that it enhances one's Catholic faith to believe in it in the name of Jesus Christ. There is something very weird in this faith and it is obvious now that there is something demonic about it. To deny the science of geodesy, the fact that there are photographs that provide evidence of a curved earth, demonstrated by way of eclipses, all in the name of Catholicism, is to bring the Catholic faith into disrepute as St Augustine warned.
That said, it is equally false to state today's faith and science are mutually compatible, no matter how many popes, bishops, priests, nuns or lay people claim it is. It may be compatible to them, but not in fact. Today's science operates under the philosophy that there is no Creator nor ever was. Catholic faith is based on the fact that there is a Creator Who keeps all thing in existence and working by His will alone,
The first dogma of the Catholic Church recorded in Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma: ‘God, our Creator and lord, can be known with certainty, by the natural light of reason from created things.’ (De fide.) Does today's science adhere to this faith? No it does not. It has invented theory after theory to ELIMINATE this dogma from the minds of mankind, first by asserting that the geocentrism of the senses, of the Scriptures, of the Fathers, of the Council of Trent, of the papal decrees of 1616-1664, HAD BEEN PROVEN FALSE.
Having achieved this foundation stone that provided the first evolutionary theory of modern science, everything else revealed in Scripture came under attack. This required three encyclicals to try to stem, but because even popes had fallen for this WEAPON OF PRIDE SET UP BY SATAN, the damage to the credibility of Catholicism revealed in Genesis could not be stopped. Since Galileo's Pontifical Academy of Science was set up, popes could not wait to share their intellectual pride in the Big Bang, long ages, evolution of everything, including Adam's body with the atheists members who applauded them. One of these 'members' is Stephen Hawking:
Carl Sagan, self professed agnostic for example, wrote in his preface to Stephen Hawking’s book ‘A Brief History of Time’:
‘This is also a book about God… or perhaps the absence of God. The word God fills these pages. Hawking embarks on a quest to answer Einstein’s famous question about whether God had any choice in creating the universe. Hawking is attempting, as he states, to understand the mind of God.’[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/T.E.%20The%20Book.doc#_ftn1)
There is however, something more all should know about Stephen Hawking:
‘Hawking and the mind of God. He does not believe in anything resembling the Christian God… his theory of everything has no place at all for a Creator…. By his playing the God card, Hawking [the atheist] has cleverly fanned the flames of his own publicity appeal directly to the popular allure of scientist as priest.’[2] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/T.E.%20The%20Book.doc#_ftn2)
[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/T.E.%20The%20Book.doc#_ftnref1)Stephen Hawking: Brief History of Time, Bantam Press, 1988.
[2] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/T.E.%20The%20Book.doc#_ftnref2) Peter Coles: Hawking, Postmodern Encounters, Icon Books, 2000, p.47.
HERE IS WHERE WE ARE NOW:
The Big Bang, which scientists believe led to the formation of the universe some 13.8 billion years ago, was all part of God’s plan, Pope Francis has declared.
“For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.” Colossians 1:16,17 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Col&c=1&v=16&t=KJV#s=1108016)
The Pope said the scientific account of the beginning of the universe (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2809915/The-Big-Bang-evolution-real-carried-God-says-Pope-embraces-modern-science.html) and the development of life through evolution are compatible with the Catholic Church’s vision of creation. He told a meeting of the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy for Sciences: ‘The Big Bang, which today we hold to be the origin of the world, does not contradict the intervention of the divine creator but, rather, requires it.’
Well Pope Frances, I do not believe you. Nor do these lads:
‘Every so often, you have to unlearn what you thought you knew, and replace it by something more subtle. This process is what science is all about, and it never stops. It means that you shouldn’t take everything we say as gospel, either, for we belong to another equally honourable profession; liar-to-readers.’[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/T.E.%20The%20Book.doc#_ftn1)
[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/T.E.%20The%20Book.doc#_ftnref1)Terry Pratchett, Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen: The Science of Discworld, Ebury Press, Random House, 1999, p.39.
There are no pictures of a Globe earth anywhere. You have lost all credibly when you claimed there are pictures of a globe earth when we already have CLEARLY PROVEN TO ALL OF YOU (ALL OF YOU) that the images NASA claims are of a globe earth are CGIS'.
WAKE UP! WATCH THE VIDEO AND QUIT BEING SO IGNORANT!
Flat Earth - NASA Graphic Designer Admits All Images about Space Are Fake Photoshopped CGIs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFBAznZwqVg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFBAznZwqVg)
-
.
Directly from the Bible that you have never read.
.
.
Now go read the Bible, for once. ;D
.
Neil, you wrote "Directly from the Bible that you have never read;" however, what you quoted is not a part of sacred Scripture, but a commentary. Do you believe that commentary is supposed to be accepted as if it were part of sacred scripture?
-
I said Genesis describes the Flat Earth.
Neil won't read Genesis - he will only read the commentary by Bp. Challoner. For him , that suffices.
