I can go build a rocket and exit the atmosphere or travel to the arctic? Or maybe get a high power laser and do the sea level test, or telescope and a friend in a boat on the ocean? I can do none of those things as I don't have access to any resources for that and astronomical data can be interpreted mathematically both ways, though a globe model requires far fewer assumptions to work mathematically than a flat model.
I don't particularly care either way and I don't have the time or resources to test it personally; if you do than perform the tests and record your results otherwise there's nothing here scientific just conjecture based off of photo and video which can easily be explained away with far fewer assumptions than an entire flat earth model so to support it you'll need to perform the tests and follow the science. I'd love to learn a crazy truth about our world like a flat earth or whatever else but there needs to be sufficient scientific evidence that can be verified but the majority of people spreading the theory have little evidence and most people who consume it don't even verify it because most of us don't actually have access to the resources to test personally.
Certainly a lot of flat earthers here now, not sure why. People say this is camera distortion from the type of camera it is which is of course testable so if you really want to prove that what you say is true than test it and share the results. Most flat earthers have never done any of these so called experiments to prove it but are convinced it's true based on the words of others. That's not how science works and if you want us to believe you than telling us to go do an experiment to prove you're right is absurd as you need to do it first and record your results so that the scientific process can work.
If it is just camera distortion it doesn't matter where the picture is taken you should see similar results so not being able to get to the celestial equator would make no difference so you only need a camera with a similar lens and then take a time lapsed photo.
The Tower of Babel was destroyed and language confused because humanity was not dispersing and subdoing the earth as was commanded of them. They also would have probably ended up with technology like ours in a few centuries and by modern time would be settling different worlds which was beyond what God intentioned for mankind at that point.
Also, Judaism is not the original religion of the Israelites. It's loosely based on the old testament writings which were the words of God written according to his will by men which prophesied of Jesus and leads into what we have as Christianity today, but the defining difference is that it denies the risen Christ and relies heavily on the Talmud which is a collection of beliefs and traditions which began development around the time of the second temples construction. This religion that was distinctly different was eventually coined the name Judaism because it came from those living in Judea. The religion that Christians have was initially called The Way but the derogatory nickname Christian caught on instead.
So ridiculous. The vast majority of 'science' these days is conjecture that never goes anywhere. All the actual breakthroughs were made centuries and mainly by people who didn't go through universities in the first place. So yes the analysis of people outside the standard university indoctrination camps is valid to science and always has been.
To me it seems that the 6 years of study at university is mainly designed to produce the sunken cost fallacy in those who've gone through it. Since they've dedicated so much time and money to it there's no way it could have been a terrible decision right?
Wrong, Christian zionism is a modern movement that began around the 1800's and grew extremely large in the US following the creation of the "Holocaust." Up until this point Jews and Christians didn't get along. Also as far as that goes Jews aren't Israelites either they're just the ones that carried on the beliefs of the Hebrews that held to the Talmud and rejected the Christ but there's no historical evidence to show that there is any genetic relationship to the Israelite people that Christianity came from.
Race is nothing more than a term for common lineage, nationality is a more accurate word though, as race means much more these days than it originally had. The difference between nationalities is apparent and generally due to culture way more than genetics, as such most 'racial problems' come from them not having a Godly culture but these days if you encourage people to submit to a Godly culture based on God's word then you're suddenly a white supremacist because Godly culture has beem rebranded as white culture since the majority of European races had become Christians and adopted Godly values. Aside from that hereditary is obviously real so people can inherit things from their family lines and that can mean inheriting lower IQ but IQ should never be used as a measure of someones worth as a human especially in regards to love and salvation.
Lincoln wasn't anti-slavery though he just used that to help support the war. Believe it or not the war had very little to do with slavery.
I see how it could be interpreted that way, can't say I've ever seen someone advocate for a secret society of muslims ruling the world but it'd probably be an interesting read if that is what he meant. Though I doubt there's much if any information to support such a conspiracy.
Could be wrong but from reading that I didn't get the impression that he necessarily thinks we're ruled by Muslims but that their version of history is the one pushed as the truth even though it isn't which could come about in numerous ways like most fake history. As it's an anti-white and anti-Christian version of history that's pushed by making the muslims the victims it would seem that a lot of potential groups would benefit from pushing the narrative.
Modern science being unreliable does not prove that science done centuries ago that led people to believe that the earth was a globe way before space travel was even imagined is unreliable. That's false equivalency. The burden of proof for a flat earth is on those trying to prove it but telling me to go and prove it is not actually proof and when I have two different people claiming to have done the experiment and get different results than I'll just remain neutral but for practical purposes stick to the model that has been working for longer and with fewer assumptions.