Debunking Flat Earth

[JacksBratt]

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.

The bible, although it may not describe a FE to your acceptance, certainly does not describe a globe, spinning, orbiting and moving through space.

 

[Yekcidmij]

That the moon is not a created light by God but a created light reflector, even though there is not a single place in the Bible, that even hints at the moon being a created light reflector.

So you believe the moon generates it's own light? I'm guessing I don't have to ask if you believe people and probes have been to the moon.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Maybe you can explain how it's come to this, a ball earth moving at breakneck speeds in multiple directions, but zero observational or experimental evidence of motion or curvature...?

Yes, cosmology knows with a high level of confidence how our earth came to be. But even if they didn't know how we do know that it is like this because we do have evidence. You have just hand waved that evidence as suspect due to scientists deceiving us without evidence as you did below. Would you actually look at the evidence for a ball earth or just dismiss it as deception?

Ok, so the theory of gravity, the theory of evilotion..?

Do you know what a scientific theory is? It is not a guess assumed to be correct until proven otherwise as you have described it. People posit hypothesis not theories. Theories are supported by facts, experimentation, observation from many different fields of study that all support a theory to the point that it may be tweaked in the future but will never be fully rejected for something else. If a scientist could demonstrate that a well established theory is severely wrong, such as evolution, they would win a Nobel prize be the most famous scientist ever with all kinds of money coming in for research etc.

The refractive index of air as per Snell's law is insufficient to account for 'superman refraction'.

Maybe, however any calculation you do must account for refraction to be of any value.

Take it up with him. Sounds like you have certainty on this point. Ah, certainty that elusive object of desire.

I have admitted that 100% certainty is not possible for anyone even theists. However, that does not mean that we don;t know anything with high levels of confidence. That is what a scientific theory is. All the technology, medical advances etc. that you see around you are all from science and not from faith in the Bible. Science has demonstrated a good track record, faith has always had to adapt to knew scientific findings.

I don't know what you're talking about. The cosmological constant is a myth. What do you base it on?

It is not a myth, it is a problem in physics. We don't know why the discrepancy exists but we do know what we observe and demonstrate to be true about the universe and its beginnings. I don't understand why you think we throw out all we can demonstrate about our universe because we have no solution yet to this problem. I am betting that science will solve the problem before faith will.

Ah, scientists don't depend on grants, they don't care about mundane matters like job security. No conflicts of interest, no frauds. Just a squeaky-clean white coat.

You are disparaging real people without proof. A massive conspiracy theory to prop up evolution, ball earth, gravity etc. You must supply sufficient evidence of this claim for it to be believable.

He did this expressly to avoid the otherwise inescapable conclusion of geocentricity.

No, he did this so it comported with all the other evidence we have about the universe.

No, millions of people are deceived. That's just how the world is I'm afraid, 'til Jesus returns.

Then the millions of people that work in industries that rely on the current theories of evolution and cosmology are deceived somehow? All the people that worked an any NASA mission, private companies that work on satellites, planes, spaceships etc. are all deceived or lying and no one has talked? How is this even possible when the conclusions form these theories have been demonstrated to be true? This is simple conspiracy theory fantasy until given sufficient evidence to believe it.

 

[Strathos]

The bible, although it may not describe a FE to your acceptance, certainly does not describe a globe, spinning, orbiting and moving through space.

You're right about that. But what you don't get is that describing such things was never the point. The Bible also doesn't describe how infectious diseases work, or how mathematics works, or how birds can fly, or an innumerable amount of other facts about the universe. That's because it wasn't meant to. That stuff is not essential for salvation, and if we want to know it, God gave us brains to figure it out ourselves.

'The Bible tells us how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go'

- Cardinal Baronius

 

[46AND2]

Maybe you can explain how it's come to this, a ball earth moving at breakneck speeds in multiple directions, but zero observational or experimental evidence of motion or curvature...?

The weight of an object gradually increases as you travel from the equator to either pole. I can explain this on a spinning globe, can you on a stationary flat earth?