-
You can believe what you want, but when it brings the Church I love into disrepute and leaves us all open to ridicule I will continue to point out to the world that you're just a lunatic fringe of no consequence.
You will find that traditional Catholics discuss issues that are controversial. You'll have to get used to that around here. We aren't cookie-cutter Catholics.
And, flat-earthers aren't dissuaded by ridicule. We're used to it, though I have pity for the globe-earthers who show extreme lack of charity - which includes most of them here.
-
There are no pictures of a Globe earth anywhere. You have lost all credibly when you claimed there are pictures of a globe earth when we already have CLEARLY PROVEN TO ALL OF YOU (ALL OF YOU) that the images NASA claims are of a globe earth are CGIS'.
WAKE UP! WATCH THE VIDEO AND QUIT BEING SO IGNORANT!
Flat Earth - NASA Graphic Designer Admits All Images about Space Are Fake Photoshopped CGIs
Let us then base our credibility, yours or mine, on what you say above.
Where in any of my post did I say there are pictures of a globe earth?
I am very careful what I write. I wrote : "the fact that there are photographs that provide evidence of a curved earth"
These photos are taken by satellites, the same ones that beam signals throughout the earth, and they show a curvature, not a globe, but the shape of the earth.
What I do notice is that none of you flat-earthers ever try to address what you cannot rebut. If posting another of your videos is the answer to posts like mine then who is 'ignorant' must be clear to many non-posters reading this thread.
Not once did any of you address the science of geodesy that proves the earth is curved.
-
Let us then base our credibility, yours or mine, on what you say above.
Where in any of my post did I say there are pictures of a globe earth?
I am very careful what I write. I wrote : "the fact that there are photographs that provide evidence of a curved earth"
These photos are taken by satellites, the same ones that beam signals throughout the earth, and they show a curvature, not a globe, but the shape of the earth.
What I do notice is that none of you flat-earthers ever try to address what you cannot rebut. If posting another of your videos is the answer to posts like mine then who is 'ignorant' must be clear to many non-posters reading this thread.
Not once did any of you address the science of geodesy that proves the earth is curved.
Can you show me a picture with several satellites in space? Do not post or link to a CGI.
-
Can you show me a picture with several satellites in space? Do not post or link to a CGI.
"a picture with several satellites in space?" Sorry, I do not take pictures of "several satellites in space?"
I have seen with my own eyes satellites traveling through space above the earth. I have seen moving pictures of earth taken by them high enough in space to detect the curvature of the Earth. This curvature can also be calculated by surveyors of Geodesy.
-
"a picture with several satellites in space?" Sorry, I do not take pictures of "several satellites in space?"
I have seen with my own eyes satellites traveling through space above the earth. I have seen moving pictures of earth taken by them high enough in space to detect the curvature of the Earth. This curvature can also be calculated by surveyors of Geodesy.
The reason why you are unable to show me a picture of a group of satellites in space is because satellites do not exist.
-
"a picture with several satellites in space?" Sorry, I do not take pictures of "several satellites in space?"
I have seen with my own eyes satellites traveling through space above the earth. I have seen moving pictures of earth taken by them high enough in space to detect the curvature of the Earth. This curvature can also be calculated by surveyors of Geodesy.
No picture has ever shown earth curvature. You are gullible enough to believe that CGIS' are actual photographs. You are gullible enough to be tricked by fish eye lenses.
-
LOL. If this weren't so sad it would be hilarious.
I am not, nor have I ever been, a freemason. Nor do I have any connection with NASA. I'm just a simple Irish Catholic, who happens to have a degree in physics and a master's degree in electron microscopy from a good university. I have had numerous conversations with priests and bishops about being both a scientist and a Christian, and there is no incompatibility between the two. I believe what the church teaches, and I know what I know about the natural world and how it works.
I find it heartbreaking that there are people who are quite prepared to have the world believe that to be a good Catholic you have to accept the nonsense the flat earths espouse. You can believe what you want, but when it brings the Church I love into disrepute and leaves us all open to ridicule I will continue to point out to the world that you're just a lunatic fringe of no consequence.
Do you realise that there are people with degrees in Advanced Maths and Physics who are flat earth. If you actually did your research first, instead of presuming we are all idiots, you may have discovered that.
I can also add to the list pilots, engineers (surveyors), ballistic experts, etc. etc.
-
That said, it is equally false to state today's faith and science are mutually compatible, no matter how many popes, bishops, priests, nuns or lay people claim it is. It may be compatible to them, but not in fact. Today's science operates under the philosophy that there is no Creator nor ever was. Catholic faith is based on the fact that there is a Creator Who keeps all thing in existence and working by His will alone,
[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/T.E.%20The%20Book.doc#_ftnref1)Terry Pratchett, Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen: The Science of Discworld, Ebury Press, Random House, 1999, p.39.
