Do you have anything of substance to contribute or not?
I already have but your mind can’t catch on.
Since karol has already started a thread claiming that the Earth is concave, I’m going to guess that he’s arguing that the Bible is correct and the Earth is a ring.
Of course, it’d be nice if he’d stop being so fucking coy about these threads. These “Here is a link - discuss” threads are always a disaster.
I would rather say: here’s the link, read. You either catch on or not. Most don’t.
It’s true! all of the observations of a spherical Earth have been overturned by the work of one man.
One man, standing in a lake.
With a camcorder.
No, it means it’s unclear what you wanted to discuss ABOUT the article you liked to. Were you laughing at how crazy it was? Debating the scientific merit? Using it as a discussion around the inerrancy of the bible?
You can’t just post a link, say discuss and expect people to follow the train of thought that is still in your head.
Who you going to believe, the OP or your own lying (through a telescope and from the moon) eyes?
That fact alone should tell you something.
Well, see if you can catch on to this.
It is sad and pathetic that with the abundance of free and reliable information available to everyone with access to the internet and books, that someone would take the time and trouble to be willfully and forcefully ignorant.
It does You can be told anything that has the label ‘science’ on it and you will swallow it without a hesitation. When you see a simple proof you just don’t understand.
Right. The “brainy ones” don’t, apparently.
Holy crow, what a thread. I needed some bitterness this morning, as my coffee was a tad too sweet. Thanks!
So everything except your work should be treated with skepticism, but your paper should be treated as inerrant truth?
I read the link. Now, would you mind answering a question I asked in one of your other threads: Do you think the photographs taken of the Earth from space are fake?
All the science you believe in is…relative. Even Einstein said that. It doesn’t have to necessarily reflect the reality as it’s based on mathematical assumptions. And you defend it like lions, mostly not even understanding things and being unable to check them. You believe them to be true. Sorry, but that’s what it is like
Yes and that can be easily proved too. But as usual you will look and not see, having the official ‘science’ in the back of your head.
No. If most people don’t know what the hell you’re talking about, it’s an indication that you might not be making sense.
Blaming one’s own lack of communication skills on the audience is lunacy.
And your claim is that you have no science in the back of yours?
Read the article carefully. The central idea seems to be that the earth is hollow.
from the artclie linked in the OP
"Heaven is described with the same word as the Earth. I remind you that etymology of the word γύρος is a rim, circle that encompasses something that is inside.
What is inside the circle of the Earth ? Heaven."
(Find the text “What is it and what does it all look like ?” in the article to see the picture of the image of a hollow earth.)
The author goes on to say: “I decided to describe one more verse concerning the…bent sunrays from the Hollow Earth picture on the previous page.”
“God covered Himself with light as a garment. How can you cover yourself with something ? Only when you are inside.
The sunrays that hit the Earth…go back to the core of Universe (Heaven of Heavens) thus covering God with light as a garment.”
The argument is not that the bible agrees with contemporary concepts of the Earth, it is that the Earth is hollow, with the Universe inside a concave Earth.
Einstein said all science- every fact- is relative?
That’s a paper I’d like to read. Do you have a citations for that article I can look up?
If someone wants to he will read and research on his own. If he does not he will wait for what others write.
You’ve got it all here: