15 Nov 15
Originally posted by lemon limeThere's a few sunspots, but one needs special equipment to look at the sun directly. Freaky's point seems to be about the difficulty of distinguishing theories, which would be reasonable enough if one thought the scientific community didn't do immense amounts of checking. The problem is in the meantime he's gotten bogged down defending a ludicrous theory.
Okay, I get where you're coming from now. I included a comment saying I can see how someone might think it's a flat disk based only on the outine. And even phases of the moon can be thought of as a disk passing between the sun and the moon... I'm not suggesting this is what happens, I'm merely saying I can see how it's possible for someone to believe this ...[text shortened]... s pants and go on the war path, because I'm not (and never was) promoting a fLat earth argument.
The funny thing is that I'm fairly sure googlefudge and I had the relevant exchange a few pages ago when I stated that God's existence cannot be proven or disproven (in the scientific sense) and googlefudge argued (I believe incorrectly) that it is possible to deduce the non-existence of god from zero results. His argument was that one should be able to observe the nature of the God one adheres to by acquaintance, and therefore that God intervenes in the world which should be detectable.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
15 Nov 15
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I'm at a complete loss when contemplating your stupidity on this point.
A person (sitting or standing) holds their head straight (skull tilted neither up or down at the point of its connection with the cervical vertebrae) and looks to the furthest point possible in their direct line of sight.
Or if you want to take the human element out of it, set up a c ...[text shortened]... et except for you, that true horizon remains at eye level, with no tilting of the head required.
A person (sitting or standing) holds their head straight (skull tilted neither up or down at the point of its connection with the cervical vertebrae) and looks to the furthest point possible in their direct line of sight.
I don't.
And I know of nobody that does.
Or if you want to take the human element out of it, set up a camera on a tripod, make it level and set the auto-focus to infinity.
Without obstacles, the furthest distance either the human eye or the camera are able to detect is the horizon--- depending on the camera, it will be able to capture images further in distance than the unaided human eye.
I do astro-photography. The farthest stuff I take pictures of is ~2.5 million ly away. [and I can see stuff that far with the naked eye]
And a camera on a tripod [and most of the pics we have been discussing so far have been hand-held] will be level
if [and only if] the camera has been carefully levelled. Because the ground is probably not perfectly level, and tripods mounts
are designed to tilt, so you can point your camera any way you want.
The point of a tripod is not to level the camera, it's to steady it.
Nonetheless, pick up that same person or that same camera and elevate both at equal increments all the way up to 33,000 feet above the earth, whilst keeping both the head and the camera on the tripod at the same position: level and pointed toward the furthest distance possible.
At some point, depending upon the terrain, both subjects will be above any and all obstacles between them and the true horizon.
But at ALL times, when either of the subjects have unobstructed views of the true horizon, that horizon will be directly in front of them, either at eye level or at lens level--- regardless of the elevation of either.
Nope. Not true. Not even a little bit.
This is clearly demonstrated by any of the pictures I've already pointed you to, as well as in the one picture you erroneously thought would prove your point: in that picture "Skyscape," the true horizon is just left of center and at eye level.
No, it's in the bottom third of the picture, and without knowing the angle of the camera, there is no way of knowing
if it's at eye level.
And, as has been proven repeatedly by literally every person on the planet except for you, that true horizon remains at eye level, with no tilting of the head required
Um, no. Nobody else but you believes this bull****
You are living in your own personal delusion.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
15 Nov 15
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI'm pretty sure that is not in fact my argument thankyou very much.
There's a few sunspots, but one needs special equipment to look at the sun directly. Freaky's point seems to be about the difficulty of distinguishing theories, which would be reasonable enough if one thought the scientific community didn't do immense amounts of checking. The problem is in the meantime he's gotten bogged down defending a ludicrous theo ...[text shortened]... s to by acquaintance, and therefore that God intervenes in the world which should be detectable.
My argument is Bayesian and relies on both an understanding of the prior probability of
god's as well as the absence of evidence for them.
It also includes a modicum of defining what is meant by god, as you have to have some definition to
work with before you can ask any meaningful questions about the subject at all.
15 Nov 15
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI'll have to start at the beginning of this thread to see exactly what Freaky was saying. You say your exchange with googlefudge was about God? I frankly don't see what relevance that has or how it relates to any science theory, whether it's a good theory, bad theory, marginally acceptable theory... whatever. I haven't read the entire thread, so I assumed the point of this exercise was to illustrate how you're able to reject a flat earth argument because of some rather obvious problems with it, and yet accept evolution in spite of some obvious problems with it.
There's a few sunspots, but one needs special equipment to look at the sun directly. Freaky's point seems to be about the difficulty of distinguishing theories, which would be reasonable enough if one thought the scientific community didn't do immense amounts of checking. The problem is in the meantime he's gotten bogged down defending a ludicrous theo ...[text shortened]... s to by acquaintance, and therefore that God intervenes in the world which should be detectable.
So anyway, it seemed to me the salient point being made here is to show how easy it is to accept something as fact if it first starts out as a belief.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
15 Nov 15
Originally posted by lemon limeThere are no obvious problems with evolution.
I'll have to start at the beginning of this thread to see exactly what Freaky was saying. You say your exchange with googlefudge was about God? I frankly don't see what relevance that has or how it relates to any science theory, whether it's a good theory, bad theory, marginally acceptable theory... whatever. I haven't read the entire thread, so I assumed ...[text shortened]... e here is to show how easy it is to accept something as fact if it first starts out as a belief.
And freaky is making no salient points at all.
15 Nov 15
Originally posted by lemon limeThere is not a single element of the assertion - that the earth is flat - that's valid. Nothing at all. It's complete nonsense in every respect and detail. You cannot characterize this as being "problems". Nothing about it is valid. And no detail offered by anyone making the assertion withstands any scrutiny at all. One cannot make any kind of 'salient point' about facts v beliefs with it.
Are there any problems (obvious or otherwise) with the flat earth theory?
15 Nov 15
Originally posted by lemon limeIt a very good theory and worthy of equal consideration as the "global model".
Are there any problems (obvious or otherwise) with the flat earth theory?
I guess we will never know which is correct until,
somebody actually uses their eyes
somebody circumnavigates the globe
somebody goes into space
or somebody discovers the giant ice-wall at the edge of the disc.
I looked through the first page, and it's just as I suspected. In his OP Freaky asks about thoughts (right or wrong) that have no overtly harmful consequences, and simply uses a belief about the globe as an example. But lo and behold, sure enough the atheist science guys once again take over and turn yet another thread into a science debate, peppered with the usual predictable jabs at people who believe in God. This already goes on at the science forum, so why do they feel the need to do it here? What are they afraid of if they don't find themselves in charge of the spirituality forum as well? Or are they control freaks, and can't help themselves? Stay tuned for further developments as they happen...
Because who knows, we might actually see something new and original developing here... something no one has ever seen or read about before...
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA... ! Oh man, sometimes I crack myself up.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
15 Nov 15
Originally posted by lemon lime
I looked through the first page, and it's just as I suspected. In his OP Freaky asks about thoughts (right or wrong) that have no overtly harmful consequences, and simply uses a belief about the globe as an example. But lo and behold, sure enough the atheist science guys once again take over and turn yet another thread into a science debate, peppered with ...[text shortened]... r read about before...
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA... ! Oh man, sometimes I crack myself up.
I looked through the first page, and it's just as I suspected. In his OP Freaky asks about thoughts (right or wrong) that have no overtly harmful consequences, and simply uses a belief about the globe as an example.
However, as has been demonstrated, that thought/belief does have harmful consequences.
So he was wrong.
Originally posted by lemon limeShips and airplanes could be lost and their passengers could die if their pilots and captains believed the earth was flat. This would be "overtly harmful" I reckon.
In his OP Freaky asks about thoughts (right or wrong) that have no overtly harmful consequences, and simply uses a belief about the globe as an example.
15 Nov 15
Originally posted by lemon limeBut lo and behold, sure enough the atheist science guys once again take over and turn yet another thread into a science debate, peppered with the usual predictable jabs at people who believe in God. This already goes on at the science forum, so why do they feel the need to do it here? What are they afraid of if they don't find themselves in charge of the spirituality forum as well? Or are they control freaks, and can't help themselves?
What 'spirituality forum' point do you think FreakyKBH has made?
Originally posted by googlefudgeOh my! How did mankind manage to survive all those thousands of years not knowing the truth about the globe?! 😲I looked through the first page, and it's just as I suspected. In his OP Freaky asks about thoughts (right or wrong) that have no overtly harmful consequences, and simply uses a belief about the globe as an example.
However, as has been demonstrated, that thought/belief does have harmful consequences.
So he was wrong.
Luck?