Originally posted by josephwi dont know if you are taking the rip but that does not follow.
By faith.
That, and it's the only rational and logical explanation for the earths existence. The current scientific model is merely a speculative theory, and cannot be relied upon as conclusive evidence. It's only a last ditch option for those that deny the existence of a creator.
Originally posted by josephwIt's a youtube series. are you a flat earther? or a baller?
I have one.
Genesis 1:6,7
And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
1 edit
Originally posted by josephwLife on Earth would be totally different if Earth was flat. The rise of science in the last 400 years would have found ample evidence that would never have been covered up by any
Even if the earth was flat, how would that change anything about this life as we know it?
'atheist' scientists.
Newton was a premier scientist, one of the best ever AND extremely religious.
Yet he proved scientifically Earth could NOT be flat just by analyzing what the horizon would look like if it was in fact flat with the horizon say 2000 miles away. There would be undeniable optical effect that would make the horizon look totally different, like the setting sun would not look anything like the sphere it looks like now, it would be shaped like a sausage or pillow because of the optical distortions inherent in a horizon 2000 mile or more away, instead of the mere few miles as it is now.
Isaac Newton developed much of the science of optics we know and use today, like the reflector telescope, when he heard about the first refractive lens scopes he immediately jumped to the idea it did not have to be a lens but in fact could be a curved mirror just as well and we owe every reflector telescope on Earth directly to Isaac Newton.
One thing he know very well was optics and his analysis proved the horizon was in fact very close, not thousands of miles away like flatasssers easily dis-proven fantasies.
There never has been a refutation of that by flatasssers. One that sticks. And that from an extremely religious scientist, so don't EVEN pull the 'Atheist scientist' card.
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeIndeed, it has.
Sir, it would change everything.
With the indoctrinated masses so swayed, the US is stealing the equivalent of $61M per day in the perpetuation of this fantasy.
Trillions of dollars thus far, for... what, exactly?
An understanding of the universe which is altered, revised nearly every day?
Subjective speculation on distant absurdities and irrelevant scenarios, whilst people die of preventable causes just down the street?
Take $61M/day and fix Detroit.
Maybe it takes a month or so.
The next month, head to the next blight, until they're all thriving again.
Then next year, let's go help our neighbors.
Oh, the places we will go...
Originally posted by sonhouseYou don't seriously believe I'm a flatasser do you? As a kid, when I first learned that it was believed by some in the past that the earth was flat, before I ever knew it wasn't, I knew that that was an idea born of ignorance.
Life on Earth would be totally different if Earth was flat. The rise of science in the last 400 years would have found ample evidence that would never have been covered up by any
'atheist' scientists.
Newton was a premier scientist, one of the best ever AND extremely religious.
Yet he proved scientifically Earth could NOT be flat just by analyzing w ...[text shortened]... And that from an extremely religious scientist, so don't EVEN pull the 'Atheist scientist' card.
My question was about whether life as we know it would be different even if the earth was flat, and for that matter square, rectangular or any other shape.
When I say "life as we know it" I mean in relation to who and what we are. I think we'd be the same bunch of dumbasses screwing it up and dying and killing and destroying no matter what shape the earth was.
The argument about the shape of the earth is pointless in light of the idea that we accept death as a natural consequence of life. That's the real question. I'm not afraid to entertain the idea that death doesn't have to be an inevitability, but is instead a consequence of the rejection of the one that created life. And whether I believe that or not is of little or no consequence to you.
Nothing changes whether the earth is flat or not.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHExactly.
Indeed, it has.
With the indoctrinated masses so swayed, the US is stealing the equivalent of $61M [b]per day in the perpetuation of this fantasy.
Trillions of dollars thus far, for... what, exactly?
An understanding of the universe which is altered, revised nearly every day?
Subjective speculation on distant absurdities and irrelevant scenarios ...[text shortened]... ll thriving again.
Then next year, let's go help our neighbors.
