Debunking Flat Earth

[Clizby WampusCat]

Unfortunately today's 'science' can't even tell me what colour the grass or sky is, or which direction is 'up', or what's really at rest and in motion. Everything's just a probable effect on an observer, a relative frame of reference etc. Science is knowledge, and knowledge requires certainty.

Science is not about finding certainty. It is about finding the highest confidence levels for belief. 100% certainty is not attainable. Science is about trying to disprove hypothesis not prove them, flat earth, ID and creationism is about having a conclusion and finding evidence to support that and ignoring all the other possible evidences. Just like you ignoring refraction and looming as possible explanations for your flat earth claims.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

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 is not at all what he said. He said that the 10^121 discrepancy is with the cosmological constant which describes the energy density when space is devoid of matter and the theoretical quantum vacuum energy. We don't have an answer to this question. This is where the dark matter hypothesis comes in. I don't understand it all but this quote is not talking about throwing out cosmology because it has this one unsolved problem. This does not call into question observations about the expansion of the universe or throw out many other well supported conclusions of cosmology.

 

[essentialsaltes]

To add to the point above about Avalon Harbor...

A ferry with an 'escort'?

I am doubtful.

Having been to Catalina a few times, there has never been such an escort nor a need for one.

Even if there were, it seems unlikely that two independent ships could maintain that separation so exactly over time (consider that the video is timelapsed).

I see it as one object, possibly something like an unladen cargo ship:

So the question arises... why can't we see the middle of the ship?

If we take the 'trailing ship' as a ferry, which ferry is it? There aren't that many that go to Catalina. What I can see is a bright white taller superstructure, followed by a short gap, and then a slightly longer, but lower and darker superstructure. Catalina Ferries appear to be all white and in a single body frame.

 

[Strathos]

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.

The Bible isn't about the shape of the earth, or how far away the stars are. It's about our salvation. And you yourself admit that scripture includes metaphors and figures of speech.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

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

Haha so you suggest it's inadmissible. Look, fair enough, point taken, the continuity of the zoom in/ out probably allows you to wriggle out on this one.

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."

They come after you with knives if you take pics of Sardinia.

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

What is this 'silly mistake' that's eluded everyone but your good self?

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.

I'll pass it on, see what comes back.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

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?

The fact we can see the land at all is contrary to ball earth predictions.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

To add to the point above about Avalon Harbor...

A ferry with an 'escort'?

I am doubtful.

Having been to Catalina a few times, there has never been such an escort nor a need for one.

Even if there were, it seems unlikely that two independent ships could maintain that separation so exactly over time (consider that the video is timelapsed).

I see it as one object, possibly something like an unladen cargo ship:

So the question arises... why can't we see the middle of the ship?

If we take the 'trailing ship' as a ferry, which ferry is it? There aren't that many that go to Catalina. What I can see is a bright white taller superstructure, followed by a short gap, and then a slightly longer, but lower and darker superstructure. Catalina Ferries appear to be all white and in a single body frame.

Could be a ship, still should be entirely hidden at that distance. Obviously given angular resolution and where the object meets the water will be hard to differentiate at that distance. There's been a lot of work on this phenomenon. But we all know experientially that things appear to 'melt' into the horizon.

You're not advancing your case unless you can explain why any of it can be seen.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

The Bible isn't about the shape of the earth, or how far away the stars are. It's about our salvation. And you yourself admit that scripture includes metaphors and figures of speech.

Bible points us to Christ, who is the way the truth and the life.

This is just another way God asks of us 'Do you trust me?' He who can't be trusted in the small things, can he be trusted in the large?

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Science is not about finding certainty. It is about finding the highest confidence levels for belief. 100% certainty is not attainable.

Unfortunately you've compromised to a science that rejects absolutes, which is no science at all. Theology is the king of sciences, and the metaphysics that go with it.

flat earth, ID and creationism is about having a conclusion and finding evidence to support that and ignoring all the other possible evidences.

Not true. That's modern scientific approach - posit a theory, it holds until disproven. FE works the other way, with deduction/ conclusion drawn from observation and experiment.

Just like you ignoring refraction and looming as possible explanations for your flat earth claims.

Refraction and looming are limited kinds of effects. Snell's law, for instance, gives us the range of refraction expected in air. Many long range photos would require the air to have refractive index of ethanol to refract so dramatically.

That is not at all what he said.

Have you seen the film The Principle? It's entirely what he said.

I don't understand it all but this quote is not talking about throwing out cosmology because it has this one unsolved problem.

Of course Kaku wasn't suggesting we dispense with the theory. He makes a living out of it!

I'm suggesting, however, that when you have such radical mismatches and also zero evidence of 95% of the stuff you need to sustain your unviersal model, isn't it time to be taking a long hard look at the paradigm?

This does not call into question observations about the expansion of the universe or throw out many other well supported conclusions of cosmology.

