Cpthilton - flat Earth NOT , how religious intransigence still leads the flat Earth movement with blind belief over direct evidence and reality
Dear Readers,
This exchange of comments between us and Cpthilton is a prime example of religious intransigence.
Such a person, even when presented with real and verifiable knowledge about science and astronomy, they still continue to argue that it's untrue because they interpret the Bible to say so.
For them the information presented by scientists (cosmology) is an inconvenient truth.
What would you say if someone walked into your place of employment, admitted he had no technical training in your work, but told you that you were doing it all wrong (probably while demonstrating amply his lack of expertise)? Wouldn't you describe such a person as arrogant? Who is really the self-appointed expert here, the person with a lot of training or the person with none who still thinks he is qualified to criticize?
No single issue illustrates the intellectual shoddiness of many religious believers than their misuse of the term "theory," as in "evolution is only a theory."
A theory is any coherent body of ideas used to explain something.
The theory can be false, like the phlogiston theory once used to explain combustion. The theory can be debatable, like string theory in cosmology. Or the theory can be true beyond any reasonable doubt, like Number Theory in mathematics, stress theory in engineering, or the atomic theory in chemistry. Some theories, like music theory, are more matters of accepted convention than truth or falsity.
Perhaps 20 percent of American Christians regard the Bible as literal and inerrant, and so are unwilling to accept the facts revealed by science that contradict Scripture. As far as fundamentalists are concerned, they know the truth and science is simply wrong. They think scientists are all a bunch of frauds.
However, most Christians can judge, just from looking at the world around them with all its technological marvels, that science cannot be so simply dismissed. Science is the most successful and powerful activity humans have ever undertaken.
Now, clearly scientific cosmology bears no resemblance to the cosmology described in Genesis, where Earth, the sun, and the stars were divinely created about 6,000 years ago. In fact, Earth and the solar system were formed 4.5 billion years ago, some 9 billion years after the big bang.
If Christians are to accept science, they have to admit that the Bible is not a reliable source of information about the natural world. And why should we believe it is a reliable source of information about anything? The creation story in Genesis is a myth. And, it is not the only story in the Bible that science can now prove is largely fiction.
Intellectual Christians today are gradually disassociating themselves from the God of the Old Testament, who is certainly an unpleasant character.
If your mind and upbringing made you believe it, is it true just because of that?
Published on – February 9, 2018
Discussion at - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7ipUKERU0tzYFxALJBli4A/discussion
Video at - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xm7NsF40nM
Our home page all articles - http://flatearthlunacy.com
kind regards, JonahTheScientist
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dear Readers,
Here is the complete commentary exchange between us and Cpthilton...
Charles Lambert said...
NEW - An easy experiment that you can DO YOURSELF to discover if the Earth is FLAT, or a globe rotating on an axis (23.5°) If you are not afraid, do the experiment yourself.
http://flatearthlunacy.com/index.php/2-uncategorised/295-how-much-you-weigh-depends-upon-where-you-are-on-the-earth-because-it-s-a-rotating-sphere
- -
Cpthilton said...
I'm not going to delete any of your posts unless you start using profanity, even then I will only delete them during the screening process and not just because you have angered me by proving me wrong. I would love it if you could prove the earth is round but you can't, all you can do is spout the same old tired lies that we have all heard a million times. Your webpage is a prime example of a snow job; obscuring a simple truth behind a bunch of gobbledygook. "If I talk long enough, I'll win the argument from sheer exhaustion"
Instead of driving all over creation weighing yourself wouldn't it be easier to take a P900 camera and focus it on a spot several miles away and then analyze your photos for any sign of a curve, or for any sign of lean (as a boat should lean away from you with mathematical precision as it goes over the curve). You can easily calculate exactly what should be seen depending on the conditions of the experiment. At such and such miles away, "X" amount of a particular building should be obscured and so forth. If you find a value different from "X" then this means someone has been lying (NASA, et al).
This should not only be easy to do but it should also be easy to reproduce and to peer review. It should be easily transferred from chalkboard to real life and back again but it isn't. sigh No... alas, we have to drive to Detroit and weigh ourselves in order to find out the shape of the earth; sorry I'm not buying it.
- -
Jon P said...
