Debunking Flat Earth

[d taylor]

This is sciences reality, 250 miles high, is the same distance from the earth as 18 miles high.

 

[Whyayeman]

Don't you get tired of all these over-interpretations of the Old Testament? Don't you know a metaphor when you see one? In the same verse Isaiah described the heavens as a curtain. There's food for another cockeyed piece of pseudoscience right here: all the stars and stuff out there are just a projection on a big sheet.
I don't mind people having religious beliefs, but I just don't understand why there seems to be a necessity to deny scientific ideas. Isaiah is not reduced by the idea that the earth is a sphere. Nor is the religious message of the Bible incompatible with science.
It seems to me that there is a strand of Christian belief which must denigrate scholarship as lies and deception if it does not accord with a certain narrow view.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Correct, modern cosmology is a big no-no. There's a mismatch between theory and experiment of 10^130 according to Michiu Kaku. That means it requires a lot of faith. In fact, I don't have that much faith! So I put my small measure of faith in God. He's never failed me yet.

That mismatch is one of a very few significant puzzles of that type. There are far too many excellent predictive matches in the standard model of cosmology to jettison it for that - it may turn out to be a key indicator of serious problems, or it may just be a misunderstanding in a limited area - calculations associated with vacuum energy have been problematic for a long time, in much the same way as with the renormalization problem of self-interactions in quantum field theory.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

That mismatch is one of a very few significant puzzles of that type. There are far too many excellent predictive matches in the standard model of cosmology to jettison it for that - it may turn out to be a key indicator of serious problems, or it may just be a misunderstanding in a limited area - calculations associated with vacuum energy have been problematic for a long time, in much the same way as with the renormalization problem of self-interactions in quantum field theory.

Examples?

 

[Strathos]

All's I know is it falls on the plane and on God's green grass, and God sends it on the good and the evil alike. For He is merciful even to His enemies. You know, you couldn't even draw your next breath without His grace. If that was withdrawn, we would just be a pile of ashes. Praise be to He who is above all things.

But where, specifically, do you think that rain comes from?

 

[46AND2]

We apologise that a photo taken from that distance is a little blurry.

A LITTLE blurry? It's not even remotely discernible.

But I accept the point, it could be a poodle at 50m behind a fuzzy filter.

It could be a lot of things...but the island lighthouse is not one of them.

So try this one on for size instead, same principle applies.

Thanks for showing a video that confirms the globe.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

A LITTLE blurry? It's not even remotely discernible.

Gee, tough crowd. Is is 320 miles away! What do you expect to see - Napoleon with a telescope staring back at you from the cliffs?

It could be a lot of things...but the island lighthouse is not one of them.

I accept the continuity is a little short, and I've written to the maker to ask if he has a continuous zoom in/ out of the islet.

Thanks for showing a video that confirms the globe.

How so?

 

[Shrewd Manager]

But where, specifically, do you think that rain comes from?

From the clouds, and ultimately from God.

How do you say the clouds can (a) move freely within the atmosphere, which must be moving an constantly varying speeds and different speeds at every different altitude and (b) withstand gravity (as a full cloud would be like a gigantic soaked sponge, weighing up to thousands of tonnes) ...?

 

[46AND2]

Gee, tough crowd. Is is 320 miles away! What do you expect to see - Napoleon with a telescope staring back at you from the cliffs?



I accept the continuity is a little short, and I've written to the maker to ask if he has a continuous zoom in/ out of the islet.

How so?

It's not 320 miles away. That's the point, you are claiming that an indiscernible picture is of an object that far away. When in reality, you can't even tell what it is.

I'll explain how your other video confirms the globe after work...I just have my phone right now.

 

[coffee4u]

except it's been pointed out there is a better word for ball already and I've heard no legitimate claim it means sphere, that seems to be a modern translation. Plus even if so, 1 person saying circle doesn't negate the others.

Even if a circle is a better translation (that seems to depend on who the teacher is, what footnotes or Lexicon you use) A sphere does look like a circle and I do not find the Bible teaches a flat earth.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

It's not 320 miles away.

Objection, conclusory opinion your honour.

indiscernible picture

It's sufficiently discernible, put your glasses on Professor.

you can't even tell what it is.

I say it appears to be an island with a lighthouse at 320+ miles.

Look, there are scores if not hundreds of examples online of objects at distances that should not be visible on the globe model, and for which no better explanation has been advanced that 'refracted looming holographic projection'-type rubbish.

This just seemed a good extreme example, but forget about it if you're going to quibble on the niceties. I'll link you a load of other clear examples if you prefer?

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Even if a circle is a better translation (that seems to depend on who the teacher is, what footnotes or Lexicon you use) A sphere does look like a circle and I do not find the Bible teaches a flat earth.

Regardless of your inability to discern, FE is the scriptural position. Now your Isa 40:22 is ambiguous at best, what other scriptures can you front to support your position? I'm prophesying donut.

 

[coffee4u]

Regardless of your inability to discern, FE is the scriptural position. Now your Isa 40:22 is ambiguous at best, what other scriptures can you front to support your position? I'm prophesying donut.

