An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

[PLAYER57832]

I do not believe that the earth is flat because three thousand years ago, before modern science came to be, True scientist had already wrote in the Holy Bible that the earth was in fact round like a circle.

"[It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth,..."
-Isaiah 40:22

[Note] Circle does not mean "Rings."

Thick clouds [are] a covering to him, that he seeth not; and he walketh in the circuit of heaven.
-Job 22:14

Don't know if anyone pointed this out yet, but a circle is flat. As far as I'm aware "sphere of the Earth" doesn't appear anywhere in the Bible, and if it does, it's in direct contradiction with Isaiah 40:22.

No, its not a contradiction, but Viceroy is indeed, incorrect. What you have is an unscientific and therefor scientifically inexact explanation. Some ancient people did know the world was round, but its not clear if the ancient Jews did. Whether they had such an esoteric idea or not is irrelevant, because the Bible is not intended as a scientific explanation of the Earth. It is a text of faith, the history of God and mankind's interactions, not the exact history of Earth.

[PLAYER57832]

Caution:
The principles of the word "Circle" discuss in this comment may be too simplistic for some adults to follow. If you have a child in grade school it is recommended that the child read this comment along with you. Remember that if the child nods their head up and down, it means,"Yes!"

A Circle is not Flat sir. That is a contradiction in terms. You can draw a circle on a flat piece of paper but that only means that the paper is flat and not the full intended meaning of the word "Circle" or Circular. I have a very circular "Ass" for example. Does that also mean that my ass is also flat like a pancake???

I answered some of this in the post I just submitted.

You need to review your Geometry, because a circle, in math is indeed a 2 dimensional figure. A sphere, or "ball' is the term you seek for an object round all about.

This is part of why young Earthers such as yourself meet with disdain. You decide its perfectly OK to twist definitions when you wish, but claim that no one else can even take verified alternate definitions. For example, the whole bit of Genesis referring to a day in God's time, not humanities' pretty much does leave open a very long time period, enough for evolution to have occured... further, the fact that Genesis omits a good many species we know existed pretty much proves it was not intended as a full and complete catalogue of ALL creatures ever to have been on Earth, rather an explanation of how the creatures the ancient Jews knew about came to be.

It is true that the word "Sphere" does not appear in the Bible (at least not in the King James version of the Bible) because the Bible was written in a simple time for a simple people using a simple language. We are the ones who interpret the word "Circle" as a flat dimensional drawing concept. But the Word Circle does encompass the connotation (idea) of a Sphere with it.

Uh.. no YOU feel that you have the right to "interpret" the Bible to fit your narrow vision of what you have been taught.. never mind that your vision ignores a good deal of reality and Biblical study.

The rest of us who are Christian merely read and then take science as something that inherently won't dispute the Bible, but will absolutely fill in or provide explanations for it.. when we let it and don't insist on holding the truth to some narrow pre-concieved notion.

See, that is the error of Dr Morris. He decided when he was young what "the Bible must be saying" and then decided to ignore any evidence to the contrary. He thus ignored, shut himself off from the real truth that is given in those words, he was too concerned with keeping his own private vision to see the real truth. That is arrogance, not God, or Christ and persisting in presenting it as "truth" to and by folks such as yourself is the highest form of blasphemy.

God does not require lies. God does not require twisting of his words. Denying truths that I have seen, that many here have seen for ourselves, is a lie. Conveniently claiming that there "is no evidence" because some idiot who managed to get a couple of letters to his or her name told you it was so is the hieight of not just idiocy, but arrogant heresy.

In Isaiah 40:22, the Circle of the earth is more of a reference to the "Equator" of the earth (The Circular Center-line of the planet) and not that the earth is a flat Pancake! For if the image of a flat "Pancake" shape earth was their intended meaning then they had other words to describe Flat such as the word "Naphal."

"So the people shouted when [the priests] blew with the trumpets: and it came to pass, when the people heard the sound of the trumpet, and the people shouted with a great shout, that the wall fell down flat,..." [That word Flat carries with it a lot of meanings as well but the idea is simple to understand. The wall was no longer standing but was laid "FLAT" on the ground.]
-Joshua 6:12

And yet, you decide that this matches your view of the world and not ours? Funny, that.

One thing about the Bible verses that is common knowledge is that the Bible is very descriptive when telling it's tales. No other Book or hieroglyphics or any writing what so ever is as telling in details as are the stories of the Bible. This is in fact part of the reason why the Bible is so popular in comparison to other ancient writings that do not fair to well and for the most part now exist only in oblivion. The accuracy and description is just a part of why this book, these writings are still with us today.

Actually, the Bible is a mixture of very clear explanations of the world the Jews knew well and much looser explanations of things not yet known by them or known perhaps only through loose influence of other cultures. Descriptions of certain landforms meet the first, descriptions of the origin of Earth, the wide Earth beyond the Middle East fall into the second category.

No other King in ancient History is as well documented as King David and other kings as well from the Bible. The stories of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and even Joseph are without equal in any writings of their times. You would think that we would know more about the Great and powerful Pharaoh's of ancient Egypt then we do about a shepherd boy chosen by God to be King, but we don't. And it is this explicit attention to detail that really sets the Bible apart from all other writings of the time.

Actually, the Chinese were very, very good at recording details, as were some other groups.. but in some cases, such as the Maya, we have only recently been able to understand the writing. Our failure to accurately understand writing doesn' t mean it did not exist, though.

Again, when you make such statements, you really just show your lack of knowledge... not a good place when you are trying to convince people to think as you do.

If Isaiah wanted to convey the idea that the world is flat, there is a whole assortment of words to describe different kinds of "Flat" all throughout the Bible. But in the case of Isaiah (and other bible verses that describe the earth as circular) and the "Circle of the Earth" there is no such "Flatness" indicated. That would be really bizarre to say that the Bible is really, REALLY, descriptive everywhere else,except for this one tiny place where they forget to mention that the earth is flat???

They did not mention it because it was common revealed knowledge at the time to an enlightened people who had revealed knowledge by a Creator who guided their destiny from the very beginning, even from the time of Abram. But rest assured that if the revealed knowledge had been that the earth was a flat round pancake shaped world, that they would not have used the Words, "Circle of the Earth" Meaning an Equatorial Circle and connotation of the idea of a SPHERE!

Yep, knew you would try this... again. You add in your personal.. or the personal thoughts of someone who has taught you, and then pretend that this is some kind of "verified fact". In reality, the straightforward explanation is really best.. just that the idea of the Earth being a sphere was pretty much beyond the thinking of the average, even most scholarly Jews and not really something terribly pertinent to the interaction of God and mankind, so not delved into in that much detail.

[crispybits]

Except for the small fact Viceroy, that the Hebrews had a word meaning flat circle (chuwg) and a word meaning sphere or ball (duwr). In Isaiah 40:22 the word used is the word for a flat circle. By contrast, (allegedly) the same author uses the word for sphere in Isaiah 22:18:

18 He will roll you up tightly like a ball and throw you into a large country. There you will die and there the chariots you were so proud of will become a disgrace to your master’s house.

If the authour had meant that the Earth was spherical or ball shaped, there is proof right there that he had the word to do so. He didn't. He specified a flat circle.

Calling ancient hebrew a "simple" language and implying it was without the conceptual word for a 3D sphere is stretching even your credibility. I'm starting to wonder if you've actually bothered to do any actual bible study at all?

Edit - actually "starting to wonder" might be an ever so slight exaggeration - I think it's been pretty obvious for some time now

[Frigidus]

Except for the small fact Viceroy, that the Hebrews had a word meaning flat circle (chuwg) and a word meaning sphere or ball (duwr). In Isaiah 40:22 the word used is the word for a flat circle. By contrast, (allegedly) the same author uses the word for sphere in Isaiah 22:18:

18 He will roll you up tightly like a ball and throw you into a large country. There you will die and there the chariots you were so proud of will become a disgrace to your master’s house.

If the authour had meant that the Earth was spherical or ball shaped, there is proof right there that he had the word to do so. He didn't. He specified a flat circle.

Calling ancient hebrew a "simple" language and implying it was without the conceptual word for a 3D sphere is stretching even your credibility. I'm starting to wonder if you've actually bothered to do any actual bible study at all?

Edit - actually "starting to wonder" might be an ever so slight exaggeration - I think it's been pretty obvious for some time now

Don't worry, he has a feature length movie you can watch that will explain that one.

[tzor]

The principles of the word "Circle" discuss in this comment may be too simplistic for some adults to follow. If you have a small child in grade school it is recommended that the child read this comment along with you. Remember that if the child nods their head up and down, it means,"Yes!"

A Circle is not Flat sir.

You fail at so many things; why am I not surprised that you fail in geometry? A "circle" is by definition a two dimensional object.