I'm sorry Cassini, I just don't accept your premise here. You can't tar all scientists with the brush of the loud. There is room for a creator behind all scientific theories, no matter how fundamental they get. Even if the big bang theory were 100% correct, there is room for the question 'what went before, and what caused it?' It is in the answers to this question that the faithful find God. It is where I find God, and no matter how much my fellow scientists discover about how the world works, I will continue to see my creator God behind it all.
-
I'm sorry Cassini, I just don't accept your premise here. You can't tar all scientists with the brush of the loud. There is room for a creator behind all scientific theories, no matter how fundamental they get. Even if the big bang theory were 100% correct, there is room for the question 'what went before, and what caused it?' It is in the answers to this question that the faithful find God. It is where I find God, and no matter how much my fellow scientists discover about how the world works, I will continue to see my creator God behind it all.
Boy I would love a separate thread on this subject. Of course I do not tar all scientists with the same brush, only those promoting their 'scientific proofs' for ORIGINS that would include the Big Bang and all the evolution that stems from this ASSUMPTION. They include their 'science' 'proving' heliocentrism, long ages, and that imbecilic evolution.
What you are doing is seeing the creator in what is, not in the false science that supposedly gave rise to what is. How can any Catholic think that there is no difference in a Creator who willed all that is into existence, or a Creator who supposedly can be found in a Big Bang evolution of everything, a theory that is so ridiculous that it is an insult to human intelligence given to us by God.? As I said, it is intellectual pride that causes this blindness. Millions however, when they were indoctrinated with evoluitionism, yes the same theistic-evolution you have no problem with, REJECTED faith in an omnipotent Creator.
Here is the opinion of a wise philosopher:
‘Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that we can refer “not improperly” to the initial singularity [the Big Bang] as an act of creation. What conclusions can we draw from it? That a Creator exists? Suppose still, for the sake of argument, that this, too, is conceded. The problem now is twofold. Is this creator theologically relevant? Can this creator serve the purpose of faith?
My answer to the first question is decidedly negative. A creator proved by [Big Bang] cosmology is a cosmological agent that has none of the properties a believer attributes to God. Even supposing one can consistently say the cosmological creator is beyond space and time, this creature cannot be understood as a person or as the Word made flesh or as the Son of God come down to the world in order to save mankind. Pascal rightly referred to this latter Creator as the “God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, not of philosophers and scientists. To believe that [Big Bang] cosmology proves the existence of a creator and then to attribute to this creator the properties of the Creation as a person is to make an illegitimate inference, to commit a category fallacy. My answer to the second question is also negative. Suppose we can grant what my answer to the first question intends to deny. That is, suppose we can understand the God of [Big Bang] cosmologists as the God of theologians and believers. Such a God cannot (and should not) serve the purpose of faith, because, being a God proved by [Big Bang] cosmology he should be at the mercy of [Big Bang] cosmology. Like any other scientific discipline that, to use Pope John Paul II’s words, proceeds with “methodological seriously” [Big Bang] cosmology is always revisable. It might then happen that a creator proved on the basis of a theory will be refuted when that theory is refuted. Can the God of believers be exposed to the risk of such an inconsistent enterprise as science?’[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/T.E.%20The%20Book.doc#_ftn1)
[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/T.E.%20The%20Book.doc#_ftnref1)Marcello Pera: The god of theologians and the god of astronomers, as found in The Cambridge Companion to Galileo, Cambridge University Press, 1998, pp.378, 379.
-
"a picture with several satellites in space?" Sorry, I do not take pictures of "several satellites in space?"
I have seen with my own eyes satellites traveling through space above the earth. I have seen moving pictures of earth taken by them high enough in space to detect the curvature of the Earth. This curvature can also be calculated by surveyors of Geodesy.
Sorry, no can do. Engineers laying railroad in several countries have already testified that all track was ordered by government to be laid ON THE LEVEL. They explain in detail how thousands of miles of track was laid, the controversy by some that they thought they needed to allow for curve and the consequent government orders. No curve bud.
-
Let us then base our credibility, yours or mine, on what you say above.
Where in any of my post did I say there are pictures of a globe earth?
I am very careful what I write. I wrote : "the fact that there are photographs that provide evidence of a curved earth"
These photos are taken by satellites, the same ones that beam signals throughout the earth, and they show a curvature, not a globe, but the shape of the earth.
What I do notice is that none of you flat-earthers ever try to address what you cannot rebut. If posting another of your videos is the answer to posts like mine then who is 'ignorant' must be clear to many non-posters reading this thread.
Not once did any of you address the science of geodesy that proves the earth is curved.
Haha, follow the curve on any of those pictures and you wind up with a large ball the size of a large beach ball or even a room sized ball. Those pictures are taken with a go pro camera. Curvature has NEVER been demonstrated. Lasers, cameras, telescopes etc. prove earth is flat. Water proves earth is flat. Scripture proves earth is flat. Church Fathers prove earth is flat. Engineers prove earth is flat. Math and science prove earth is flat. Reason proves earth is flat. But only for those who care to come out of their indoctrination.
-
Even Google Earth Proves Earth is not a ball.
-
A tad bit melodramatic.
Do you even go to a resistance Mass? I suspect you don't.
Do you realise this is a resistance forum?
What are you doing posting here if you harbour a secret hatred of it?
Ah, and there was me thinking that it was a Christian, Catholic forum!
-
Ah, and there was me thinking that it was a Christian, Catholic forum!
Are you really so dull that you created an account on a forum and start posting without even looking into what it was and what it stood for?
-
Ah, and there was me thinking that it was a Christian, Catholic forum!
Me too Irish. Yes there is a separate section for SSPX resistance debate, but does that make it a 'resistance' forum?
Surely not.
-
Are you really so dull that you created an account on a forum and start posting without even looking into what it was and what it stood for?
And are you really that dull that you don't understand sarcasm?
I know that sarcasm has been described as 'the lowest form of wit', but sometimes you are forced to 'go low' to match the level of those you're communicating with.
-
And are you really that dull that you don't understand sarcasm?
I know that sarcasm has been described as 'the lowest form of wit', but sometimes you are forced to 'go low' to match the level of those you're communicating with.
So you're here to infiltrate then?
-
Ah, and there was me thinking that it was a Christian, Catholic forum!
.
The true colors of the flat-earthers comes out when you give them a challenge they can't cope with. Their actions speak for themselves and they don't need our help making themselves look bad.
.
The technology they use every day is the same technology they claim doesn't exist.
.
All they have to do is step outside and observe the phases of the moon and they'd see that the earth is spherical, but that would contradict their a priori agenda so they won't dare open their eyes and look.
.
In true Modernist fashion, they accuse their senses of deceiving them so the subjective reality in their mind, the flat-earthism they profess, is the only reality that matters. "I have already made up my mind," they say, "so don't confuse me with the facts."
.
These are the [bad] fruits of the flat-earth [false] position, the title of this thread.
.
-
.
The Book of Genesis does not contain the word "flat" except for this:
"Abram fell flat on his face" (Gen. 17:3).
.
Perhaps you're confusing the Bible with the Quran.
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FaNg_nxqns
.
.
Are you happy being in such ecuмenical harmony with Mohammedans, the "scourge of the Church?"
.
You CLOWNS (aka flat-earthers) keep saying Genesis describes a "flat earth" when in fact it says nothing about the shape of the planet. It doesn't even mention that earth IS a planet. Nor does it mention anything about other planets like Mars or Venus. Oh, right, flat-earthers think Mars and Venus are "stars." HAHAHA
.
-
So you're here to infiltrate then?
.
Spoken by one who knows all about infiltration. The Pot calls the Kettle "Black."
.
Spoken by one who only writes posts on one subject, the only subject he has any interest in because he is an infiltrator with no other interest in this forum.
.
-
.
You have my deepest sympathy, for it must be terrible to be so miserable all the time.
.
World enslavement, malicious kingpins, indoctrinated masses, what a sorry state.
.
Whatever you do, don't open your eyes and look, because your golden calf flat-earth might collapse.
.
On second thought, it might be a good idea because a collapsed idol is a GOOD fruit.
.
.
That's right: a collapsed idol would be a GOOD fruit. Until then, Catholicism has to endure the silly Modernist drivel of flat-earthers who have been so completely taken in by atheists like Mark Sargent who are playing them like a fiddle.
.
-
All they have to do is step outside and observe the phases of the moon and they'd see that the earth is spherical
The ignorance of your comment is mind-numbing.
There's a book you should really consider reading: it's called the Bible.
If you read it, you will hear Our Lord explain to you the DIFFERENCE between the celestial bodies and the earth. Earth is NOT a celestial body. Therefore, your assumption that the earth should be the SAME as the MOON based on appearance of the moon is in direct CONTRADICTION to Our Lord's teaching:
"All flesh is not the same flesh: but one is the flesh of men, another of beasts, another of birds, another of fishes. And there are bodies celestial, and bodies terrestrial: but, one is the glory of the celestial, and another of the terrestrial. One is the glory of the sun, another the glory of the moon, and another the glory of the stars. For star differeth from star in glory. " I Cor. 15:39-41
-
.
Are you happy being in such ecuмenical harmony with Mohammedans, the "scourge of the Church?"
.
You CLOWNS (aka flat-earthers) keep saying Genesis describes a "flat earth" when in fact it says nothing about the shape of the planet. It doesn't even mention that earth IS a planet. Nor does it mention anything about other planets like Mars or Venus. Oh, right, flat-earthers think Mars and Venus are "stars." HAHAHA
.
Whew, the discernment M.I.A. here.
-
Whew, the discernment M.I.A. here.
.
Demonstrating your happiness in harmony with the Mohammedans, again, as usual?
.
Hmmmm? :laugh1:
-
So you're here to infiltrate then?
What would I be infiltrating?
