Author Topic: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat (Read 93150 times)

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #1215 on:** February 21, 2018, 06:17:56 PM »

Quote from: kiwiboy on February 16, 2018, 04:18:39 PM

There are many other problems with this article, but for now, the big question remains, is refraction always a present condition? If arbitrary, and it is, it cannot be relied on to prove the earth is a globe. This is one of those wordy proofs that fails to prove what they say it does.

.
Nobody is relying on refraction to prove the earth is a globe. Strawman!
.
What the on-again-off-again phenomenon of refraction does is, it deprives of any "proof" that the earth is "flat" since photos used for that purpose are therefore unreliable due to the fact that the conclusions drawn are discredited when PERHAPS refraction was at play.
.
It is incuмbent on flat-earthers to demonstrate that there was in FACT NO REFRACTION going on when their pictures were taken, and I have yet to see any flat-earther convincingly prove that to have been true in any specific case.
.
Flat-earthers instead lunge ahead presuming nobody will notice the interference of refraction, and only come back to deny its existence when someone DOES notice. BTW that is not how any credible scientific experiment is ever conducted.
.
Flat-earthers repeatedly shoot themselves in the foot. Maybe they enjoy the pain.
.
To be scientific, all the known challenges and opposition to the experiment's legitimacy must be anticipated in advance and due tests and measurements must be taken to answer such accusations in the future. Many experiments have had to be repeated, sometimes numerous times, in order to fill in all the gaps left by questionable conditions.
.

Smedley Butler · « **Reply #1216 on:** February 21, 2018, 06:39:16 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat on February 21, 2018, 06:01:07 PM

.
I already explained what my source is, a Douay-Rheims bible, 1609 edition (pre-KJV), by TAN Books.

Actually, it's not a 1609.
Neil linked to drbo.org.
At the top of their website, it says: this Bible is the 1899 Challoner version by John Murphy Co.

Smedley Butler · « **Reply #1217 on:** February 21, 2018, 06:42:15 PM »

Most Catholics own the Challoner. The 1609 has been out of print for hundreds of years since its suppression. It costs about $400 to get one.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #1218 on:** February 21, 2018, 07:06:27 PM »

Quote from: Smedley Butler on February 21, 2018, 06:39:16 PM

Actually, it's not a 1609.
Neil linked to drbo.org.
At the top of their website, it says: this Bible is the 1899 Challoner version by John Murphy Co.

.
I read it in my physical Bible regardless of where the link takes you. It's the same Bible.
Inside the front cover it says OT, Douay 1609. I'm not making it up.
.
I didn't link to a KJV did I?
.

Smedley Butler · « **Reply #1219 on:** February 21, 2018, 07:27:45 PM »

ALL Catholics own the Challoner, that's all there is.

Unless you have $400.

Drbo.org is the web version.

It's not a 1609, it's 1899.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #1220 on:** February 22, 2018, 09:12:56 AM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat on February 21, 2018, 06:17:56 PM

It is incuмbent on flat-earthers to demonstrate that there was in FACT NO REFRACTION going on when their pictures were taken, and I have yet to see any flat-earther convincingly prove that to have been true in any specific case.

And yet, according to you, the burden of proof on your side is extremely low or non-existent. You post the SpaceX images as "proof" when by your own admission they could have been created in a studio. You post blurry pictures of boats without any details ... such as distance away, wave conditions, etc. ... as if they were proof. And then flat-earthers must prove no refraction. You have a double standard.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #1221 on:** February 22, 2018, 09:14:37 AM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat on February 21, 2018, 06:17:56 PM

To be scientific, all the known challenges and opposition to the experiment's legitimacy must be anticipated in advance and due tests and measurements must be taken to answer such accusations in the future. Many experiments have had to be repeated, sometimes numerous times, in order to fill in all the gaps left by questionable conditions.

So then none of your posts have been scientific ... like your blurry pictures of boats (with no measurements of any kind), and yet that's OK for you to be unscientific.

Smedley Butler · « **Reply #1222 on:** February 22, 2018, 09:17:58 AM »

Thanks for pointing out Neil Globestat's dishonesty.

Glad I'm not the only one who noticed.

happenby · « **Reply #1223 on:** February 22, 2018, 10:41:55 AM »

Quote from: Smedley Butler on February 21, 2018, 07:27:45 PM

ALL Catholics own the Challoner, that's all there is.