Why the obsession with observing a curve? The angular deviation to the horizon is under one degree for most observers (a couple of degrees of you observe from the top of a mountain). Good luck detecting that with any precision.
- -
Cpthilton said...
+Jon P: This excuse is in the tradition of all modern atheistic scientists; which goes something like this: "We can't show you any evidence but believe us anyway" For the Evolutionist will say "it happens so slowly we can't see it but believe us anyway." The Biologist will say "we can't show how life sprang from non-life but believe us anyway." The Cosmologist will say "we can't show how the universe evolved from nothing but believe us anyway." And Globeheads say "We can't show you the curve but believe us anyway." Sorry, but I'm done giving "scientists" the benefit of the doubt. I'm ashamed that I ever did to begin with and I now refuse to believe anything they say without seeing their evidence. If you can't show the evidence then believing in it isn't science, it's religion; and a terrible religion at that.
- -
JonahTheScientist said...
+Cpthilton, are you going to do the weight experiment described above? That is your chance to find out for yourself. No books. Just simple observation.
- -
Cpthilton said...
+Jonah TheScientiist: No, I am not driving to Detroit to weigh myself. There is nothing simple about that "observation"; it is tedious, wasteful and foolish. If this is the best you can do then please go away. I am familiar with your reputation as a troll, as I have been to your website and I have read it. It is nothing but the standard government lie. So, my patience with you is already slim. If you troll, I will shut you down on this channel.
- -
Charles Lambert said...
+Cpthilton, it's not about which experiment is easier. It's about what results you get, and what it means. So do the simply driving experiment. You have a life changing chance here. Take it if you are not afraid of the results.
- -
Charles Lambert said...
+Cpthilton, you are wrong on each point. Science discloses to us what has been objectively verified several times. I don't know if you have ever gone to school, but no scientist has ever said "believe me." Belief is not part of science. Knowing thru direct observation and evidence is.
- -
Cpthilton said...
+Charles Lambert: The difficulty of an experiment is one thing but to intentionally complicate experiments instead of simplifying them makes me believe that someone is trying to hide something. For instance, instead of telling me to look out over the horizon and notice the curve, which should begin at three miles distance, you tell me to pack a scale and drive to Detroit. Since you can't show a curve (because there isn't one) you have to have me drive all over the country weighing things and if the tiniest difference in weight is detected then that somehow means the earth is a ball. This is the height of foolishness. Since you love direct observations so much why do you reject the fact that you cannot ever see a curve? Why
- -
Charles Lambert said...
+Cpthilton, so here is the curve... Article Title = Taboo Conspiracy - Debunking the Globe Again - HIDDEN CURVATURE FOUND by FlatEarthLunacy His complete failure is due to improperly analyzing his own video at dotcom, FlatEarthLunacy
- -
Cpthilton said...
+Charles Lambert: That's just it, there should be nothing "hidden" about it. It should be clearly visible beginning at a mere three miles; but it isn't. If you can't understand this simple fact then I don't know what to tell you.
- -
Luke Matheson said...
+Cpthilton, the Taboo Conspiracy article that is listed clearly shows the missing 20+ feet in that 10 mile video. Do you agree that it shows missing curvature? Give a simple Yes or No
- -
Cpthilton said...
+Luke Matheson: I'll answer in any fashion I feel necessary but in this case it requires very little additional words. So: NO, it shows nothing.
- -
Charles Lambert said...
+Cpthilton, so then obviously you can't read and correctly interpret information. You are lost into your own delusional mentally self-constructed world. Bye
- -
Cpthilton said...
+Charles Lambert: Your debunk is ridiculous. From 10 miles out there should not be 20 missing feet but 66. You find these foolish examples and then you completely disregard the fact that they NEVER match the curvature charts. Then you disregard that you only have a scant few examples when this should be a common observation. Your willingness to believe anything modern science tells you is sickening, try using a little skepticism.
- -
Charles Lambert said...
+Cphilton, so it is GOOD that you acknowledged that some missing curvature is present in that video by Taboo Conspiracy.
The building has 9-living floors plus a main bottom floor, which is the lobby and garage level. What is missing from his picture is...
a) the 1st living floor (only 8 are visible)
b) the main lobby and garage floor
c) the sea retaining wall which is several feet high
d) the distance between the bottom of the retaining wall and the actual level water
e) some portion of living floor 2 (the bottom one in the photo) since there is a balcony that hides up to 3-feet
f) plus a portion due to atmospheric refraction Correct?
- -
Charles Lambert said...
+Cphilton, so now please show me your calculations. How did you come up with 66-feet. OK? kind regards,
- -
Charles Lambert said...
+Cphilton, with regard to your 3-mile comment, if your eye is 6-feet above the surface, at a distance of 3-miles, the hidden curvature target height is only = .0000001 of one foot. No once can see that. I don't know where you are getting your numbers from, but you better recalculate. kind regards,
- -
JonahTheScientist said...
+Cphilton, based on your assertions above, you now have 2-days to provide proof and real evidence to back up your claims - or we have the right to call you a fraud.
1) Show your math or method for determining that 66-feet of curvature should be missing at 10-miles out.
2) Show how you would conduct the 3-mile curvature test that you insist should show globe Earth curvature. What height does you camera need to be in order to see the curvature? What camera make & model would you use? Would the test be over water or land? Do you have any examples of a 3-mile test that clearly shows curvature? If yes, please list them here. OK? Thanks. kind regards,
- -
Cpthilton said...
+Jonah TheScientiist: You now have 2-days to bite me. I get called a fraud just about every single day now, so why would I care that you want to call me a fraud? In fact I would be disappointed if a bonehead like you found himself in agreement with me. You see, as a Christian I am used to walking the straight and narrow way, I am used to being hated by this world and having very few walk along with me; so jump on in the water is fine. What was it the Devil said to Jesus? Cast thyself down, as it is written that the angels will not suffer that thou should dash thy foot against a stone? It's the arguments that the Devil can't win that he loves the most, and since your questions are embarrassingly easy, and obviously designed to drag me into a time wasting argument, I'm not taking the bait.
- -
JonahTheScientist said...
+Cpthilton, no need to be a martyr. You are not being called a fraud because of your religious beliefs.
You will be called a fraud strictly because you claim that there is 66-feet of hidden curvature at 10-miles. That number is wrong and we asked you to show us how you calculated it - but you have refused so far.
You also claim that curvature should be easily visible at 3-miles. OK. Well then show us an example at 3-miles where curvature is not visible - and be sure to specify correctly the camera height above the surface as well as the coordinates (latitude & longitude) of the two areas so we can verify the distance as 3-miles.
We are just asking for you to prove those two assertions.
We don't care what religion you follow or what beliefs you hold. We only look at the mathematics and physics of claims made by flat Earth proponents.
kind regards,
- -
Cpthilton said...
+Jonah TheScientiist: I never said anything about being a martyr, so stop putting words in my mouth. I really don't care why you have decided to call me a fraud. The judgement of a brainwashed globetard means NOTHING to me. So stop reading into my words. It is clear that you are well aware of what my response to your questions would be. You know all about the curvature chart which is posted here: https://earthscurvature.com/images/bluemarbleautocad.png and I would be very surprised to find that you haven't already prepared a response to it and for this reason you want me to come out swinging at the slow ball that you have pitched so you can then showcase your very fancy and very complicated reasons for why I am wrong, which in turn will draw me into a long winded and boring debate where you will, of course, reject all my points. I am also very sure that you know all about the Bedford level experiment, and again, I am sure that you have carefully and cleverly prepared a response to that as well which will supposedly show the experiment to be a failure. Finally, if you read carefully you will note that I said the curve should BEGIN to be noticeable at 3 miles. However by six miles (and certainly by ten) it should be easily observed, but it isn't. So, I never said that it was easily seen at 3 miles (as it is never seen at all). So, for someone who only looks at the mathematics and physics you certainly aren't very careful with getting your details correct but then again I suppose that is the only way you globetards can survive; smoke and mirrors. So feel free to call me whatever you want to call me and then be gone.
- -
Charles Lambert said...
+Cpthilton, we are only following up on claims that YOU personally made.
1) re: Show us your math or method for determining that 66-feet of curvature should be missing at 10-miles out.
In the video from Taboo Conspiracy that we have been talking about, he claimed his camera was at height 3.5-feet above sea level, and the resort was 10.3 miles away.
Simple calcs show that for THOSE specifications, for a globe Earth, the hidden target height = 42.77-feet.