For the avoidance of doubt, I joined this forum so that I could discuss my faith with like-minded individuals. I am a traditionalist to my fingertips. I live, breathe, eat, sleep and dream traditional rites of the Catholic Church on a daily basis. What I didn't expect was to be submerged in a mire created by a group of medieval throwbacks who confuse conservative Catholicism with outdated, counter-factual superstition and who think that Terry Pratchett's Discworld series is a factually accurate account of world history.
-
What would I be infiltrating?
For the avoidance of doubt, I joined this forum so that I could discuss my faith with like-minded individuals. I am a traditionalist to my fingertips. I live, breathe, eat, sleep and dream traditional rites of the Catholic Church on a daily basis. What I didn't expect was to be submerged in a mire created by a group of medieval throwbacks who confuse conservative Catholicism with outdated, counter-factual superstition and who think that Terry Pratchett's Discworld series is a factually accurate account of world history.
.
Good answer! Good answer! I especially liked the part about Terry Pratchett's Discworld.
.
(https://s17-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fs-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com%2F236x%2Fc7%2Fa7%2Ffd%2Fc7a7fd1926a992cbb0b85f941cd825fb--terry-oquinn-book-art.jpg&sp=5df54b121a81380ee40817e2621f8481)
.
Hey -- do you suppose Pratchett could have been a Moslem sympathizer?
.
-
.
Good answer! Good answer! I especially liked the part about Terry Pratchett's Discworld.
.
(https://s17-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fs-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com%2F236x%2Fc7%2Fa7%2Ffd%2Fc7a7fd1926a992cbb0b85f941cd825fb--terry-oquinn-book-art.jpg&sp=5df54b121a81380ee40817e2621f8481)
.
Hey -- do you suppose Pratchett could have been a Moslem sympathizer?
.
The shell of the turtle represents the half dome of the firmament while the underside of the turtle represents the flat earth. Way to go Neil; thank you for converting more people to the Flat Earth belief.
-
What would I be infiltrating?
For the avoidance of doubt, I joined this forum so that I could discuss my faith with like-minded individuals. I am a traditionalist to my fingertips. I live, breathe, eat, sleep and dream traditional rites of the Catholic Church on a daily basis. What I didn't expect was to be submerged in a mire created by a group of medieval throwbacks who confuse conservative Catholicism with outdated, counter-factual superstition and who think that Terry Pratchett's Discworld series is a factually accurate account of world history.
A traditionalist! Well why didn't you say so!?
But seriously, you are unaware of the difference between Catholics and indulters. The indulters (nthow including the SSPX) are thie high anglicans of the Conciliar Church. All about the superficial and not about the faith.
Your mention of the rites gives that away. Your talk about "discussing" your faith is also deeply suspcious of the modernist environment you probably surround yourself for your Sunday Mass attendance. This is a resistance forum for people who are opposed to going along with modernist Rome. Get that straight. Other people are ultimately infiltrators. Like Cassini up there. (Exposed as such long ago)
Understand the environment you are posting in before posting.
-
A traditionalist! Well why didn't you say so!?
But seriously, you are unaware of the difference between Catholics and indulters. The indulters (nthow including the SSPX) are thie high anglicans of the Conciliar Church. All about the superficial and not about the faith.
Your mention of the rites gives that away. Your talk about "discussing" your faith is also deeply suspcious of the modernist environment you probably surround yourself for your Sunday Mass attendance. This is a resistance forum for people who are opposed to going along with modernist Rome. Get that straight. Other people are ultimately infiltrators. Like Cassini up there. (Exposed as such long ago)
Understand the environment you are posting in before posting.
Your sneering arrogance is astounding, and leads you to making assumptions, which in turn lead you to erroneous conclusions. If that's how you approach something as inconsequential to the world as where I attend Sunday Mass, what assumptions and erroneous conclusions must you make about matters of greater consequence?
-
Your sneering arrogance is astounding, and leads you to making assumptions, which in turn lead you to erroneous conclusions. If that's how you approach something as inconsequential to the world as where I attend Sunday Mass, what assumptions and erroneous conclusions must you make about matters of greater consequence?
Actually it is extremely consequential. Every evil action has an effect on the body of Christ and the world in general.
Heretics trying to claim that their sunday blasphemies don't affect anyone are in grave error. The Catholic church is in apostasy now. Indultery plays right into that apostasy.
-
.
Are you happy being in such ecuмenical harmony with Mohammedans, the "scourge of the Church?"
.
You CLOWNS (aka flat-earthers) keep saying Genesis describes a "flat earth" when in fact it says nothing about the shape of the planet. It doesn't even mention that earth IS a planet. Nor does it mention anything about other planets like Mars or Venus. Oh, right, flat-earthers think Mars and Venus are "stars." HAHAHA
.
Apparently, you do not read the Bible. Throughout the book it describes the flat earth in a myriad of ways, none of whoch are conducive to the shape of a ball, and this is confirmed by saints, Fathers from Enoch to Bellarmine, who stood against heliocentrism, precisely because it contradicted scripture, only to be mocked by today's Catholic saying he was mistaken, along with the Church and the Pope. History repeats itself in you.
-
.
That's right: a collapsed idol would be a GOOD fruit. Until then, Catholicism has to endure the silly Modernist drivel of flat-earthers who have been so completely taken in by atheists like Mark Sargent who are playing them like a fiddle.
.
The flat earth is a Catholic issue and therefore gains all of its force from scripture, saints and the Church. STILL waiting for proof of globe from Catholic sources. Since there are NONE, you won't be providing. Of course, that means in order to maintain your position, you have to obfuscate, as you do here.
-
.
The true colors of the flat-earthers comes out when you give them a challenge they can't cope with. Their actions speak for themselves and they don't need our help making themselves look bad.
.
The technology they use every day is the same technology they claim doesn't exist.
.
All they have to do is step outside and observe the phases of the moon and they'd see that the earth is spherical, but that would contradict their a priori agenda so they won't dare open their eyes and look.
.
In true Modernist fashion, they accuse their senses of deceiving them so the subjective reality in their mind, the flat-earthism they profess, is the only reality that matters. "I have already made up my mind," they say, "so don't confuse me with the facts."
.
These are the [bad] fruits of the flat-earth [false] position, the title of this thread.
.
Ha ha. Point to a shadow on the moon and that proves earth is a ball? Puh-lease.
-
Poor heliocentric ball earthers in a fix.
-
Poor heliocentric ball earthers in a fix.
I used to be a carver. Spheres and curves are made with a series of straight lines. If you microscope any spherical solid, you will find a bunch of flat.
The errors of attributing to a whole what is only proper to its parts, or vice-versa, are at least as old as the Fall.
-
I used to be a carver. Spheres and curves are made with a series of straight lines. If you microscope any spherical solid, you will find a bunch of flat.
The errors of attributing to a whole what is only proper to its parts, or vice-versa, are at least as old as the Fall.
Relative thinking demonstrated in full view. Straight lines never produce a curve. Spheres and curves are made from curved lines or arcs.
-
Relative thinking demonstrated in full view. Straight lines never produce a curve. Spheres and curves are made from curved lines or arcs.
Conflation of the material with the ideal and, with all due, don't tell me what I know literally first hand. It's simple, solid, 3D Euclidean geometry.
Never go to the doctor lady; you'd never survive your diagnosis.
The sheer pride, audacity, and cheek.
I'll tell you something else to. YOu violate basic Criteriology among other things. Scholastic Philosophy. Popes are pretty big on it.
How? By the unmitigated cheek of telling a professional from your lay brain "how it is" when you've no clue what you're talking about.
Pride. Arrogance.
YOu are full of yourself.
Unbelievable.
-
Conflation of the material with the ideal.
Waiting for proof.
-
.
That's right: a collapsed idol would be a GOOD fruit. Until then, Catholicism has to endure the silly Modernist drivel of flat-earthers who have been so completely taken in by atheists like Mark Sargent who are playing them like a fiddle.
.
Of course. God, who created the flat earth, is my idol.
-
Waiting for proof.
YOu have no idea what "proof" is or means.
YOu and Stubborn should get on quite well.
We're done woman.
-
YOu have no idea what "proof" is or means.
YOu and Stubborn should get on quite well.
We're done woman.
You have no proof is more like it.
-
A traditionalist! Well why didn't you say so!?
But seriously, you are unaware of the difference between Catholics and indulters. The indulters (nthow including the SSPX) are thie high anglicans of the Conciliar Church. All about the superficial and not about the faith.
Your mention of the rites gives that away. Your talk about "discussing" your faith is also deeply suspcious of the modernist environment you probably surround yourself for your Sunday Mass attendance. This is a resistance forum for people who are opposed to going along with modernist Rome. Get that straight. Other people are ultimately infiltrators. Like Cassini up there. (Exposed as such long ago)
Understand the environment you are posting in before posting.
'Exposed as such long ago.' you say kiwiboy, 'infiltrators,' taking flat-earthism to new lows and now the resistance movement with it..
I think maybe it is time Matthew clarified if this forum is for pro-resistance minded people or not.
What is becoming perfectly clear is that if you represent pro-resistance people you are not doing them any favours with your nasty comments. If you think that the only Catholics left are those who joined the resistance movement, then why are they breaking up everywhere, just as Protestantism did after their reformation? I tell you if I was in 'the resistance' and I read what you have to say about others because they totally reject the imbecilic flat-earth belief, then I too would get out of there very quickly.
-
'Exposed as such long ago.' you say kiwiboy, 'infiltrators,' taking flat-earthism to new lows and now the resistance movement with it..
I think maybe it is time Matthew clarified if this forum is for pro-resistance minded people or not.
What is becoming perfectly clear is that if you represent pro-resistance people you are not doing them any favours with your nasty comments. If you think that the only Catholics left are those who joined the resistance movement, then why are they breaking up everywhere, just as Protestantism did after their reformation? I tell you if I was in 'the resistance' and I read what you have to say about others because they totally reject the imbecilic flat-earth belief, then I too would get out of there very quickly.
