Questions for Flat Earthers

[Oldmantook]

A circle is two-dimensional; a line is one-dimensional.

Yes you are correct. If one references the earth as a disc it is two dimensions as it includes the interior of its circumference. If one refers to the earth as a circle it is one dimension as it only refers to the outer circumference.

 

[rturner76]

You can grill me as it is good to ask questions, though I may not have the answers. If one accepts the scientific methodology employed as being reliable and valid then I have no problem accepting it as fact. However carbon dating is subject to carbon contamination from other organic sources in the environment thus making carbon dating results suspect. Same thing with evolution. I believe in micro-evolution but I don't believe in macro-evolution due to the absence of intermediate or transitional forms. We could debate this till the cows come home but you ask the pertinent question: "What could someone gain from promoting a spherical Earth and keeping a flat one secret for the past 500 years?"

That question goes to the heart of the matter so let's deal with that first. It is not just the flat earth but what exists above the earth. Gen 1:6-7 states that there is firmament above the earth. The flat earth model proposes that there is a dome above the earth which separates the waters above from the waters below. Is the "firmament" described in Genesis 1:6, heaven or a solid transparent dome? "The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork"(Ps 19:1). This verse references the heavens and the firmament as two separate things so since it is not heaven, can the firmament be descriptive of an actual dome? I know that sounds crazy but you can do your own research. Incidentally, Ps 19:1 verse just happens to be on Wernher Von Braun's tombstone. Coincidence? You may want to start your research with the Operation Fishbowl high altitude missile tests in 1962. The name is curious and lends itself to speculation as to what exists above the earth. Do we inhabit a "fishbowl" domed earth? The government has publically stated the reason for conducting such tests but were there ulterior motives not made public? For the sake of argument lets suppose the launching of these missiles exploded against a dome thus confirming the existence of such a thing. An impenetrable dome would make the moon landing a hoax of massive proportion, it would negate satellite technology and sending probes into space exploration a part of that deception. It is speculated that satellite GPS does not exist and radio signals are bounced off the dome to acquire location coordinates on the earth. If indeed so, why such elaborate and expensive deceptions to conceal the truth? My answer is that it all relates back to Matt 24:24 where it states that even the elect will be deceived. If we live on a domed earth, there can be no such thing as space travel and no aliens traveling in UFOs. Aliens are nothing more than demonic entities who will make their appearance in the last days to set up the coming deception. Belief in the "existence" of aliens would not have been possible today if mankind still believed in a fixed flat earth with a dome instead of a round earth revolving around the sun. That world view had to change and the change occurred a few hundred years ago. Ever wonder why the Catholic Church uses a telescope in Arizona with an instrument called Lucifer? So the answer to your question is that a conspiracy did indeed have to take place - a Luciferian one - where the biblical world view had to be supplanted by a scientific one centuries ago, in order to arrive at the notion today that mankind is not alone in this universe and we are being visited by visitors from other planets or galaxies. In order to be accepted and even welcomed by mankind, these demonic entities who travel interdimensionally know that they have to disguise themselves and pose as [benevolent] aliens who travel interstellary. Therein lies the deception as Satan who is the father of lies has spared no expense and effort in foisting and fostering this lie for the past few centuries in order to set up his end-time deception.
Ever wonder why Admiral Byrd who was tasked with exploring the South Pole (Operation High Jump) - again a peculiar name - has stated that "there exists an area as big as the United States that's never been seen by a human being, and that's beyond the pole on the other side of the South Pole from middle America." What? How can there be land beyond the South Pole on a global earth? It could be possible on a flat earth however where the South Pole is situated all along the perimeter edge of a circular earth with the North Pole occupying the center of a circular earth as flat earth maps depict. Either Byrd was out of his mind, not telling the truth, or accurately reporting the results of his expedition. Youtube has his interview, just search on it type in "more land beyond the antarctic proof." One must ask why is Antarctica protected air-space and except for guided tours generally off-limits to civilians?

As far as sailing around the world goes, in the past sailors had to sail around the Cape Horn to travel from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Now they can opt to travel through the Panama Canal. On a flat earth it makes no difference. On a flat earth, picture if you will the continents surround by the oceans. On a flat earth one still needs to circle the Cape Horn or travel through the Panama Canal as one sails east to west or west to east. The only difference is that one is not circumnavigating a globe but sailing in a circular route along the perimeter of a circular earth to travel around the continents.