A circle is a simple shape of Euclidean geometry that is the set of all points in a plane that are a given distance from a given point, the centre. The distance between any of the points and the centre is called the radius. It can also be defined as the locus of a point equidistant from a fixed point.

And a plane is, also by definition, flat.

Of course that doesn't prove that they believed in a "flat" earth; they believed in a slightly domed earth with the dry land at the center being, naturally, higher.

[jonesthecurl]

I think it's about time for Vice to stop talking about this and repeat his intial claims from the OP,like he always does.
Vice, would you like a list of things you've failed to address so far?

[Frigidus]

I think it's about time for Vice to stop talking about this and repeat his intial claims from the OP,like he always does.
Vice, would you like a list of things you've failed to address so far?

To be fair, this is a stupid and irrelevant tangent.

[jonesthecurl]

Rilly?

[crispybits]

I think it's about time for Vice to stop talking about this and repeat his intial claims from the OP,like he always does.
Vice, would you like a list of things you've failed to address so far?

[PLAYER57832]

I think it's about time for Vice to stop talking about this and repeat his intial claims from the OP,like he always does.
Vice, would you like a list of things you've failed to address so far?

He cannot, because the beliefs of young earthers require denying that anyone else has any true facts to back their ideas.

[mejihn7779]

So what you're saying is "I'm not willing to do look at your side until you look at my side & completely dissect all the arguments. After you do that, I will probably not quite agree with some of what you said, so I won't be willing to take a look at your videos anyway."

Would you do this even if you do not agree with some of my refutings?

I find it interesting that none of the supporters of evolution were willing to watch any more than 10 minutes of the videos. That's like listening to a hypothesis and saying it's wrong or useless before giving the person a chance to explain. I dare any of the evolution supporters to watch both the videos & refute all his evidence. I BET YOU CAN'T!

I'll tell you what - you watch this and refute every argument the presenters make, and I'll go back and watch the rest of your video and refute all the other claims, not just the one I've already refuted...

[tzor]

I don't generally have the time to go through hour long videos that meander through the topic with no real meat to them.

I don't often care to respond to shotgun posts where someone tries to make two dozen points (and makes them all badly) in the hope that either one of them sticks or the opponent will tire out in refutation.

Finally, there are some people on the internet who will never, ever, realize that they are wrong. Everyone else realizes that they are wrong, and that is the important thing.

[Viceroy63]

The Jeff Dee and Russell Glasser show is about a couple of God hating atheist who have air time to express their opinions. That's neither science nor facts. It's simply what the majority of the people want to hear.

In a world turning away from God in the latter days, just as the bible had fore told it would thousands of years ago, everyone can be against God and everyone can and is wrong. Shows like theirs are the popular theme as is the fable of the theory of evolution. But the truth still remains whether the vast majority of the people believe it or not. The Holy Bible sure did nail this one right on the head!!!

3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
3:2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3:3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
3:4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
3:6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
-2 Timothy 3:1-7

If Satan's plan is to destroy God's creation, then what better way than to get the creation to reject it's Creator?!

Satan must be laughing his ass off. Come the judgment, what will we do then? huh? I'd like to see if you scoff at God then with your silly TV show?

God will be just as God is just.

It is us who have the responsibility to look into a matter an search out the truth. It is our choice!

[jonesthecurl]

...and we're back to the humble, meek, I am but a poor sinner position of "Ha ha I'm saved and you're not" again.

[Viceroy63]

I'm not the one that's laughing at those "stupid" creationist and young earther's who see the evidence that the Dinosaurs may still be alive today in remote parts of the world, am I?

[Viceroy63]

The principles of the word "Circle" discuss in this comment may be too simplistic for some adults to follow. If you have a small child in grade school it is recommended that the child read this comment along with you. Remember that if the child nods their head up and down, it means,"Yes!"

A Circle is not Flat sir.

You fail at so many things; why am I not surprised that you fail in geometry? A "circle" is by definition a two dimensional object.

A circle is a simple shape of Euclidean geometry that is the set of all points in a plane that are a given distance from a given point, the centre. The distance between any of the points and the centre is called the radius. It can also be defined as the locus of a point equidistant from a fixed point.

And a plane is, also by definition, flat.

Of course that doesn't prove that they believed in a "flat" earth; they believed in a slightly domed earth with the dry land at the center being, naturally, higher.

So the earth's equator is a flat line? This is in fact what Isaiah 40:22 is talking about. The earth's equator.

They did not have sophisticate language as we do. For example they had no word for "Cone" shape. So then they may in fact use the word "Pointy" Or "Circle." Why don't you prove to us that they had a word for Sphere and other complex geometric shapes 3,500 years ago.

They probably do now, but if you show me where they used the word Sphere in other text's of that time and place then I will gladly eat my own shite! =)

[crispybits]

I already did Viceroy - bon appetit!

Except for the small fact Viceroy, that the Hebrews had a word meaning flat circle (chuwg) and a word meaning sphere or ball (duwr). In Isaiah 40:22 the word used is the word for a flat circle. By contrast, (allegedly) the same author uses the word for sphere in Isaiah 22:18:

18 He will roll you up tightly like a ball and throw you into a large country. There you will die and there the chariots you were so proud of will become a disgrace to your master’s house.

If the authour had meant that the Earth was spherical or ball shaped, there is proof right there that he had the word to do so. He didn't. He specified a flat circle.

Calling ancient hebrew a "simple" language and implying it was without the conceptual word for a 3D sphere is stretching even your credibility. I'm starting to wonder if you've actually bothered to do any actual bible study at all?

Edit - actually "starting to wonder" might be an ever so slight exaggeration - I think it's been pretty obvious for some time now

We know you love youtube Viceroy - sticking a video on there (without camera tricks) of you taking a dump and then eating it will be sufficient - thanks.

[crispybits]

So what you're saying is "I'm not willing to do look at your side until you look at my side & completely dissect all the arguments. After you do that, I will probably not quite agree with some of what you said, so I won't be willing to take a look at your videos anyway."

Would you do this even if you do not agree with some of my refutings?

You turn up in a thread that has been running for a long time, post a 1 hour video in 2 parts without even writing out a summary of the arguments contained within it, and then demand that we refute everything in them. THEN when I ask you to show just a little bit of willing to do the same, you come up with the above.

Why would I spend my time answering you, when many of the claims in your video have most likely already been dealt with in the previous 50 odd pages, if you're seemingly unwilling to put even the most microscopic bit of effort in yourself beyond "hur de dur - my video means you're all wrong". And by the way as stated I did start watching it, and have already refuted the first argument the guy comes out with in this thread. I showed willing. You did not. Now either refute that entire hour or GTFO of this thread because you will have proved you're just another ignorant and deluded troll.

(Alternatively, present the arguments from the video clearly and concisely here. I mean in order to proclaim them as being winners in this debate you obviously understand them right? So what harm in typing them out and explaining them to us without asking us to spend an hour watching a video we have little or no interest in?)

[AndyDufresne]

Yeah, citing a video is fine, as long as you go into detail about why you are doing so. I mean, I post a lot of Futurama clips, and I don't expect anyone to watch them. But, really, you all should, since at least they aren't 2 hours long.




--Andy

[BigBallinStalin]

Yeah, citing a video is fine, as long as you go into detail about why you are doing so. I mean, I post a lot of Futurama clips, and I don't expect anyone to watch them. But, really, you all should, since at least they aren't 2 hours long.




--Andy

If Futurama was as funny as you and others' compilation, then I'd watch it more. Until then, there is no God.

[mejihn7779]

So what you're saying is "I'm not willing to do look at your side until you look at my side & completely dissect all the arguments. After you do that, I will probably not quite agree with some of what you said, so I won't be willing to take a look at your videos anyway."

Would you do this even if you do not agree with some of my refutings?

You turn up in a thread that has been running for a long time, post a 1 hour video in 2 parts without even writing out a summary of the arguments contained within it, and then demand that we refute everything in them. THEN when I ask you to show just a little bit of willing to do the same, you come up with the above.

Why would I spend my time answering you, when many of the claims in your video have most likely already been dealt with in the previous 50 odd pages, if you're seemingly unwilling to put even the most microscopic bit of effort in yourself beyond "hur de dur - my video means you're all wrong". And by the way as stated I did start watching it, and have already refuted the first argument the guy comes out with in this thread. I showed willing. You did not. Now either refute that entire hour or GTFO of this thread because you will have proved you're just another ignorant and deluded troll.

(Alternatively, present the arguments from the video clearly and concisely here. I mean in order to proclaim them as being winners in this debate you obviously understand them right? So what harm in typing them out and explaining them to us without asking us to spend an hour watching a video we have little or no interest in?)

Why should I be willing to take the time to go through your video & refute it when you are not willing to do the same for me? My statement above simply asked you to be willing, even if you did not agree with me. Isn't that a fair request?

[AAFitz]

Yeah, citing a video is fine, as long as you go into detail about why you are doing so. I mean, I post a lot of Futurama clips, and I don't expect anyone to watch them. But, really, you all should, since at least they aren't 2 hours long.




--Andy

And, you can learn something useful from them to boot!

[tzor]

So the earth's equator is a flat line? This is in fact what Isaiah 40:22 is talking about. The earth's equator.

The one who is enthroned above the vault of the earth,
its inhabitants like grasshoppers,
Who stretches out the heavens like a veil
and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in,

It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

Viceroy63 logic ... more of less ... "If I sit on the equator all the inhabitants of the earth look real small because I'm on the equator, which is a circle which proves people thought the earth is round in Isaiah's time."

In both cases it is clear that the KJB use of "circle" has nothing whatsoever to do with equator but with the "circle" that formed the sky. It should more correctly be termed a "vault."

But let's look at this very closely ... actually I will let this guy look at it ... "The Circle of the Earth" Translation and Meaning in Isaiah 40:22 Dennis Bratcher

The Hebrew word that is used in Isaiah 44:22 (חוּג, chug) does not at all imply a spherical earth. The root word only occurs in the Hebrew Bible once as a verb (Job 26:10). In nominal forms, the same root occurs four times, three as the noun חוּג (chug; Job 22:14, Prov 8:27, Isa 40:22), and once as the noun מְחוּגׇה (mechugah; Isa 44:13), referring to a "circle instrument," a device used to make a circle, what we call a compass.

Isaiah 44:13 refers to this "circle instrument."

Isa 44:13 The carpenter stretches a line, marks it out with a stylus, fashions it with planes, and marks it with a compass; he makes it in human form, with human beauty, to be set up in a shrine. [NIV]
The verbal form of the word basically means "to make a circle" or "to scribe a circle."

Job 26:10 He has described a circle on the face of the waters, at the boundary between light and darkness. [NRSV]
Most modern translators agree that this "scribing a circle" in relation to the world refers to the horizon of the earth.

NIV: He marks out the horizon on the face of the waters for a boundary between light and darkness.
NLT: He created the horizon when he separated the waters; he set the boundary between day and night.
GWT: He marks the horizon on the surface of the water at the boundary where light meets dark.
Ancient people were very good at observing the physical properties of the earth without necessarily understanding how all of those properties worked. The horizon of the earth is easily seen from any high vantage point or open area as an encompassing circle. This led ancient peoples to describe this "circle" or the horizon as the "edge" or "end" of the earth (Deut 13:7, 1 Sam 2:10, Job 28:24, Psa 48:10, etc.).

The poetic hymn of Proverbs 30:4 uses this "ends of the earth" language to say much the same thing that Isaiah 44:13 says by "circle of the earth" and that Job 26 expresses by saying "he scribed a circle on the face of the waters."

Prov 30:4 Who has ascended to heaven and come down? Who has gathered the wind in the hollow of the hand? Who has wrapped up the waters in a garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is the person's name? And what is the name of the person's child? Surely you know!
The other uses of the same Hebrew root reveal a similar meaning.

Job 22:14 Thick clouds enwrap him, so that he does not see, and he walks on the dome of heaven.

Ancient people of 2,000 or 1,000 BC did not have modern scientific knowledge. Yet they developed perceptions of the physical world based on observations. It was certainly not scientific but practical, based on what they could observe simply by looking at the earth and sky.

People of the Ancient Near East, as well as ancient Hebrews and Israelites, conceptualized the world as a large, flat, circular disk anchored in water below (the deep, Prov 8:27, Gen 1:2, 49:25, etc.) by pillars or foundations (1 Sam 2:8, Prov 8:29, etc.). Between the earth and this deep was Sheol, the place of the dead. -2- The earth was covered by a "firmament," conceived as a large solid upside down bowl or "dome" (Job 22:14, 37:18), in which the stars were placed (Gen 1:14-20). Above the dome was also water, which was the source of rain.

Gen 1:7 So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome.
The dome had "doors" and "windows" to let the waters above fall to the earth (Gen 7:11, Isa 24:18, Mal 3:10, etc.). God was described as ruling the world from his throne above the dome (Psa 33, Psa 113:4-6, Matt 5:34, etc.).