God created the flat earth. To call the flat earth belief imbecilic is BLASPHEMEY.
-
The shell of the turtle represents the half dome of the firmament while the underside of the turtle represents the flat earth. Way to go Neil; thank you for converting more people to the Flat Earth belief.
.
News flash: Terry Pratchett's stories are FICTION. You defend fiction with the same zeal you do flat-earthism.
.
Oh, right, you're consistent in your defense of fiction as if it were real. Can you say a few words about Superman or Batman, too?
.
Since you think the fiction of flat-earthism is reality.
.
More bad fruits of the flat-earth position.
.
-
Of course. God, who created the flat earth, is my idol.
.
They're coming to take you away, ha-ha.
.
Maybe your mother will come to visit, though.
.
(https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fs3.amazonaws.com%2Flowres.cartoonstock.com%2Ffamilies-mother-motherhood-craziness-mental_state-insane_asylum-mban4348_low.jpg&sp=5c251628a58432f18a705cbd1035ca8e)
-
.
They're coming to take you away, ha-ha.
.
Maybe your mother will come to visit, though.
.
(https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fs3.amazonaws.com%2Flowres.cartoonstock.com%2Ffamilies-mother-motherhood-craziness-mental_state-insane_asylum-mban4348_low.jpg&sp=5c251628a58432f18a705cbd1035ca8e)
Thank You.
-
.
What can you do with a German flat-earther?
.
(https://s15-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http:%2F%2Fl7.alamy.com%2Fzooms%2F01f4620a0d5b41c9a563b784f2075885%2Fwhite-saying-in-the-padded-cell-proverb-crazy-day-joke-funny-humor-c99tf8.jpg&sp=1ca717b9e524802e4c1736fba5787567)
-
God created the flat earth. To call the flat earth belief imbecilic is BLASPHEMEY.
Indeed, because it is to blaspheme against the Bible itself.
-
.
You have my deepest sympathy. It must be terrible to be a poor flat-earther trapped in a globe earth world.
.
(https://s17-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Flh3.googleusercontent.com%2F-qwo331_T5vs%2FVjpmJ0wrUUI%2FAAAAAAAAAMQ%2F_i_wjNHY5u4%2Fs640%2Fgiphy%25252520%252525284%25252529.gif&sp=1ab7ba79ab2e6d41274647d31870ef2d)
.
-
Mockery is the last refuge of those who have lost the argument.
-
Mockery is the last refuge of those who have lost the argument.
.
Are you referring to me and my post? I was just having a little levity to lighten the somber mood around here.
.
Why don't you go scold the trolls who are accusing me of blasphemy, lying and drunkenness? Is that okay?
.
Or is it only a problem when I post a silly image that's objectively less silly than the nonsense they purvey?
E.g.,
.
(https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmetrouk2.files.wordpress.com%2F2017%2F02%2Fflat-earth-1.jpg%3Fquality%3D80%26amp%3Bstrip%3Dall&sp=28e5994722f7b2ee018ed57ba9b96a81)
.
Besides, Truth is Transitory (https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/the-fruits-of-the-flat-earth-position/msg564506/#msg564506) thanked me for the nice laugh it gave him.
-
This thread is turning out to be a nice collection of the Fruits of the Flat Earth Position, after all.
-
This thread is turning out to be a nice collection of the Fruits of the Flat Earth Position, after all.
Thank you. You are helping to promote the flat earth and we are using you for just this purpose.
-
Thank you. You are helping to promote the flat earth and we are using you for just this purpose.
.
You're welcome. I'm happy you're enjoying my posts. I wish I could say the same! HAHAHA
.
By the way, maybe you can explain what's reflecting on the top of the dome:
(https://us.hideproxy.me/go.php?u=0g4lpWL04O5dm2TDNahlFNvClctZn2o8bhFSbcKREsccu8R2sTmlXWwb3is%2B%2BV9iemEG8TTDQOUjkwezzlEa2zV8t5Ok%2BXuK640%2BFaIEXyEf0xM%2FaGzPv38s%2FHsUOGM9ompbPZ9PCA7r21q5aVbZE1pp20QIhFMF57J5yU0TlUcfjq%2FkL03PAqpimyfwsJ7G54PmpOAhkZmGN%2FFe5QOeqYpXAraQg5gN8Vv7i2Dd8Hiawr%2BWOCUdGJEs8cbhG4U%3D&b=5)
.
I've got other questions about this flat-earth model you like so much.
.
-
:popcorn: :farmer: :jumping2:
-
Mockery is the last refuge of those who have lost the argument.
.
You see, Cera, there's nothing to worry your pretty little head about because they are using me to promote their message. I'm helping them now (https://us.hideproxy.me/go.php?u=0g4lpWayo%2B1bjyWFNb5yDpzCkYgVlm50ZQJSLsfVGZodscRz%2BTmmEX8WhHMh%2BgZvfHtb9X6CbaQ%2BoUrkpVoN2i5nsdX5sTCX741gXbkKWWgKwAQ4c2%2Fcv2FgulRJZn1n9D8oO5ldCHyi&b=5#msg564724), okay? :)
.