I did read some things online about Admiral Byrd, Antarctica, something pertaining to an interdimensional gate in the moon, reptilian aliens, and a hollow Earth. All I can say about all that is I think you need to be careful where you get your information from. The standard for credible science sources is a scholarly peer review, usually either an article, journal, or publication in whatever subject you are referencing. For example a "medical peer review." Random websites are unreliable at best when looking for proven facts. Remember, an interview isn't proof, it's just somebody saying something. I'll just leave it alone at that, I won't attempt to change your mind about your faith.

Then there's this:

The only difference is that one is not circumnavigating a globe but sailing in a circular route along the perimeter of a circular earth to travel around the continents.

In order to do this,one would need to first travel east, then either north or south, and then back west. When these people race around the globe,they travel in one direction either east or west all the way around. So say they start in the Pacific Ocean. They go through the Panama Canal to the Atlantic Ocean, around the bottom of Africa to the Indian Ocean, past Australia and Japan back to the Pacific Ocean where they can go to the Panama Canal if they choose to. That is the circumference of the middle of a sphere not a flat circle. No matter how you navigate a flat circle, you must travel east and west. Even if you stay in the same place ant the Earth rotates there is no escaping this fact.

How do you account for traveling around the world in one direction?

 

[Oldmantook]

I did read some things online about Admiral Byrd, Antarctica, something pertaining to an interdimensional gate in the moon, reptilian aliens, and a hollow Earth. All I can say about all that is I think you need to be careful where you get your information from. The standard for credible science sources is a scholarly peer review, usually either an article, journal, or publication in whatever subject you are referencing. For example a "medical peer review." Random websites are unreliable at best when looking for proven facts. Remember, an interview isn't proof, it's just somebody saying something. I'll just leave it alone at that, I won't attempt to change your mind about your faith.

Then there's this:

In order to do this,one would need to first travel east, then either north or south, and then back west. When these people race around the globe,they travel in one direction either east or west all the way around. So say they start in the Pacific Ocean. They go through the Panama Canal to the Atlantic Ocean, around the bottom of Africa to the Indian Ocean, past Australia and Japan back to the Pacific Ocean where they can go to the Panama Canal if they choose to. That is the circumference of the middle of a sphere not a flat circle. No matter how you navigate a flat circle, you must travel east and west. Even if you stay in the same place ant the Earth rotates there is no escaping this fact.

How do you account for traveling around the world in one direction?

"All I can say about all that is I think you need to be careful where you get your information from."
You are correct. We all need to verify and confirm info from primary and secondary sources. I have two post-graduate degrees (though not in the sciences) so I know how to research, analyze and synthesize information. The "standard" is not always and often times NOT peer reviewed journals. Professional journals are plagued by group-think. For instance, do you really think climatologists and researchers who doubt the warming of the earth are given equal treatment among their peers? Do you think gov't funding of research grants which don't agree with a warming earth model get funded? That is the academic process which presumes no bias but in fact is quite biased. You can choose to put your faith in that process and that is your prerogative. I choose to independently verify for myself while at the same time acknowledging that I could also be wrong.

"Remember, an interview isn't proof, it's just somebody saying something."
Therefore it is incumbent upon you or me to validate what was said. If you invalidate something then fine; at least you looked into it for yourself instead of just disregarding something at face value without any effort on your part (not saying you do that). Many people blow things off without taking the time to do their own investigation/study. So when someone like Admiral Byrd stated in his own words that there is land the size of America beyond the South pole, how does that fit into your paradigm? In order to fit into your world view, Admiral Byrd would have had to been untrustworthy or crazy. If on the other hand, Admiral Byrd's statement was accurate, it deserves further investigation in my opinion.

"That is the circumference of the middle of a sphere not a flat circle. No matter how you navigate a flat circle, you must travel east and west."
I agree with you as I already wrote that one must travel east to west or vice-versa to sail around the world including on the flat earth model. You may want to reread what I wrote. One can certainly travel East or West on a circular flat earth. For example, take a look at any American coin and pretend that the coin represents a flat earth. The head and bust of whatever President on the coin represents the location of the continents. In the center of the coin is the N. Pole surrounded by the continents. Surrounding the President's head/bust (continents) are the world's oceans. The S. Pole unlike the global model is not located at the "bottom" of the earth. Rather the S. Pole surrounds the world's oceans as it borders the entire outer edge of the coin. The S. Pole is therefore a high barrier of mountains which surrounds the world's oceans which perfectly matches Byrd's description of the Antarctic as being a mountainous continent. On a flat earth, anytime someone flies or sails from the N. Pole to the S. Pole, one is not traveling from the "top" of the world to the "bottom" of the world. Instead, one is going from the center of the coin (N. Pole) to the outer edge of the coin (S. Pole) - opposite directions. Likewise when traveling East to West or vice versa, all one has to do to get around the continents is to travel in clockwise or counterclockwise direction around the bust/head of the President. If this is still confusing for you, if you wish you can refer to a flat earth map to get your bearings.

 

[dad]

They don't necessarily feel morally superior, but they do think they left behind the nineteenth century (6,000 year old Earth), the sixteenth century (geocentrism) and 200BC (flat Earth) long ago.

So they are ignorant as well as smug and self righteous. OK

 

[rturner76]

So when someone like Admiral Byrd stated in his own words that there is land the size of America beyond the South pole, how does that fit into your paradigm? In order to fit into your world view, Admiral Byrd would have had to been untrustworthy or crazy.

There is a very simple explanation for this. He was correct. Antarctica is actually bigger than the USA, though he only made it to the south pole and even that is debated, he never traveled to the other side of the continent so he could only estimate it's size. His estimation was very close though. Sono, I don't think he was untrustworthy or crazy. What is untrustworthy is that the Earth is flat and Antarctica surrounds it.

I am sure that there would have been one man, one expedition at some point between the late 1400s and especially now, who would have traveled to Antarctica,and went to it's mountainous edge, where the firmament meets the ground, and brought back some proof of it's existence. One pilot from one country surely would have shown us the end of the Earth by now correct? What is stopping someone from doing it?

For instance, do you really think climatologists and researchers who doubt the warming of the earth are given equal treatment among their peers? Do you think gov't funding of research grants which don't agree with a warming earth model get funded?

The thing is, there is peer reviewed research denying global warming. There is just much much less of it because it is harder to prove something false, when the overwhelming amount of facts point to it being true. You see, the problem we have here is, and you should probably this being an academic but, you can't have or get a conclusion and then interpret information in a way that just confirms your conclusion. That's called confirmation bias. You must look at evidence and research and draw a conclusion from facts and evidence. Else we're back to faith like I was saying before and that's a whole different thing.

 

[Oldmantook]

There is a very simple explanation for this. He was correct. Antarctica is actually bigger than the USA, though he only made it to the south pole and even that is debated, he never traveled to the other side of the continent so he could only estimate it's size. His estimation was very close though. Sono, I don't think he was untrustworthy or crazy. What is untrustworthy is that the Earth is flat and Antarctica surrounds it.

I am sure that there would have been one man, one expedition at some point between the late 1400s and especially now, who would have traveled to Antarctica,and went to it's mountainous edge, where the firmament meets the ground, and brought back some proof of it's existence. One pilot from one country surely would have shown us the end of the Earth by now correct? What is stopping someone from doing it?


The thing is, there is peer reviewed research denying global warming. There is just much much less of it because it is harder to prove something false, when the overwhelming amount of facts point to it being true. You see, the problem we have here is, and you should probably this being an academic but, you can't have or get a conclusion and then interpret information in a way that just confirms your conclusion. That's called confirmation bias. You must look at evidence and research and draw a conclusion from facts and evidence. Else we're back to faith like I was saying before and that's a whole different thing.

 

[lesliedellow]

So they are ignorant as well as smug and self righteous. OK

No, just amazingly good looking.

 

[Oldmantook]

There is a very simple explanation for this. He was correct. Antarctica is actually bigger than the USA, though he only made it to the south pole and even that is debated, he never traveled to the other side of the continent so he could only estimate it's size. His estimation was very close though. Sono, I don't think he was untrustworthy or crazy. What is untrustworthy is that the Earth is flat and Antarctica surrounds it.

I am sure that there would have been one man, one expedition at some point between the late 1400s and especially now, who would have traveled to Antarctica,and went to it's mountainous edge, where the firmament meets the ground, and brought back some proof of it's existence. One pilot from one country surely would have shown us the end of the Earth by now correct? What is stopping someone from doing it?


The thing is, there is peer reviewed research denying global warming. There is just much much less of it because it is harder to prove something false, when the overwhelming amount of facts point to it being true. You see, the problem we have here is, and you should probably this being an academic but, you can't have or get a conclusion and then interpret information in a way that just confirms your conclusion. That's called confirmation bias. You must look at evidence and research and draw a conclusion from facts and evidence. Else we're back to faith like I was saying before and that's a whole different thing.

