Yes. Yes we did. :thumbup

how is it ludicrous?

How can you explain the liftoffs? All the splashdowns after they came back to earth? Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17? You think they were all faked? And do you honestly believe that we've faked the entire space program? You've got to be kidding. Where's the valid evidence? There isn't any. Some people just love conspiracies.

lol, faked the entire space program. I've seen with my 2 eyes countless shuttles launch...as I can see them go off from my house in FLA (I'm gonna have to get used to saying that I live in South Carolina now...not Brevard County, FL).

 

My dad, when a safety engineer for NASA, was the pretty much the last person to leave the shuttle, before the astronauts were allowed in. He would test the air in the shuttle, making sure it was safe. He said sometimes he'd even hold the door for the shuttles.

 

So, you'll have to do a hell of a lot to prove to me that the space program does not exist. I also feel like I have a good reason to believe my dad, when he says that the moon-landing was, in fact, real.

how is it ludicrous?

I find it laughable to compare the evidence presented by NASA to the truth claim made by faith in a religion. The two are not related.

this seems to be the relation (without turning this into a religion thread too much). You cannot physically prove that we landed on the moon (because you did not see it in person happen). I can't physically prove that God is, indeed, God, and that Jesus Christ is His Son who came and died on the cross for my sins. You use these websites to prove that we did, in fact, land on the moon. I use the Bible.

this seems to be the relation (without turning this into a religion thread too much). You cannot physically prove that we landed on the moon (because you did not see it in person happen). I can't physically prove that God is, indeed, God, and that Jesus Christ is His Son who came and died on the cross for my sins. You use these websites to prove that we did, in fact, land on the moon. I use the Bible.

Yes I can. There ARE MOON ROCKS ON EARTH!!! That's physical evidence. What tangible evidence is there for the bible? faith, and that's not evidence, it is not supposed to be. The two are unrelated.

 

Do you have a picture of God? how about jesus healing people? Videos, photos, rocks, audio, alive whitnesses, independent contractors...all of these things prove there's a moon landing. give me a break.

 

Das' attempt at making my logic look faulty has failed.

lol, I could fake a picture of Jesus, too.

 

Obviously, pictures, live witnesses, etc. are impossible. But we do have writings by witnesses, etc.

 

So what you are saying is that because Jesus lived thousands of years ago, and the moon-landing happened 35 years ago, the Bible isn't true?

 

This is my last post on this topic though, as this needs to get back to topic....

lol, I could fake a picture of Jesus, too.

 

Obviously, pictures, live witnesses, etc. are impossible. But we do have writings by witnesses, etc.

 

So what you are saying is that because Jesus lived thousands of years ago, and the moon-landing happened 35 years ago, the Bible isn't true?

 

This is my last post on this topic though, as this needs to get back to topic....

uh, nasa photos are authentic, they have been proven to be.

 

It is not a matter of time, it is a matter of evidence. THERE IS EVIDENCE FOR THE MOON LANDING, there is slim to none for the bible.

 

the two issues are irrelevant so give up!

NASA photos are authentic?

NASA photos are authentic?

the best photo analysts agree...it would cost billions to fake square miles of "fake" moon surroundings that people know exist on the moon for real.

 

the point you are trying to make cannot be made, it is a futile cause...

Unless you were on the moon with the astronauts, you can't know beyond a shadow of a doubt that they landed there.

 

Unless you were with Jesus when he died on the cross, and saw him after he rose from the dead, you can't know that he died and rose again.

 

Both instances, you must use faith. Oops, I used the f-word.

I'm done arguing. Taken from another thread, I'd rather stick my face in a fan and see what happens, than sit here on the Marlinbaseball.com board, and argue religion with a close-minded agnostic, like yourself.

so if its something you 'believe' in then its true.

 

 

if its something that you dont 'believe' in then its not true.

 

 

 

how is my logic flawed. I use the same variables you do.

Unless you were on the moon with the astronauts, you can't know beyond a shadow of a doubt that they landed there.