So only 42.77-feet of the building and grounds structure is hidden by curvature.
42.77-feet is not the 66-feet that you have claimed.
Why? Because curvature DROP and HIDDEN are not the same thing.
You need to learn the difference between “hidden target height” and “drop.”
*
Look at this - https://www.metabunk.org/curve/
Using Imperial metrics, enter…
Distance in Miles = 10.3
Viewer height in Feet = 3.5
Answer is:
Drop = 70.74 feet
Drop can be calculated, but not visually measured. (this here is your 66-feet)
Hidden = 42.77 feet
So in that video there is 42.77 feet of the structure hidden.
*
So technically an absolute drop of 66-feet is correct, but that is not what the video was measuring. It could only measure what part of the building was missing, which was 8-miles beyond the camera’s horizon.
2) List here an example of curvature that you mention at 4, 6 or 8-miles.
Summary: Please answer:
a) so do you now understand why 66-feet is not correct answer when you are actually measuring a structure at 10-miles out?
b) Give some URL's for experiments that do not show curvature at say 4, 6, 8, or 10-miles out.
If you have no real life examples to show us, then don't make any claims.
kind regards,
- -
Cpthilton said...
+Charles Lambert: Just as I predicted; fancy and COMPLICATED. The average person is not going to take the time to understand this. So this is why you all were given the reigns of science. We trusted you to do proper observations and report to us your truthful findings but you didn't do that. In your lust to destroy God you began to tell lies and you misused the trust that the people placed in you. Many are still under your sway as you roll out the most complicated garbage that you can muster in an attempt to intimidate people but you have been found to be manipulators of the truth. You are the ones who claim to see certain portions of structures in order to "prove" that a curve exists. However, instead of your examples falling in line with the curvature charts, you are always found to be off and then you scramble with all the numbers trying to explain why we shouldn't believe what we see. Do not expect me to play this game with you as I have examples of things still being visible at 100 miles out which negates any reason to worry about whether a curve exists at 3, 6 or 10 miles. If it doesn't exist at 100 miles why would it exist at 10? It wouldn't.
- -
Charles Lambert said...
+Cpthilton, that's because the "average" person is ignorant... The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone decides that something did not happen, because they cannot personally understand how it could happen. The fallacy is an argument from ignorance and an informal fallacy. kind regards,
- -
Cpthilton said...
+Charles Lambert: The average person actually is not ignorant. Follow him to his job and he will run circles around you; however he doesn't have all day every day to ponder every fancy, overly complicated formula that comes down the pike. So, his only mistake is that he placed his trust in people like you instead of keeping his faith in God. So, he was carried away by the lust of the flesh and made to believe a lie. Now he lies in debt, and ignorance and fornication; a complete slave; a zombie even. Yes, he was an easy mark but you have the greater sin as you made his faith in God seem unreasonable and you enabled his unbelief to grow until now our whole world is saturated in this filth that you have spread. So, I'm not interested in your fancy formulas that confuse and obfuscate. The truth is not hard, but it is hard to believe; because we don't like where it takes us.
- -
Charles Lambert said...
+Cpthilton, the mathematics that I presented is correct. The average person IS ignorant (lacks knowledge). You have mistakenly shaped this conversation as "Science verses God" But there is no mistake in trusting science. Science reveals that God created the Earth as a globe, spinning on an axis once every 24-hours, in orbit around the Sun once per year. Starting in latter 2018 SpaceX will send tourists up to the International Space Station for 30-million dollars a seat. Within 10 or 20 years it will become so affordable that thousands of people will make trips into low Earth orbit and see for themselves - our beautiful blue globe world. You are on the wrong side of history, so get over it and stop polluting YouTube with your wishful fantasy. kind regards,
end of conversation
- - - - - - - - - -
- - -
- - -
Cpthilton said…
You stupid bastard, you speak out of both sides of your mouth. Don't you know that all of this is foretold to happen. I've been expecting it my entire life. Have you not read: "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God." 2nd Thessalonians 2: 3-4. Now here we are seeing these things come to pass and you want me to quit? Like the man who backed into the stove said: That's a hot one! Now, I am fast growing tired of your arrogance. If you have anything left to say you need to say it quickly because this discussion is just about over.
- - -
Cpthilton is a primary supporter of this religious group...
- - -