"Antarctica is actually bigger than the USA...."
Did you actually manage to watch Byrd's interview or are you relying on secondary sources to form your opinion? If not, why not, as you likely know that primary source information is always preferable to secondary source info. I will quote Byrd to show you that he was not referring to the size of Antarctica as you suppose; instead he was referring to a land - "that's beyond the pole on the other side of the South Pole." Land beyond the South Pole means exactly what he says it means - land other than the S. Pole; beyond it. What is not trustworthy is your reliance on secondary source information when the primary source is easily available for your inspection.

"One pilot from one country surely would have shown us the end of the Earth by now correct?"
Why do you suppose that Antarctica is a no-fly zone? Not many pilots flying over that area and those who do, don't talk. The real question one should ask is why is that ice-covered area restricted air space.

Confirmation bias cuts both ways and I disagree that there are an "overwhelming amount of facts point to it being true" but that is another matter altogether. Faith is based on what the scriptures state as being true. Isaiah 40:22 describes the earth as a circle - the Hebrew word is "chug." If the earth was a ball or sphere, the Hebrew word is "dur" used in Isaiah 22:18 where reference is made to throwing a "ball." This demonstrates that the prophet Isaiah knew the difference between a circle and a ball but he chose to use circle - not ball - to describe the earth. If the sun is stationary and the earth revolves around the sun, why does the scripture state that the sun "rises at one end of the heavens and makes its circuit to the other" (Ps 19:6). Why did Joshua command the sun to stop instead of the earth to stop in Joshua 10:12-13? One could possibly speculate that the biblical writers were employing phenomenological language to describe what they saw but the onus is on those who use this argument to prove that these persons were wrong in their perceptions and observations despite the fact that they were inspired by God to record what they saw. In my opinion there is enough information and evidence to at least call into question the commonly believed heliocentric and round earth model. If this is true, it would also confirm the biblical description of our earth and solar system. You of course are free to disagree.

 

[USincognito]

So when someone like Admiral Byrd stated in his own words that there is land the size of America beyond the South pole, how does that fit into your paradigm?

That's not a problem because it never happened. The supposed claim is from a 1957 book by a guy who had some crazy ideas (like there was land at the north pole that went up into space) and concerned things Byrd had said about the North Pole.

Worlds Beyond the Poles

Edit - it looks like he claims that both the north and south poles have land "beyond" them. You can read his whole book here:
https://ia801208.us.archive.org/19/...of the Universe) (Final With Added Pages).pdf

 

[Oldmantook]

That's not a problem because it never happened. The supposed claim is from a 1957 book by a guy who had some crazy ideas (like there was land at the north pole that went up into space) and concerned things Byrd had said about the North Pole.

Worlds Beyond the Poles

Edit - it looks like he claims that both the north and south poles have land "beyond" them. You can read his whole book here:
https://ia801208.us.archive.org/19/items/WorldsBeyondThePolesPhysicalContinuityOfTheUniverseFinalWithAddedPages/Worlds Beyond The Poles (Physical Continuity of the Universe) (Final With Added Pages).pdf

No, you are incorrect. I'm not quoting a book by "a guy." I'm quoting verbatim from Byrd himself in a TV interview he did decades ago (as I wrote earlier, the actual interview can be seen on Youtube). I prefer primary source material for my research when possible. I suggest you do the same.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

"Antarctica is actually bigger than the USA...."
Did you actually manage to watch Byrd's interview or are you relying on secondary sources to form your opinion? If not, why not, as you likely know that primary source information is always preferable to secondary source info. I will quote Byrd to show you that he was not referring to the size of Antarctica as you suppose; instead he was referring to a land - "that's beyond the pole on the other side of the South Pole." Land beyond the South Pole means exactly what he says it means - land other than the S. Pole; beyond it. What is not trustworthy is your reliance on secondary source information when the primary source is easily available for your inspection.

How can there be land beyond the south pole? If the south pole is the end of the flat Earth there cannot be anything beyond. And if there is something beyond then it isn't the south pole.

Why do you suppose that Antarctica is a no-fly zone? Not many pilots flying over that area and those who do, don't talk. The real question one should ask is why is that ice-covered area restricted air space.