(hint: it's experimental evidence for motion, that you claim doesn't exist, even one you can perform yourself)

Oh, and then there is this:

 

[JacksBratt]

You're right about that. But what you don't get is that describing such things was never the point. The Bible also doesn't describe how infectious diseases work, or how mathematics works, or how birds can fly, or an innumerable amount of other facts about the universe. That's because it wasn't meant to. That stuff is not essential for salvation, and if we want to know it, God gave us brains to figure it out ourselves.

'The Bible tells us how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go'

- Cardinal Baronius

Awe, but it does say that it sits on pillars, a foundation, will not be moved. Also that it is God's footstool.


It also doesn't say that birds cannot fly, are fixed to the ground... or that people didn't get diseases... and also describes math.

An atheist once argued with me on the facts that they took from the scriptures and challenged me with them on their support of a FE. I was impressed with their dedication and thoroughness of the scriptures.. Very impressive.

 

[JacksBratt]

The weight of an object gradually increases as you travel from the equator to either pole. I can explain this on a spinning globe, can you on a stationary flat earth?

(hint: it's experimental evidence for motion, that you claim doesn't exist, even one you can perform yourself)

Oh, and then there is this:

Funny.... I once asked someone, here, if the earth was a spinning ball, then weights should change as you move to the poles, as the rotation is slower... They used science to deny it and explained why, on a globe, this would not happen..

Do you have any evidence to back your belief.. I'm getting conflicting views from people trying to support the globe model?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Not sure how you'd discard metaphysics but keep philosophy. Enlighten me.

Why would I discard metaphysics? where would science be without metaphysics?

God is the rock of ages, the standard against which all things can be measured, the source of all true value, the author of life.

How is this measurement process performed?

Perception just is?

Is what?

Do you say that we possess sufficient data regarding the universe to be making any such grandiose universal claims?

I don't recognise your characterization. We have enough data about the universe to know there are certain unexplained phenomena, and we know enough about our best model of the universe to say those phenomena correspond to different specific kinds of influence in that model.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Funny.... I once asked someone, here, if the earth was a spinning ball, then weights should change as you move to the poles, as the rotation is slower... They used science to deny it and explained why, on a globe, this would not happen..

Do you have any evidence to back your belief.. I'm getting conflicting views from people trying to support the globe model?

It's a college freshman physics level problem. An object in uniform circular motion like a planetary orbit, or motion on the surface of a spinning earth, is in constant acceleration. This acceleration depends on the speed and radius of the circle.

At the poles, you're just spinning around like standing on a record player, so there's no 'radius' and the acceleration is zero. At the equator, you're moving in a big circle at a high speed and the acceleration is the largest.

There is also, of course, acceleration due to gravity.

Your weight (i.e. how hard your feet press against the ground) involves the combination of these two accelerations, so it changes (slightly) depending on where you stand on the earth. (There is also some effect from the fact that the earth isn't a perfect sphere)

This website provides a little more info.

As does Wiki.

(Oh, and also there are effects due to difference in elevation, and 'anomalies' like if a huge metal deposit is under your feet.)

 

[46AND2]

Maybe you can explain how it's come to this, a ball earth moving at breakneck speeds in multiple directions, but zero observational or experimental evidence of motion or curvature...?

As for evidence of curvature, the guy in the following video mapped a flight path (using printed maps, not a globe) where you can fly from one point, making TWO 90 degree turns, and wind up at the starting point, with each leg of the journey being equidistant. You cannot do this on a flat surface, only a sphere:

It should be noted, that you don't even have to do something like this on a big scale. In order to get 90 degree angles, each leg of the journey has to be a quarter of the circumference of the earth.

However, you can pick any three locations you want. On a flat earth, the angle between each leg will always be 60 degrees. If the earth is a sphere, the angles will be something other than 60 degrees.