-
Thank you. You are helping to promote the flat earth and we are using you for just this purpose.
"We are using you..." Such a nice kikeish ring to that phrase, eh?
-
Thank you. You are helping to promote the flat earth and we are using you for just this purpose.
Indeed, Neil Obstat is single-handedly causing more conversions of people of good will to the truth of the Bible than anyone else here.
-
Relative thinking demonstrated in full view. Straight lines never produce a curve. Spheres and curves are made from curved lines or arcs.
I guess you flunked calculus at school?
-
Since you pride yourself on having a lot of letters after your name, and since you wont get off a resistance forum, even though you are not a real Catholic,
would you care to explain why there is no curvature on the earth? For example in the following videos, you can see objects demonstrating a total clarity and steadiness that would not be present in refraction. Yet we see these objects and they should be beyond the horizon.
Your entire assumption that the earth is round is based on a fixed mathematical forumula, that must work always, if it is to be true. You deal with numbers all the time. If they don't add up, as you know, you must re-evaluate.
Here are the videos http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/t17-objects-over-the-horizon-proofs
-
Indeed, Neil Obstat is single-handedly causing more conversions of people of good will to the truth of the Bible than anyone else here.
.
Well, if you really believe the earth is "flat" then I guess you'd also believe anything else contrary to reason.
.
(https://s17-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fd2yhzr6tx8qnba.cloudfront.net%2Fimages%2Fdb%2Fc%2F04%2F574b8b710f04c.jpeg&sp=2d9d4138a1e7fd053fbf6341ed6d3d86)
.
-
.
Since you pride yourself on having a lot of letters after your name, and since you wont get off a resistance forum, even though you are not a real Catholic, would you care to explain why there is no curvature on the earth? For example in the following videos, you can see objects demonstrating a total clarity and steadiness that would not be present in refraction. Yet we see these objects and they should be beyond the horizon.
Your entire assumption that the earth is round is based on a fixed mathematical forumula, that must work always, if it is to be true. You deal with numbers all the time. If they don't add up, as you know, you must re-evaluate.
.
Flat-earth tards trying to escape reality:
.
(https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2F68.media.tumblr.com%2Fad05ae0520ae245e590525af4540b7df%2Ftumblr_nos5zrD7xH1u1vkloo1_500.gif&sp=815b8e7f82dc350cc87d8b05564fd5fc)
.
More bad friuts of the flat-earth position!!
.
-
I guess you flunked calculus at school?
.
How generous of you to presume happenby has flunked calculus.
That would presume she could have qualified to enroll in the first place. Unbelievable!
.
-
Since you pride yourself on having a lot of letters after your name, and since you wont get off a resistance forum, even though you are not a real Catholic,...
Just exactly how do you know that?
-
Indeed, Neil Obstat is single-handedly causing more conversions of people of good will to the truth of the Bible than anyone else here.
Really, then who are they?
-
Since you pride yourself on having a lot of letters after your name, and since you wont get off a resistance forum, even though you are not a real Catholic,
I find it difficult to express just how great it makes me feel that someone like you doesn't consider me to be a real Catholic. You've given me a real gift by announcing to the world that I'm not like you. Thank you.
-
Since you pride yourself on having a lot of letters after your name, and since you wont get off a resistance forum, even though you are not a real Catholic
.
Looks like kiwiboy might be headed for removal in his blatant campaign to condemn anyone who disagrees.
.
No loss. CathInfo doesn't need that kind of irritation. You wouldn't be the first, or the last.
.
-
I find it difficult to express just how great it makes me feel that someone like you doesn't consider me to be a real Catholic. You've given me a real gift by announcing to the world that I'm not like you. Thank you.
Not interested in the feelings of an indulterer too much.
Just answer the question please.
-
.
No, you answer the question.
.
You keep trying to change the subject because you have no answer. Your pet fairy tale is nowhere, is silly nonsense, you can't support it and you're so upset you're acting like a woman. Maybe you are a woman, or is it 'transɛҳuąƖ'?
.
Wouldn't be surprised, kiwigirl.
.
-
I am quite suspicious that happenby and a bunch of the 15-post flat-earthers are plants to make Catholics and "conspiracy theorists" look like a bunch of kooks. They take a few truths--NASA can't be trusted; man didn't go to the moon; geocentrism--and make them seem inextricably intertwined with the harebrained notion of flat-earth, proclaimed most ardently by the 10th grade educated, a few puffed-up proud of whom done got that GED, trailer park residents with YouTube smash-hits about the tornado that roared through Tin-Can Estates.
.
Yes, more ---- Bad Fruit of the Flat Earth Position
.
.
.
Some of the low post flat-tards have less than 15 posts like flatearthtards with only 3 posts.
.