If it's such a hush-hush area could you please explain why aircraft crashes have been reported in Antarctica? Surely they could have been covered up? In particular I'd love to hear your explanation for Air New Zealand flight TE901.

 

[USincognito]

No, you are incorrect. I'm not quoting a book by "a guy." I'm quoting verbatim from Byrd himself in a TV interview he did decades ago (as I wrote earlier, the actual interview can be seen on Youtube). I prefer primary source material for my research when possible. I suggest you do the same.

Can you post a link so I don't go off on a wild goose chase?

 

[Jimmy D]

So they are ignorant as well as smug and self righteous. OK

We really need an "irony" button next to the "like" ones

No, just amazingly good looking.

As I was saying...

 

[ViaCrucis]

As a Christian, do you subscribe to the evolution theory or did God create humankind?

False dichotomy. Naturalistic mechanisms do not exclude divine activity. It's like asking, "Were you conceived in the womb because your father impregnated your mother, or did God create you?" It's not either-or, it's both-and.

Do you believe in Jesus' resurrection which is not subject to the scientific method of repeatable empirical verification?

Science deals with falsifiable, empirical data; a faith based claim, even a faith based claim about an event that supposedly happened in history is not subject to scientific methodology. Belief in a faith claim does not mean a rejection of the scientific method as the means of understanding the naturalistic mechanisms which underpin the natural world.

My point simply is we were taught subjects in school (controlled by humanists) which may or may not be true and even contradictory to Scripture.

Small problem, they aren't "controlled by humanists". Most teachers, school administrators, professors, politicians, etc. are of many backgrounds. There are atheists, sure, and secular humanists, sure; but there are also every sort of religious person represented too--and as Christianity is the majority religion, at least here in the US, it also means that most of these people are themselves, at least nominally, Christian. This idea of some widespread "humanist" agenda is imaginary. A false narrative perpetrated in certain Fundamentalist circles in order to foster a sense of tribal identity of "us" vs "them".

Your particular expression of the Christian religion, and your tradition's or your personal understanding of Christianity or interpretation of Scripture are not the litmus test of what is Christian or biblical.

We acquire a normalcy bias that causes us to naturally protect and keep intact our long-held beliefs. We don't stop to question what we've been taught and if we encounter something that contradicts our paradigm it creates cognitive dissonance which prevents us from investigating further. If you wish you can certainly do your own research on the subject as there is no dearth of material on the subject which will either solidify your held belief or cause it to come into question.

I agree, I was raised a young earth creationist in the relatively small bubble of my Evangelical/Pentecostal upbringing and remained one until my early 20's. I began a process of challenging my assumptions and what I believed and what I was told was true beginning around the end of my teens/beginning of my 20's. Which is why I'm no longer any of those things--but my Christian faith, and my hope in Jesus Christ and my conviction about the Gospel is stronger today than it ever was back then. But it required going beyond simply believing what I was told and to ask big questions, even big questions that could jeopardize my faith--but if my faith couldn't be strong enough to withstand an honest look at something like the vast evidence concerning something like evolution then it wouldn't be a faith worth keeping. A faith that cannot endure confrontation with the basic facts of reality is a flimsy faith--forget being built on sand, it's built on a house of cards.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[dad]

No, just amazingly good looking.

Vain too. OK. I would say that northern Europe seems afflicted with that prideful self righteous disease most. But that may just be a personal observation.

 

[AV1611VET]

You may want to rethink your argument. It certainly does say "circle" and by definition a circle is one-dimensional and FLAT. It does not say round, sphere or orb.

You can't draw a circle on a globe? then what's the Arctic circle? or the Bermuda triangle?

 

[AV1611VET]

Holier than thou would include them thinking they were smartie pants too.

I wonder where they think the Antichrist is supposed to come from? Antarctica?

 

[lesliedellow]

I wonder where they think the Antichrist is supposed to come from? Antarctica?

The purveyors of the prosperity Gospel. Something so completely at variance with, "sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor..... and come, take up the cross, and follow me," could only have its origins in the land of the gas guzzlers and 50" waists.

 

[AV1611VET]

The purveyors of the prosperity Gospel. Something so completely at variance with, "sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor..... and come, take up the cross, and follow me," could only have its origins in the land of the gas guzzlers and 50" waists.

If this is a reference to the United States, are you saying Daniel 2 predicts the founding of this nation?

 

[lesliedellow]

If this is a reference to the United States, are you saying Daniel 2 predicts the founding of this nation?

I must admit, I have difficulty in seeing the connection.