Oh, the places we will go...[/b]
Instead of spending trillions on the falsifiable, why not invest in the cause of relieving human suffering?
All their talk is fantasy. They think they're advancing, but they're not. They're robbing the poor and treating the earth and its inhabitants as a harvest for their own self interests.
Originally posted by josephwSetting aside the city's debt temporarily, Michelle Maynard posted an interesting little blurb three years ago which put the money mark necessary to 'fix Detroit' at a surprisingly coincidental $1.25 billion.
Exactly.
Instead of spending trillions on the falsifiable, why not invest in the cause of relieving human suffering?
All their talk is fantasy. They think they're advancing, but they're not. They're robbing the poor and treating the earth and its inhabitants as a harvest for their own self interests.
So, even if the month of February was earmarked for Detroit, $61M/day would leave a surplus of nearly $7M left over.
Think of that for 12 months.
We would exhaust every city with a population above one million souls before the year even ended.
Sure, it would take nearly 25 years to hit every single incorporated area in the US with that exact same amount of money every day, but two things would be working for us.
1. Not every city requires $1.8B in order to reset their infrastructure and put them on a path toward vitality; some will need nothing at all.
2. The domino effect of fixing the worst and working toward the better will see those further up the chain become incrementally better by virtue of new trading partners and increased business opportunities from those who have already received the benefit.
But what of those poor, poor folks at NASA?
Put those 18,000 lying, cheating sonsabitches to actual work, helping in the efforts to do something worthwhile for the earthbound folks around them.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHHow does 22 billion equal trillions of dollars? Do you figure they just scoop up money and launch it into space and like, what, dump it on the moon?
Setting aside the city's debt temporarily, Michelle Maynard posted an interesting little blurb three years ago which put the money mark necessary to 'fix Detroit' at a surprisingly coincidental $1.25 billion.
So, even if the month of February was earmarked for Detroit, $61M/day would leave a surplus of nearly $7M left over.
Think of that for 12 months.
...[text shortened]... al work, helping in the efforts to do something worthwhile for the earthbound folks around them.
You act like that money can cure all the problems of the US in one fell swoop.
What about the ACTUAL trillions spent on the Iraq war started by president Cheney? If the cities and states had THAT money they wouldn't HAVE money problems would they?
Originally posted by sonhouseI agree with that too! 😉
How does 22 billion equal trillions of dollars? Do you figure they just scoop up money and launch it into space and like, what, dump it on the moon?
You act like that money can cure all the problems of the US in one fell swoop.
What about the ACTUAL trillions spent on the Iraq war started by president Cheney? If the cities and states had THAT money they wouldn't HAVE money problems would they?
I heard that Warren Buffett said that the world is awash with money. Why is it so few have virtually all of it?
Originally posted by josephwWell for sure they will not be giving it up any time soon. Buffett said he was going to leave his son or sons, not sure which, enough money to live but not enough to have a dynasty or words to that effect but I see his idea of not enough for a dynasty is a bit different from us common folk, the kid is getting something like 2 billion dollars.
I agree with that too! 😉
I heard that Warren Buffett said that the world is awash with money. Why is it so few have virtually all of it?
The rest of his 50 billion is supposed to go to charity when he dies. But Charity can't wait and is holding her breath.
Originally posted by sonhouseDoes Buffett have that much in liquid assets?
Well for sure they will not be giving it up any time soon. Buffett said he was going to leave his son or sons, not sure which, enough money to live but not enough to have a dynasty or words to that effect but I see his idea of not enough for a dynasty is a bit different from us common folk, the kid is getting something like 2 billion dollars.
The rest o ...[text shortened]... ion is supposed to go to charity when he dies. But Charity can't wait and is holding her breath.
If he wasn't a hypocrite he'd give it away before he dies. If he waits till he's dead the lawyers will get the lions share of it and none of us will ever really know what happened.
And if he gives it away before he dies they'll kill him first.