These references are not just isolated anomalies amidst an otherwise scientific grasp of the world. These conceptions are pervasive throughout the biblical narratives, not only in describing the physical world, but extended into metaphorical applications relating to other topics or even simply as ways to talk about the world and God. For example, creation hymns (Psa 33, 104, Hab 3, etc.) evoke these images as a form of praise. Or in the Babel story God must "come down" to see the puny work of humanity (Gen 11:5).

While there are many graphic depictions of ancient cosmology, we need to keep in mind that this was not a pictorial conception, but a functional and descriptive one. It is we in the modern world who tend to want visual imagery and reduce ideas to graphics and charts. Yet for ancient people this was simply a way of expressing what they saw about the operation of the physical world.

Also, we should not conclude that this way of talking about the physical world is what the Bible teaches as a reality, something in which we must believe in order to believe Scripture. Instead, this is the way ancient people talked about their experience of the world in the absence of any scientific knowledge about the processes at work in the world. Certainly we would describe the world today in much different terms. But then we live 3,000 years later in human history with much more knowledge about the physical world, and a different vocabulary with which to describe the world.

We certainly affirm that Scripture is fully inspired by God (plenary inspiration; see Revelation and Inspiration of Scripture). Yet what is interesting is that even with inspiration, God allowed these ancient ways of looking at the world to stand without correction. In other words, God did not reveal modern scientific knowledge to the ancient Israelites, or correct their ancient views of the way the world works. He let them express marvelous truths about God in the language and culture in which they lived. That incarnational dimension of Scripture is crucial for us to understand if we are to hear adequately the important confessions about God and humanity that Scripture expresses.

[AAFitz]

The principles of the word "Circle" discuss in this comment may be too simplistic for some adults to follow. If you have a small child in grade school it is recommended that the child read this comment along with you. Remember that if the child nods their head up and down, it means,"Yes!"

A Circle is not Flat sir.

You fail at so many things; why am I not surprised that you fail in geometry? A "circle" is by definition a two dimensional object.

A circle is a simple shape of Euclidean geometry that is the set of all points in a plane that are a given distance from a given point, the centre. The distance between any of the points and the centre is called the radius. It can also be defined as the locus of a point equidistant from a fixed point.

And a plane is, also by definition, flat.

Of course that doesn't prove that they believed in a "flat" earth; they believed in a slightly domed earth with the dry land at the center being, naturally, higher.

So the earth's equator is a flat line? This is in fact what Isaiah 40:22 is talking about. The earth's equator.

They did not have sophisticate language as we do. For example they had no word for "Cone" shape. So then they may in fact use the word "Pointy" Or "Circle." Why don't you prove to us that they had a word for Sphere and other complex geometric shapes 3,500 years ago.

They probably do now, but if you show me where they used the word Sphere in other text's of that time and place then I will gladly eat my own shite! =)

I find it funny that you consider sphere a complex geometric shape, when it is the most prevelant shape in the universe.

[crispybits]

So what you're saying is "I'm not willing to do look at your side until you look at my side & completely dissect all the arguments. After you do that, I will probably not quite agree with some of what you said, so I won't be willing to take a look at your videos anyway."

Would you do this even if you do not agree with some of my refutings?

You turn up in a thread that has been running for a long time, post a 1 hour video in 2 parts without even writing out a summary of the arguments contained within it, and then demand that we refute everything in them. THEN when I ask you to show just a little bit of willing to do the same, you come up with the above.

Why would I spend my time answering you, when many of the claims in your video have most likely already been dealt with in the previous 50 odd pages, if you're seemingly unwilling to put even the most microscopic bit of effort in yourself beyond "hur de dur - my video means you're all wrong". And by the way as stated I did start watching it, and have already refuted the first argument the guy comes out with in this thread. I showed willing. You did not. Now either refute that entire hour or GTFO of this thread because you will have proved you're just another ignorant and deluded troll.

(Alternatively, present the arguments from the video clearly and concisely here. I mean in order to proclaim them as being winners in this debate you obviously understand them right? So what harm in typing them out and explaining them to us without asking us to spend an hour watching a video we have little or no interest in?)

Why should I be willing to take the time to go through your video & refute it when you are not willing to do the same for me? My statement above simply asked you to be willing, even if you did not agree with me. Isn't that a fair request?

Did you even read my post? Did you see where I refuted the very first argument he made? Do you understand English? Do you understaand that you're doing the equivalent of walking into a room where a long discussion about something has been going on for a long time and saying "I am right! All of you must stop everything and prove me wrong! NOW!"? Do you even understand how fricking arrogant that is? Put something into the conversation first, and then I'll give you something back...