"Flat Earth" or "Globe Earth"

prodromos said:

You are the only person making reference to evolution, a theory which I wholeheartedly reject. Its strange that you would attempt to tar us with the same brush. The globe earth can be observed, evolution can't. To lump them together is a desperate attempt to discredit the fact of earth being a globe by associating it with the pseudo science of evolution.
Some people's belief in evolution has more in common with your belief in a flat earth. It is faith and not evidence based.

Click to expand...

As a scientist I would place both the Theory of Evolution and the Global Earth Theory on the same level as far as evidence is concerned. Evolution has and is being observed. It seems to me that your rejection of evolution is faith based and not evidence based.

.

Tell me Jack, as a mathematician, would you agree that if the earth is flat then the horizon will always be at eye level no matter what your elevation?

As a scientist, what would you conclude given that using a water level demonstrates that the horizon is always below eye level, and the perceived distance below eye level increases with the elevation you view from?

prodromos said:

Ironic that you describe perfectly the attitude of flat earthers.

Click to expand...

But not ironic you don't see how you conform to it.

prodromos said:

Thank you. I needed a good laugh

Click to expand...

You deserve one as you provide so many.

d taylor said:

A globe earth in an unending outer space with stars that are actually suns trillions + miles away that allows for a big bag and all the other science ideas, makes evolution possible.

Click to expand...

Denying God sets fantasy free for math & logic to follow anywhere a wicked heart desires.

prodromos said:

Ironic that you describe perfectly the attitude of flat earthers.

Click to expand...

No doubt there are plenty of other flat earthers out there who know firsthand the frustration of the antics of the brainwashed ballers who choose over and over to stew in their own ignorance.

SPF said:

I don't see where in Scripture it teaches what I was asking. Can you enlighten me?
It's uncharitable comments like this that really make you look ugly inside. I wholeheartedly believe Scripture is the inspired Word of God. I just happen to believe that you're uneducated and don't know the first thing about hermeneutics. But I wouldn't accuse you of not believing that Scripture is the true inspired word of God.

Click to expand...

You have no standing to be accusing as you are plenty guilty yourself.
You have much to learn about charity, "SPF".

SPF said:

I’m curious if someone in the FE camp can enlighten me on what the reigning theory is on what exactly the dome is made of? Is it only water? If so, how is it staying above us?

and how high is the dome supposed to be?

Click to expand...

It's solid. Scripture doesn't say what it's made of or how high it is. We know it's fastened to the Earth somewhere and that it cannot be measured by us. It does seem to indicate that the top is the emerald sea of stone the Throne itself sits on, which would make the instances of when He states the Earth is His footstool, something far more literal than we've ever realized.

SeventyOne said:

No doubt there are plenty of other flat earthers out there who know firsthand the frustration of the antics of the brainwashed ballers who choose over and over to stew in their own ignorance.

Click to expand...

Yep.
Getting back to the topic...
I have experienced personaly views that curve shouldn't allow.
But the biggest thing in favor of a ball (for me right now) is how the continents fit so perfectly together in the models of an expanding globe.
Have you seen that?

SeventyOne said:

It's solid. Scripture doesn't say what it's made of or how high it is. We know it's fastened to the Earth somewhere and that it cannot be measured by us. It does seem to indicate that the top is the emerald sea of stone the Throne itself sits on, which would make the instances of when He states the Earth is His footstool, something far more literal than we've ever realized.

Click to expand...

Not sure myself, but electo-magnetism is probably the anchoring force & the shield that a force field could possibly provide would be effective without it requiring any solid mass.

Rick Otto said:

Yep.
Getting back to the topic...
I have experienced personaly views that curve shouldn't allow.

Click to expand...

There's a lot of that going around. You should check out some of the work people are doing with infrared devices. People like 'JTolan Media 1' are picking us the bases of mountains where the calculations dictate the top should be behind the curve by significant amounts.

But the biggest thing in favor of a ball (for me right now) is how the continents fit so perfectly together in the models of an expanding globe.
Have you seen that?

Click to expand...

A problem is that this phenomenon has only been presented to us with the assumption that we are on a globe, but not really yet considered how it might come across from the more accurate aspect of the flat earth, at least not that I've seen personally. Unfortunately, the current science-like guess isn't going to help anything but muddy the waters.

Rick Otto said:

But not ironic you don't see how you conform to it.

Click to expand...

Where have I done so?

Rick Otto said:

Not sure myself, but electo-magnetism is probably the anchoring force & the shield that a force field could possibly provide would be effective without it requiring any solid mass.

Click to expand...