The Bible never sets out to actively teach a flat earth. I've met plenty of other creationists like myself, including Ken Ham who all believe in 6 day creation and global flood and not one of us believes in a flat earth.

 

[Strathos]

From the clouds, and ultimately from God.

That's not what an ultra-literal interpretation of scripture says.

Who can number the clouds in wisdom? or who can stay the bottles of heaven

Clearly, rain comes from bottles, not clouds. Why aren't you up in arms about the sinister meteorological conspiracy to hide the bottles and promote the false science of precipitation? If you were consistent, you would be.

 

[d taylor]

It is the simple ole fear of science or in other words wanting to be accepted in science circles/or the science groups. So they can have their half baked debates with these atheist scientist.

This has been going on long before ken ham, etc...

Look at Job 26:7 translated incorrectly and has absolutely no support from or in the Bible for its current reading.
He stretches out the north over empty space; He hangs the earth on nothing.
But not a single creationist will standup for the correct reading/translation of Job 26:7 even when Groups like creation.com have this in their, beliefs statements.
"What we believe" under doctrine and beliefs (B) basics.
2. The final guide to the interpretation of Scripture is Scripture itself.

So really their standard is the final guide to the interpretation of scripture is scripture itself. They should say except in the case of Job 26:7 we will interpret that verse according to science.

Because as i have stated, When there is not one single area in the Bible that supports this interpretation or understanding that this verse Job 26:7 should be understood to be read to say: He hangs the earth on nothing.

Since this reading (hangs the earth on nothing) distinctly contradicts the Word of God which, in so many other places, declares that the Earth rests
upon Foundations
But there are several supporting verses that support the reading of Job 26:7 to say "He spreadeth out the North over the desolate' place (the abyss of waters), and supporteth the Earth upon fastenings (foundations)."

Not a single word or verse in the Bible supports a spinning ball of water floating out in space.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

That's not what an ultra-literal interpretation of scripture says.

Heavens guitars!
Strong's Hebrew: 5035. נֵ֫בֶל (nebel) -- bottle

I never said we need to be ultra-literal. Just that every relevant scripture points to flat, motionless and enclosed, and not to bipolar, spinning, gyrating, bouncy bouncy space balls.

 

[coffee4u]

Some scripture is literal, some metaphors, other poetry.

Which is why when we read that God is a rock we understand this is talking about how God is unchangeable, strong, not that he is an actual rock.

The foundation of the earth is again a metaphor, suggesting strength and beginnings. That says nothing about the entire world being flat. I've read that the word 'foundation' isn't even a good translation of the Greek and rather it should be 'lay/ing down' or 'throw/ing down'

He hangs the earth on nothing does suggest we are floating in space. Not sure what you are getting at there. So you don't even believe we are in space? Where would you say we are then?

 

[46AND2]

Objection, conclusory opinion your honour.

That's rich, coming from the guy who can't even demonstrate that it actually is the object he claims it is.

It's sufficiently discernible, put your glasses on Professor.



I say it appears to be an island with a lighthouse at 320+ miles.

And yet...the island and lighthouse that you claim it to be (elevation: 280 feet) is a mere mile away from a MUCH bigger (and taller - highest peak almost 9000 feet) island, Corsica, which is nowhere to be seen. Despite the fact that the near coast of Corsica is a few dozen miles closer.

Nor is the NEXT island, Sardinia visible, despite it ALSO being closer than your lighthouse, and having a mountain peak nearly 6000 feet taller than your "lighthouse."

Look, there are scores if not hundreds of examples online of objects at distances that should not be visible on the globe model,

No, there really aren't. Every single example is because the flatearther makes a silly mistake.

and for which no better explanation has been advanced that 'refracted looming holographic projection'-type rubbish.

The vast majority of the time, looming is not even the explanation that debunks the flatearth claim; rather, it's one of those other silly mistakes.

This just seemed a good extreme example, but forget about it if you're going to quibble on the niceties.

Quibble? It doesn't look anything like what you claim it is. No Corsica, no Sardinia, a lighthouse that you wouldn't be able to see from 50 miles away, let alone 300; it's range is listed at 30 miles.

Tell your photographer to go get a picture of the lighthouse from Nice, France. It's only a little over 100 miles from the lighthouse. If he can get it from 325, surely 100 miles will be easy, right? And he'd be able to see Corsica, too, to get his bearings. And with that awesome camera of his, that can take pictures past horizons, he should be able to get a view of the lighthouse that leaves no doubt that it actually is the lighthouse. Heck, he could prolly make out the lighthouse keeper picking his nose from there.

Make sure he times the picture right, though, since...you know...the lighthouse light only flashes once every 5 seconds.

 

[46AND2]

We apologise that a photo taken from that distance is a little blurry. But I accept the point, it could be a poodle at 50m behind a fuzzy filter.

So try this one on for size instead, same principle applies.

54 miles from Malibu to the southern tip of Catalina Island basically points you right at the resort town of Avalon:

Here is a close up of Avalon:

Where, in your video, is Avalon? Where is Avalon Bay? The civilization a ways up the hill from Avalon?

Why is only the highest elevation for Catalina Island visible?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Examples?

Here's a sceptic's guide to the standard model.