Flat-Earthers

[Strathos]

You will all feel a little silly when you get to the other side and find out it really was flat, that you allowed yourselves to be played as fools all your lives, and have to give an account for maligning fellow believers in this matter.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: If you want to convince me the earth is flat, then show me the edge. It's such a simple request. Funny how no one has ever been able to do so, and instead resort to ridiculous conspiracies to come up with excuses not to.

 

[Lost4words]

Jack will be along shortly. He is a big believer in a flat earth.

No way the earth is flat. God gave us science. Science has given us knowledge.

 

[SeventyOne]

Hologenesis [YEC < Holocene-only] and geo-platysm [Flat Earth] are separable. (You can subscribe to one without subscribing to the other.)

A believer may mock another believer's position on natural science, we just may not withhold Love from each other. Neither position [geo-platysm/geo-sphericism] rises to the level of heresy, so we can and must agree to disagree.

If, otherwise, you love and are saved by Jesus, He will straighten us all out when we get Home.

You are free to try to excuse it any way you wish, of course.

Such satellites can only exist in the geo-spherical model.
Geo-platysts are compelled to either

• deny that they exist, altogether, or
• experience cognitive dissonance every time they make use of such technology [sat TV, GPS, Google mapping, weather sats, etc.].

There would also be said cognitive dissonance when telephoning a sufficiently distant country and finding that they are in nighttime while you are in daytime, or in summer while you are in winter. Even the differences in just American time zones exemplify this. (Noon in New York City and that of Los Angeles are three hours apart. Hawaiian noon is two hours after L.A.)

You're assumption is inaccurate. I also think a common assumption is that the ball-earthers who departed that paradigm didn't come up with every excuse themselves that's ever been presented in this thread and others before changing their mind. There's not one thing that anyone has said on any flat-earth thread against the flat-earth that hasn't been researched by someone.

So, when I hear the standard, 'the {enter excuse here} doesn't work on a flat-earth' excuse, I know there's no study that has gone into that aspect of their objection.

Does anybody here really think people just wake up one day and think, 'today I'll be a flat-earther'? No. It's a long and often painful deprogramming process.

 

[SeventyOne]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: If you want to convince me the earth is flat, then show me the edge. It's such a simple request. Funny how no one has ever been able to do so, and instead resort to ridiculous conspiracies to come up with excuses not to.

And if you want to convince me the earth is a ball, show me the motion and curve. Motion and curvature tests favor flat earth. I've seen over a hundred of them and so far no motion or curve. If you can go out and measure a curve, you'll be famous, because you'll be the first.

 

[SeventyOne]

No way the earth is flat. God gave us science. Science has given us knowledge.

Like evolution?

 

[Sabertooth]

You're assumption is inaccurate.

Do you use any satellite services/technology?

 

[SeventyOne]

Do you use any satellite services/technology?

Probably. Do you have a relevant question?

 

[Sabertooth]

Do you have a relevant question?

How does your model explain them staying in the sky?

 

[Lost4words]

Like evolution?

Some scientist dont believe in God either!

 

[SeventyOne]

Some scientist dont believe in God either!

The point is 'science' doesn't always give accurate information. It has to remain in the realm where it can constantly be questioned. Flat Earth isn't a matter of denying science in the least, it's a process of questioning current assumptions when there is contradicting evidence available.

 

[SeventyOne]

How does your model explain them staying in the sky?

I may do math for a living, but I'm not an engineer. There are flat earth engineers out there who have looked at this stuff in depth. Feel free to do some research on the matter if you are genuinely curious.

 

[Sabertooth]

There's not one thing that anyone has said on any flat-earth thread against the flat-earth that hasn't been researched by someone.

There are flat earth engineers out there who have looked at this stuff in depth.

That is called the "appeal to experts" fallacy.

 

[USincognito]

I may do math for a living, but I'm not an engineer. There are flat earth engineers out there who have looked at this stuff in depth. Feel free to do some research on the matter if you are genuinely curious.

Shocking.

 

[SeventyOne]

That is called the "appeal to experts" fallacy.

You want something detailed I won't adequately be able to detail, just as if I asked you for details on the heliocentric model, some of which you wouldn't be able to adequately explain in detail on your own, because you and I simply don't know everything. Please. Let's not be stupid here.

 

[USincognito]

Like evolution?

Yes. A great example. Science has allowed us to understand not just the diversity of life we see on earth now and how it all is related, but to understand past biogeography and patterns we see in the fossil record.

 

[USincognito]

How does your model explain them staying in the sky?

No one seems to have a viable explanation for numerous things we observe* from the ground. For instance we can predict when the ISS and numerous other satellites will appear, the path they will take overhead and when they will disappear. We can even photograph them and, sure enough, photos of the ISS look exactly like the ISS and not a balloon or spy plane or whatever.

The issue is compounded by how fast the satellites move. If it were a balloon it would be traveling about 1000 mph. How could it do that without shredding? If it were an aircraft it would be traveling without making any noise. How could it do that?

And then there's comets. How do comets work on Flerf? How is it that a flight from Auckland to Los Angeles takes 13 1/2 hours but a flight from Auckland to Santiago takes only 12 1/2 hours? Why doesn't the sun and moon appear as points of light and then disappear as points of light. If Antarctica is off limits, why can I was a 24 hour live webcam of McMurdo station?
The USAP Portal: Science and Support in Antarctica - McMurdo Station Webcams

* From the ground, we won't even get into the massive conspiracy theory of scientists, astronauts, etc. world wide that would have to be in the world's space programs.

 

[SeventyOne]

Yes. A great example. Science has allowed us to understand not just the diversity of life we see on earth now and how it all is related, but to understand past biogeography and patterns we see in the fossil record.

It's a great example of another extravagant lie. People wonder how 'science' could be wrong about the origins and details of our universe, all they have to do is look and see how 'science' got it all wrong about the origins and details of life itself. It's a wonderful case study in the progression of mass delusion.

 

[USincognito]

It's a great example of another extravagant lie.

You're using the word "lie" incorrectly and inappropriately.

People wonder how 'science' could be wrong about the origins and details of our universe, all they have to do is look and see how 'science' got it all wrong about the origins and details of life itself. It's a wonderful case study in the progression of mass delusion.

Putting science is scare quotes doesn't make your non argument any more salient or substantive. And what the heck does the origins and details of our universe and life itself have to do with evolution or how it is spectacularly successful in explaining the diversity of life now and in the past and how all life is related? Do you even understand what evolution is, and is not?

 

[SeventyOne]

You're using the word "lie" incorrectly, but given that you're a Flerf, that doesn't surprise me.



Putting science is scare quotes doesn't make your non argument any more salient or substantive. And what the heck does the origins and details of our universe and life itself have to do with evolution or how it is spectacularly successful in explaining the diversity of life now and in the past and how all life is related? Do you even understand what evolution is, and is not?

Science is in quotes because evolution is primarily a religious faith. Saying it's science would be to misrepresent it.

 

[USincognito]

Science is in quotes because evolution is primarily a religious faith.

A laughably asinine assertion not supported by reality.

Saying it's science would be to misrepresent it.

I asked you a question. Can you answer it or not?

>> And what the heck does the origins and details of our universe and life itself have to do with evolution or how it is spectacularly successful in explaining the diversity of life now and in the past and how all life is related? Do you even understand what evolution is, and is not? <<