Of course it should make ALL the assumptions of this model highly dubious and questionable. Go back and read Hubble, he was of the view the obs supported a 'special central position' of the earth, so he added a mathematical fudge factor to escape 'the horror of a unique position'. Standard model unproven/ unprovable assumptions are certainly more the rule than the exception. It's science fiction really.

 

[coffee4u]

Bible points us to Christ, who is the way the truth and the life.

This is just another way God asks of us 'Do you trust me?' He who can't be trusted in the small things, can he be trusted in the large?

Nowhere in the Bible does God say the world is flat or asks us to believe that it is. If there was some verse where God said "The world is flat and this is important to belief" then I would know about it, I'm an evangelical.

God could have made the world flat sure, but he could also have made it a triangle so why hold onto this belief so tightly?
The curve of the earth can be seen from the concord. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Genesis says that there was no death before sin -important doctrine even if many don't seem to realize it. Marriage- again Genesis, The transgender issues, again Genesis. A lot of important doctrine finds its beginnings in the book of beginnings even if many people refuse to believe it but no doctrine that I know of hangs on the world being flat.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

A lot of important doctrine finds its beginnings in the book of beginnings even if many people refuse to believe it but no doctrine that I know of hangs on the world being flat.

Sure, it's not an article of faith. It's really just a token of our trust. One more way we can say 'I trust you Father'.

 

[Strathos]

Bible points us to Christ, who is the way the truth and the life.

Right, and that has nothing to do with the shape of the earth.

I trust God, but I don't trust every random person who seems to think they have a flawless interpretation of God's Word.

 

[coffee4u]

The only time I don't believe science is when it contradicts scripture because I do believe knowledge comes from God, including science. I think he wants us to study and learn and invent.
Scripture is my framework so if science contradicts it then I believe science/man is wrong. Since I don't see the Bible teaching a flat earth there is no contradiction with the world being round.

 

[46AND2]

The fact we can see the land at all is contrary to ball earth predictions.

No it isn't. Catalina island reaches over 2000 feet.

 

[46AND2]

What is this 'silly mistake' that's eluded everyone but your good self?

Things like this:

The fact we can see the land at all is contrary to ball earth predictions.

 

[d taylor]

The only time I don't believe science is when it contradicts scripture because I do believe knowledge comes from God, including science. I think he wants us to study and learn and invent.
Scripture is my framework so if science contradicts it then I believe science/man is wrong. Since I don't see the Bible teaching a flat earth there is no contradiction with the world being round.

So the Bible states (if you want to call that teaching you can) God created two great lights the sun and moon do you believe this. In Psalms God is praised for this creation.

Or do you side with science and believe the moon reflects the light of the sun.

 

[coffee4u]

That the moon reflects the sun. This does not stop the moon from being a light to us, the full moon is enough to see quite well at night. So I believe that God made the two great lights and also that it is reflecting the sun.

The first light was neither the sun, moon or stars even though there was a day and night cycle. The light seems to be something else. Perhaps it was the suns light without the sun actually being present yet. We can only guess.
3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.

I tend to believe God didn't make them first because a lot of ancient civilizations worship them, especially the sun. Making them later lessons their importance.

6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

Again we have a day and night without the physical presence of the sun.

9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

Third day with a day and night cycle before the 'sun' as well as growing plants. Not that plants can't survive a day and night in the dark but obviously the light was there.

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

Since the moon is to govern the night it could not be too bright or it would turn the night into day. To me, it seems perfect just as it is.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Could be a ship, still should be entirely hidden at that distance. Obviously given angular resolution and where the object meets the water will be hard to differentiate at that distance.

What distance? Giant cargo ships like that don't go to Catalina island. San Pedro and Long Beach are much closer to Malibu than Catalina.

 

[46AND2]

Could be a ship, still should be entirely hidden at that distance. Obviously given angular resolution and where the object meets the water will be hard to differentiate at that distance. There's been a lot of work on this phenomenon. But we all know experientially that things appear to 'melt' into the horizon.

You're not advancing your case unless you can explain why any of it can be seen.

You don't even know the distance to the ship.

Clearly, it is much closer than the island, and the island is tall enough to be seen from 50+ miles away.

Its trivially easy to explain that video on the globe. You haven't even made a case for why it is a problem for us.

Now, would you care to explain why we can't see the lower elevation of Catalina? I'm guessing you'll just hand-wave it away, and post another video that I will tear to pieces, just like your first two.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

I trust God, but I don't trust every random person who seems to think they have a flawless interpretation of God's Word.

This one's pretty straightforward. I'd reluctantly accept the interpretation of a round geocentric stationary earth. But a spinning spaceball? Totally unsupported in scripture.

It was only after I researched geocentrism for some years as an atheist/ agnostic that the obstacle to Christianity was removed and not long after - boom! born again by dint of God's awesome heart-changing, eye-opening presence! So I'm sticking with it, it has divine endorsement by way of personal revelation as well.