 

[46AND2]

Funny.... I once asked someone, here, if the earth was a spinning ball, then weights should change as you move to the poles, as the rotation is slower... They used science to deny it and explained why, on a globe, this would not happen..

Do you have any evidence to back your belief.. I'm getting conflicting views from people trying to support the globe model?

There are other components to consider as essentialsaltes mentioned, but it is certainly measurable.

 

[Whyayeman]

Why do the flat earthers insist on this folly?

 

[d taylor]

So you believe the moon generates it's own light? I'm guessing I don't have to ask if you believe people and probes have been to the moon.

I believe the highest man has bee above the earth is about 20 miles, how ever high they can fly in an airplane or jet.

 

[Strathos]

Awe, but it does say that it sits on pillars, a foundation, will not be moved. Also that it is God's footstool.

I see those as metaphors. After all, we don't literally see God's feet up in the sky above us, do we?

 

[d taylor]

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.

Now you are just being rude. I included the scripture because it's interesting and relevant and I thought we were having a discussion, obviously not. The Bible states that the moon is the light governing the night along with the stars. Which the moon does, it gives light to the earth at night. I don't see it matters if the light it gives, is it's own light or reflected light.
Genesis tells us step by step what was created on each day, but the Bible doesn't delve into things further. What we can take from it is that God created the sun, moon and stars on day 4, anything else you take from it is conjecture.

The Hebrew word used for emit/give light in this verse ('owr) can mean both “to be or become light” and “to be illuminated or become lighted up” (Strong’s 0215)

I did not intentionally mean to come off as rude, sorry for that.

So in this photo, you would say both of these are lights, the paper ball and the incandescent light.

 

[Strathos]

If the lightbulb was blocked from the viewer by a wall or other barrier, and there was nothing but emptiness in the background, the paper ball would be the brightest thing visible.

 

[coffee4u]

Apology accepted. Christians are going to disagree, I take no issue with that if you want to believe in a flat earth and no universe? That is up to you. I do take issue with people, anybody, saying someone doesn't believe scripture just because they interpret scripture differently. Unless they are saying they don't believe Jesus rose from the dead or there are other roads to God or things like that in which case yes I would doubt if they were Christian at all. Issues like this I view it more like when the Bible says do not judge each other on days or food eaten. Side issues. I am not judging you for your belief but I do disagree with it. I have to ask do you also not believe in Australia? Only I was told sometimes that belief goes along with flat earth belief.

In the case of that photo, no, I would say only the bulb is the light because a paper ball was never designed to be a light. I see the moon as being created perfectly to do what God wanted it to do.

How do you look at that beautiful moon picture and say it isn't a round sphere?

 

[pgp_protector]

If the lightbulb was blocked from the viewer by a wall or other barrier, and there was nothing but emptiness in the background, the paper ball would be the brightest thing visible.

Would it be a light though?

 

[JacksBratt]

It's a college freshman physics level problem. An object in uniform circular motion like a planetary orbit, or motion on the surface of a spinning earth, is in constant acceleration. This acceleration depends on the speed and radius of the circle.

At the poles, you're just spinning around like standing on a record player, so there's no 'radius' and the acceleration is zero. At the equator, you're moving in a big circle at a high speed and the acceleration is the largest.

There is also, of course, acceleration due to gravity.

Your weight (i.e. how hard your feet press against the ground) involves the combination of these two accelerations, so it changes (slightly) depending on where you stand on the earth. (There is also some effect from the fact that the earth isn't a perfect sphere)

This website provides a little more info.

As does Wiki.

(Oh, and also there are effects due to difference in elevation, and 'anomalies' like if a huge metal deposit is under your feet.)

All of this makes "theoretical" simple math. However...is it an actual phenomenon? Or just more "theory" applied to nonsense. Oh, and anyone can go on and edit "Wiki". So, it's not really a valid source. It can be and then is not....

It makes sense... but... is it reality? I have argued with people that say it is not measurable.

 

[d taylor]

A simple example paper over an incandescent light produces the same effect that the moon has.