 

Unless you were with Jesus when he died on the cross, and saw him after he rose from the dead, you can't know that he died and rose again.

 

Both instances, you must use faith. Oops, I used the f-word.

I'm done arguing. Taken from another thread, I'd rather stick my face in a fan and see what happens, than sit here on the Marlinbaseball.com board, and argue religion with a close-minded agnostic, like yourself.

oh no, the close minded christians cannot handle some logic, arg!

 

I already responded to this earlier. Instead of showing problems with my logic, you bring up these irrelevant points.

 

The amount of evidence for the moon landing, physical evidence is not only existant, its staggering. Religion is based entirily on faith, not evidence.

 

Does moscow exist? Well, I was never there, but pictures exist of it and I hear of it on the news, and russian weapons in museums are built in moscow. After all of THIS EVIDENCE I decided the moscow most likely exists, to the point doubting its existence is stupid...much like the moon landing.

 

However if I were to tell you Prester John is in the middle of Africa fighting off a bunch of Muslims, without pictures of this, a picture of its location, evidence of things from there in my possession, and so on, would you believe me? What if I ask you to "have faith" in its existence...is that logical? No, its plain stupid.

 

If one cannot make the distinction between the moon landing and religion, they are not only close minded, they lack certain mental faculties necessary for analyzing information. I believe the difference is not only fairly obvious, its practically impossible to not be seen after what I have explained. So have an open mind and admit there is a difference...its and impossibility for there not to be.

so if its something you 'believe' in then its true.

 

 

if its something that you dont 'believe' in then its not true.

 

 

 

how is my logic flawed. I use the same variables you do.

No that's illogical, I explained the difference and then i clarified it to furman:

The amount of evidence for the moon landing, physical evidence is not only existant, its staggering. Religion is based entirily on faith, not evidence.

 

Does moscow exist? Well, I was never there, but pictures exist of it and I hear of it on the news, and russian weapons in museums are built in moscow. After all of THIS EVIDENCE I decided the moscow most likely exists, to the point doubting its existence is stupid...much like the moon landing.

 

However if I were to tell you Prester John is in the middle of Africa fighting off a bunch of Muslims, without pictures of this, a picture of its location, evidence of things from there in my possession, and so on, would you believe me? What if I ask you to "have faith" in its existence...is that logical? No, its plain stupid.

 

If one cannot make the distinction between the moon landing and religion, they are not only close minded, they lack certain mental faculties necessary for analyzing information.

 

Your logic uses entirely different variables, thus making your statement not true.

 

You are questioning the standards I use for truth, saying that I hold religion and the moon landing to different standards...well I do, they are entirely different.

 

is a random faith based religion true? is a moon landing true?

 

moon landing belief=evidence+miniscule amount of faith

the small amount of faith is the faith in that there isn't a world wide conspiracy to trick me by making up flase laws of physics and so on...its miniscule

religious belief=100% faith

 

the two issues are entirely different, and it is a flaw in your logic to assume they can be held to the same standards.

 

So again:

 

If someone gave me undeniable photographic evidence of Jesus rising from the dead and audio of him saying exactly what he said in the bible, I would be a christian 100%. However, if one doubts the moon landing, we have to start doubting if the world is round, if france REALLY exists, and whether tom brokaw is a robot or not.

 

 

Do you doubt the world is round? Do you doubt france's existence? No, you see evidence for them. There is evidence for the moon landing. Now do you belief Zeus is a true thunder god? That requires faith and there is no evidence for it.

 

Do you see the difference? If you cannot, don't question my logic, question your own.

ATTN: STOP SPAMMING THESE THREADS WITH IDIOTIC CRAP, SUCH AS WE SAW FROM CARL EVERETT TELLING THAT THINGS DIDNT HAPPEN CAUSE HE IS A MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL PLAYER. THIS BOARD IS FOR A MORE INTELLIGENT AND ADULT TYPE OF DISCUSSION. I LET MUCH GO, BUT NOT CRAP LIKE THAT. STOP.