Definitely electromagnetic, not gravitational. Scripture states the firmament is hard like molten glass, it also states it is anchored to the earth and in numerous places it talks about the earth being shaken when the heavens are shaken, as they are attached to each other. We are told there were waters above when the floodgates were opened to cover the earth. He wasn't dunking a ball, He was filling a tub. And we are told in the Psalms that there are still waters sitting above the firmament.

We are also told the sun, moon, and stars are placed within this solid firmament. So, wherever the top is, it's somewhere above that. That also means the lie that the stars are massive and trillions/quadrillions of miles away can be immediately dismissed. They are small and far more local. References like Enoch 80 tell us that in the end, the true nature of the stars will be hidden from sinners, they will go astray and be overtaken by evil. Without this understanding there the foundational lie of the globe earth has spawned many other lies, including evolution, aliens, and transhumanism. And these lies have led billions astray for numerous generations now.

SeventyOne said:

There's a lot of that going around. You should check out some of the work people are doing with infrared devices. People like 'JTolan Media 1' are picking us the bases of mountains where the calculations dictate the top should be behind the curve by significant amounts.




A problem is that this phenomenon has only been presented to us with the assumption that we are on a globe, but not really yet considered how it might come across from the more accurate aspect of the flat earth, at least not that I've seen personally. Unfortunately, the current science-like guess isn't going to help anything but muddy the waters.

Click to expand...

prodromos said:

Tell me Jack, as a mathematician, would you agree that if the earth is flat then the horizon will always be at eye level no matter what your elevation?

As a scientist, what would you conclude given that using a water level demonstrates that the horizon is always below eye level, and the perceived distance below eye level increases with the elevation you view from?

Click to expand...

Flat or globular the horizon is always below eye level but the eye is fooled into thinking it at eye level.

Lost4words said:

Click to expand...

Thanks. I promise to give this video the same amount of consideration and respect as the videos I've posted here in the past have received from the ballers.

SeventyOne said:

Thanks. I promise to give this video the same amount of consideration and respect as the videos I've posted here in the past have received from the ballers.

Click to expand...

That's good to hear 71! I try to watch most of the videos posted and appreciate that you'll give that 4 minute video a watch.

I watched it, and unfortunately for the FE camp, I think he did a good job of discrediting that 1 specific claim. Do you or does anyone in the FE camp see any problems with what he demonstrated?

Again, all I would say about this video is that it discredits that 1 specific example.

SPF said:

That's good to hear 71! I try to watch most of the videos posted and appreciate that you'll give that 4 minute video a watch.

I watched it, and unfortunately for the FE camp, I think he did a good job of discrediting that 1 specific claim. Do you or does anyone in the FE camp see any problems with what he demonstrated?

Again, all I would say about this video is that it discredits that 1 specific example.

Click to expand...

Are you new here? If I'm to remain faithful to my experience, step one will be first to criticize how stupid and lazy ballers are for using YouTube to prove their case. The second step would be to criticize YouTube itself as a source of truth and mention how only little children would ever believe such a thing. The third step would be to criticize the baller for personally being too lazy to go out and do the experiment for themselves, instead of relying on an 'obvious shill' to talk for them. Step four is to wait for people who also think the way I do to pile on a bit with their own derogatory insults about the mental capacity of the poster and enjoy the subsequent 'likes' and 'agrees' at the bottom of my posts which I would assume validates my opinion.

There are more steps, but I don't want to get too ahead of myself.

SeventyOne said:

Are you new here? If I'm to remain faithful to my experience, step one will be first to criticize how stupid and lazy ballers are for using YouTube to prove their case. The second step would be to criticize YouTube itself as a source of truth and mention how only little children would ever believe such a thing. The third step would be to criticize the baller for personally being too lazy to go out and do the experiment for themselves, instead of relying on an 'obvious shill' to talk for them. Step four is to wait for people who also think the way I do to pile on a bit with their own derogatory insults about the mental capacity of the poster and enjoy the subsequent 'likes' and 'agrees' at the bottom of my posts which I would assume validates my opinion.

There are more steps, but I don't want to get too ahead of myself.

Click to expand...

I guess this is your way of saying you won't spend the 4 minutes it'll take to watch the video and see his credible critique of an infrared photo posted as proof for the FE.

Given that this video from what I can see does a pretty honest and accurate job of discrediting the photo, I unfortunately find myself depressingly not surprised that you either A)refuse to watch it yourself or B)Probably did watch it, but won't comment on it since it does actually discredit this one specific photo example.

I would appreciate your thoughts on the video as an FE proponent. Is there something he missed that I should be aware of?

This seems to be one instance where the photograph itself is not in question, and is accepted as genuine. It's the interpretation and understanding of what the photo shows that's in question. I would love your input if you're willing to do more than just ramble insults.