Unless you have $400.

Drbo.org is the web version.

It's not a 1609, it's 1899.

I have the original 1592 version of Douay and many passages are quite different than Challoner. Ecclesiastical docuмents have acknowledged that the Vulgate is free of doctrinal and moral error. However, not containing doctrinal and moral error is not the same thing as being a perfect translation. In fact, it isn't even the same thing as being a good translation. The differences are not merely spelling or punctuation. Cardinal Newman said they 'almost amounted to a new translation.' So also, Cardinal "Wiseman wrote, 'To call it any longer the Douay or Rheimish Version is an abuse of terms. It has been altered and modified until scarcely any sense remains as it was originally published'" (Catholic Encyclopedia, 1910 ed.,s.v., "Douay Bible").

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #1224 on:** February 22, 2018, 11:57:34 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on February 22, 2018, 09:14:37 AM

So then none of your posts have been scientific ... like your blurry pictures of boats (with no measurements of any kind), and yet that's OK for you to be unscientific.

.
How's this for scientific?

Is that more your speed? Looks like reality, eh?

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #1225 on:** February 23, 2018, 12:03:02 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on February 22, 2018, 09:12:56 AM

And yet, according to you, the burden of proof on your side is extremely low or non-existent. You post the SpaceX images as "proof" when by your own admission they could have been created in a studio. You post blurry pictures of boats without any details ... such as distance away, wave conditions, etc. ... as if they were proof. And then flat-earthers must prove no refraction. You have a double standard.

.
When did I say I was posting Spacex images as "proof" of anything, except that the launches have taken place?
.
So you think the Spacex launches were faked in a studio? Do you have any evidence of that?
.
The "blurry pictures of boats" are from another website using a 1200 mm telephoto lens from shore looking out to sea, which tends to get blurry. That's normal -- that means they're not fake. If they were clear you would complain they should be blurry. So you'll never be satisfied.
.
Ladislaus the agnostic. We can't know anything and there is no certainty to be found, eh?
.

WholeFoodsTrad · « **Reply #1226 on:** February 26, 2018, 11:30:20 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat on February 21, 2018, 06:01:07 PM

.
I already explained what my source is, a Douay-Rheims bible, 1609 edition (pre-KJV), reprinted by TAN Books.
.
The Bible's text itself contains no definition of what the sacred author meant by the word(s) the Church translates as "a firmament."
.
The Church has seen fit to attribute to that term the meaning she has, because scientific evidence cannot be in contradiction to the revelation of God. The definition I provide is found in the footnote for Genesis 1:6.
.
Consequently, while a "hard" or "metallic" substance or the like, might be legitimate interpretation in general, it is in obvious contradiction to the known facts of modern science, therefore "a firmament" as used here in particular cannot have been meant to be "hard" or "metallic" by the sacred author.
.
By "a firmament" the author meant a zone obedient to natural law which separates the water above us (which sometimes falls as rain) from the earth below us. Even so, no rain was known to fall from the sky prior to the Great Flood, but the plants received water sustenance from springs that bubbled up from the earth and from a light dew that fell at night. Consequently it's easy for us to understand why the neighbors ridiculed Noah, for they had no idea that water could ever fall as very heavy rain, let alone for 40 days and nights. Furthermore, it underscores the tremendous FAITH of Noah who nonetheless persisted in his great work for 100 years even though there was no natural reason for him to do so from what the cuмulative worldly scientific knowledge could provide at the time.
.

Neil it isn't surprising that a fairly Modern note in a Bible would say something like that. Providentissimus Deus makes clear that Catholics have an obligation to defend Scripture if they can, but if they can't then they should aquiesce to Modern Science, which is what the note's author appears to have done. I and most everyone else here, I think, are merely saying that Modern Science is wrong and Scripture is right, which is what Providentissimus Deus tells us to do, if we can and we have shown, in our judgment, that we can.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #1227 on:** February 27, 2018, 10:01:28 PM »

Quote from: WholeFoodsTrad on February 26, 2018, 11:30:20 PM

Neil it isn't surprising that a fairly Modern note in a Bible would say something like that. Providentissimus Deus makes clear that Catholics have an obligation to defend Scripture if they can, but if they can't then they should aquiesce to Modern Science, which is what the note's author appears to have done. I and most everyone else here, I think, are merely saying that Modern Science is wrong and Scripture is right, which is what Providentissimus Deus tells us to do, if we can and we have shown, in our judgment, that we can.

.
When modern science repeatedly demonstrates the facts of reality we are not obliged to condemn it on the basis of our own fallible interpretation of Scripture.
.
The Bible nor the Church are required to make observations and judgments about the nature of material things that we can see and test.
.
Any docuмents of the Church that mention physical things only do so for the SPIRITUAL import they refer to.
.
The list of topics not covered in the Bible is nearly endless.
.
Buoyancy, radioactivity, ellipsoids, radio waves, light diffraction, inertia, velocity of light, chemical reactions, neutrons and protons of an atom, molecular weight, visible light spectrum, variation of speed of sound in water vs. air, refraction of light, the function of hemoglobin in blood, mitochondria in living cells, deoxyribonucleic acid, specific gravity of lead (or anything else), or the wavelength of the color blue.
.
Does that mean these things do not exist?
.

WholeFoodsTrad · « **Reply #1228 on:** March 01, 2018, 03:51:36 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat on February 27, 2018, 10:01:28 PM

.
When modern science repeatedly demonstrates the facts of reality we are not obliged to condemn it on the basis of our own fallible interpretation of Scripture.
.
The Bible nor the Church are required to make observations and judgments about the nature of material things that we can see and test.
.
Any docuмents of the Church that mention physical things only do so for the SPIRITUAL import they refer to.
.
The list of topics not covered in the Bible is nearly endless.
.
Buoyancy, radioactivity, ellipsoids, radio waves, light diffraction, inertia, velocity of light, chemical reactions, neutrons and protons of an atom, molecular weight, visible light spectrum, variation of speed of sound in water vs. air, refraction of light, the function of hemoglobin in blood, mitochondria in living cells, deoxyribonucleic acid, specific gravity of lead (or anything else), or the wavelength of the color blue.
.
Does that mean these things do not exist?
.

Oh my gosh, you are such an idiot! You have no idea what Catholic Culture is and how it differs from Protestant Culture! Yet you pontificate on it endlessly! You are so stupid!

Catholic Culture has always sought to unite the spiritual with the material, into a coherent whole; much like Christ is man and God or The Host is Body of Christ and Wheat Flour. Rebellion against this is the point of Protestant Culture: a profound disconnect between the spiritual and the material, expressed by the Bare Cross (no visceral connection to the physical world, only spiritual), No Statues, No Literal Presence in The Eucharistic Host or Wine. This is why Protestants have been able to be so much less Charitable in their treatment of labor, because their obligation is only to the spiritual and not to the material.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #1229 on:** March 01, 2018, 05:13:07 PM »

Quote from: WholeFoodsTrad on March 01, 2018, 03:51:36 PM

Oh my gosh, you are such an idiot! You have no idea what Catholic Culture is and how it differs from Protestant Culture! Yet you pontificate on it endlessly! You are so stupid!

.
Excuse me, but you are the stupid idiot.
.
You are so stupid!

.

Quote

Catholic Culture has always sought to unite the spiritual with the material, into a coherent whole; much like Christ is man and God or The Host is Body of Christ and Wheat Flour. Rebellion against this is the point of Protestant Culture: a profound disconnect between the spiritual and the material, expressed by the Bare Cross (no visceral connection to the physical world, only spiritual), No Statues, No Literal Presence in The Eucharistic Host or Wine. This is why Protestants have been able to be so much less Charitable in their treatment of labor, because their obligation is only to the spiritual and not to the material.

.
You the Jєω/Protestant try to teach Catholics about the Church? Don't make me laugh!

(Never mind you just did.)

Author Topic: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat (Read 93150 times)

Neil Obstat

Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat

Smedley Butler

Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat

Smedley Butler

Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat

Neil Obstat

Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat

Smedley Butler

Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat

Ladislaus

Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat

Ladislaus

Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat

Smedley Butler

Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat

happenby

Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat

Neil Obstat

Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat

Neil Obstat

Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat

WholeFoodsTrad

Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat

Neil Obstat

Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat

WholeFoodsTrad

Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat

Neil Obstat

Re: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat