Dismiss Notice

Welcome to Christian Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
  • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
  • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting after you have posted 20 posts and have received 5 likes.
  • Access to private conversations with other members.
  • Less Advertisements! Members see fewer ads and have the option to upgrade their account to ad free!

We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Featured A flat earth, and Noah's Ark.

Discussion in 'Christian Philosophy & Ethics' started by Kenneth Redden, Jan 1, 2017.

  1. JackRT

    JackRT I'm on the left.

    Messages:
    4,247
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings:
    +3,970
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    United Church of Canada
    Any theory that makes any sort of pretense to be scientific must also make predictions that if shown to be false would invalidate the theory. For example when we in northern countries observe the night sky we see the stars moving in a circle around the pole star (Polaris or the North Star). For us this rotation is clockwise. However people in southern countries cannot even see the pole star but they do observe a counterclockwise rotation. If our world is flat then the stars will revolve around it all in the same direction at every point on the surface because wherever you are on the surface you are always looking at the same stars. Australians observe the stars rotating in an opposite direction to Canadians, hence the flat earth theory is invalidated.
     
  2. JacksBratt

    JacksBratt Just a Brat

    Messages:
    3,832
    Ratings:
    +742
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Protestant
    The problem is, if the world is flat, then the globe model is wrong, then the globe representation as a map is wrong and is distorted.

    And, conversely, if the earth is a globe, then the representation of such, on a flat piece of paper is impossible without distortion.

    The thing is, you argument assumes that the globe is the truth, thus the flat representation is wrong. Your evidence is based on your conclusion being right.

    Your evidence is not determining your conclusion. Your conclusion is fabricating the evidence.

    The flat earth does the same thing.

    I asked another poster if they could show me an experiment that anyone can do, to prove that the earth is a globe.

    Can you?
     
  3. JackRT

    JackRT I'm on the left.

    Messages:
    4,247
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings:
    +3,970
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    United Church of Canada
    In the post previous to yours I disproved flat earth theory. The only way the different observed rotation of the stars in the north and south can be explained is by a spherical rotating earth.
     
  4. JacksBratt

    JacksBratt Just a Brat

    Messages:
    3,832
    Ratings:
    +742
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Protestant
    This simple proof of yours is one of the biggest misconceptions of the globe earth "evidence". This is one reason that I question, not that the earth is a globe, but that they have the size all wrong.

    In your test, above, you say to turn 180 degrees and fly straight up until you see the entire object again.

    What if you don't have to fly up to see it? What if it is still there even if the calculated curve of the earth should be greater than the height of the object, yet you can still see it?

    We have gone over this before. The curve of the earth is, for all intents and purposes of our argument, 8 inches of curve for one mile of distance from the observer.

    So, the first mile is an 8 inch drop. The second, however, due to the spherical shape of the surface of, say, the ocean, is 32 inches. The formula for the curve is the number of miles, squared, multiplied 8 inches. Charts for this are posted all over the internet and all agree.

    So, at 50 miles the curve would place an object 1600 feet below the visible line of site. 30 miles would be obscured by 600 feet. 100 miles would put an object 6600 feet below the horizon.

    However, there are observable structures, recorded in many places, observed without refute and over many years and accepted as truth, that are absolutely proven to be visible on any clear day, on numerous occasions by many people and accepted as being visible..........Yet they should be impossible to see due to the curve of the earth.

    There are also examples where a person on shore has observed a ship or boat heading away from them on a large body of water and being observed to disappear over the horizon. However, with a telescope or camera with a telescopic lens, the object can still be viewed in perfect, un distorted detail.

    Like I said, this phenomena, being impossible with the earth as it is being presented by science and believed by all sane people, proves that:

    The earth is either, not a globe, sphere or does not have any curve at all..... or.... the curve of this globe earth is much less than what they are saying.

    In short, the earth is either flat, or a much much bigger globe.

    You cannot deny it. Unless you state that the light bends around the curve, which would mean the sun's light should be visible long after sunset as it's light would also bend around the curve and be just as visible as a far off light house that should be concealed by the curve.

    They have also done laser tests to prove that, over large distances the surface of the ocean or any body of water is not curved. Unless the lasar bends with it.
     
  5. JackRT

    JackRT I'm on the left.

    Messages:
    4,247
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings:
    +3,970
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    United Church of Canada
    It is not as simple as either/or. There could be other factors operating. One I have mentioned is the lensing effect of the atmosphere particularly over water. At the moment all I can do is make that suggestion, I will have to study the physics of it.
     
  6. JackRT

    JackRT I'm on the left.

    Messages:
    4,247
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings:
    +3,970
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    United Church of Canada
    I did find this in Wikipedia:

    So the atmosphere does produce 'lensing effects" particularly near the horizon.



     
  7. squirrel123

    squirrel123 Active Member

    Messages:
    242
    Gender:
    Female
    Ratings:
    +276
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Methodist
    I did. Do I have to spell it out?

    Find a model globe and a few different maps. Measure the distances between various cities in various countries with a piece of string and a ruler.

    Which set of measurements matched reality?

    Remember that the correct distances are easily verified online - and no, those distances aren't part of the cover up - it would be way too easily proven wrong by people who actually travel.
     
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2017
  8. squirrel123

    squirrel123 Active Member

    Messages:
    242
    Gender:
    Female
    Ratings:
    +276
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Methodist
  9. Searril

    Searril Newbie

    Messages:
    1
    Ratings:
    +2
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Christian
    I see posts like some of the posts in this thread on various forums and websites around the internet. Not trying to be harsh here, but these kinds of things are what immediately turn people off to even a consideration of the bible. When people insist on things like a global flood or one of every animal from the entire earth on the ark or a flat earth and the like all you're doing is making the bible out to be ridiculous and therefore turning off a huge amount of people to the message.
     
  10. JacksBratt

    JacksBratt Just a Brat

    Messages:
    3,832
    Ratings:
    +742
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Protestant
    The bolded word above "reality" is the variable. If the world is flat, then the distances cannot be bent into a globe. If the world is a sphere then the distances cannot be splayed into a flat piece of paper.

    However, it all depends on what you start with. You must assume that the world is a sphere to have all the measurements align with the globe model. If you start with a Flat earth model then those measurements will be conducive to that original model.

    Starting at the improper point of origin, idea or belief and correctly following the directions will still have you arrive at the wrong place or give you the wrong answers.

    Check it out.....surveyors never account for the curve of the earth or make allowance for the distortion that would need to be applied if the earth was a globe, when building a canal, railway, bridge or anything.... just ask them.
     
  11. JacksBratt

    JacksBratt Just a Brat

    Messages:
    3,832
    Ratings:
    +742
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Protestant
    Whenever I read about an observable and repeatable fact regarding this phenomena... I always get "it's an optical illusion" of some sort of "refraction" , "lensing" or some other uncomprehendable scientific event that is fooling everyone.

    Someone can go to a seashore, see an object that should be thousands of feet over the curve of the horizon and it's explained away by "illusion". Yet, it happens in numerous places, under numerous conditions and has been happening for years.

    However, tell someone that the ship disappearing, as it goes over the curve of the earth, is distortion of the light at the transverse line between sky and water, while the ship is still visible when viewed through a telescope... is never accepted.

    I have looked into the rotation of the stars at the different poles and I get the same "spin" LOL from both camps here. It seems that everything that would clear up a distinct globe or flat earth model to the average layman, is cloaked in the concepts of angles and view points and observation placement. Nobody is giving anything that I can nail down as solid explanations.....for either model.

    Do you think, just maybe, that God wanted it this way?
     
  12. JackRT

    JackRT I'm on the left.

    Messages:
    4,247
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings:
    +3,970
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    United Church of Canada
    You are completely wrong. They absolutely do take this into account. Even artillerymen take a rotating spherical earth into account when firing long range high angle weapons like the M777 i55 mm gun. If they aimed directly at the target the earth would have already rotated the target away from the point of aim by the time the round arrives.
     
  13. squirrel123

    squirrel123 Active Member

    Messages:
    242
    Gender:
    Female
    Ratings:
    +276
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Methodist
    Are you being deliberately obtuse?

    My point of origin is real distances between real cities, as verified on a daily basis by hundreds of thousands of international and domestic travellers - real people, at least some of whom aren't stupid.

    I demonstrated earlier in this thread how distorted the most common flat earth map is by simply testing the possibility of flying between Perth and Johannesburg in the common time. Don't you think someone would notice if that flight took three times the advertised time?

    Your kind of argument could have stood up a few decades ago. International air travel has completely invalidated it.
     
  14. JacksBratt

    JacksBratt Just a Brat

    Messages:
    3,832
    Ratings:
    +742
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Protestant
    Yep, saw a whole section on the rotation of the earth affecting the trajectory of a bullet from a sniper rifle. Again, it was refuted by a person of opposite view.

    Like I said, the experts on each side have all the answers for the questions put to them by the other.

    Why does this affect a bullet, after it leaves the muzzle but has no affect on an airplane, when it is also off the ground?

    I saw a whole video, by an engineer, on why an airplane should not be able to fly and land due to this affect of the rotation of the earth. Only to have it refuted by another expert who's points and explanation of this view would negate the affect on a bullet..

    It just goes in circles... Like I said, maybe God wants it to be ambiguous. Since it really has no affect on Christianity or salvation, I'm not too concerned.

    It is interesting to investigate and listening to both sides banter about what is scientific fact and how it proves each of their views.
     
  15. RBPerry

    RBPerry Christian Baby Boomer Supporter

    Messages:
    326
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings:
    +75
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Politics:
    US-Others
    Faith:
    Non-Denominational
    The issue isn't what I or anyone else believes, it is what makes sense and what doesn't. You need to look for the spiritual messages in the bible, not the literal. One doesn't need to believe the bible is infallible to believe in Christ, and the way of salvation. I can give you some real problematic issues in the bible, but that doesn't mean it isn't true. We must remember humans wrote the bible, and yes they were inspired by God, and the Holy Spirit. We also must remember what the first church did with it.
    Tell me this, who wrote Genesis, and Exodus?

    There are many truths in the bible, and Jesus let us know what He expected of us, and how we are to live our lives. I believe he detested the Jewish rituals, and rules, because His message to us is quite different that what we see in the old testament. That is why the Gnostics didn't believe that the god of the Old Testament, was the same as the god of the new testament, I'm not endorsing their beliefs, I'm just saying there was much controversy about what should and shouldn't be in our cannon. The Catholic bible wasn't ratified until the 16th century, and if it hadn't been for the reformation I believe they still would have been fighting over what should and shouldn't be in the bible.
     
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2017
  16. Paul Yohannan

    Paul Yohannan Cyber Janitor and Thread-Cleaner Extraordinaire Staff Member Moderator Trainee Supporter

    Messages:
    3,643
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings:
    +1,429
    Marital Status:
    Private
    Politics:
    US-Republican
    Faith:
    Oriental Orthodox
    Photos Neil Armstrong on the Moon
     
  17. Paul Yohannan

    Paul Yohannan Cyber Janitor and Thread-Cleaner Extraordinaire Staff Member Moderator Trainee Supporter

    Messages:
    3,643
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings:
    +1,429
    Marital Status:
    Private
    Politics:
    US-Republican
    Faith:
    Oriental Orthodox
    Yes. Which we have been over ad nauseum.
     
  18. JacksBratt

    JacksBratt Just a Brat

    Messages:
    3,832
    Ratings:
    +742
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Protestant
    So.. talking snake make sense?
    Talking donkey make sense?
    Sun and moon stopping in the sky, make sense?
    Virgin, having baby, Make sense?

    I understand what you are saying but we are treading on dangerous ground if we go by "what makes sense" as any atheist will argue..nothing makes sense.


    They believe it was Moses and that much of it was dictated by God Himself.

    It's fine for me to say that the Bible is the word of God and all I have to believe is that Jesus was God and is my savior. However, when bringing this message to others, you are going to run into trouble if you start saying that you have to figure out for yourself, what is truth and what is metaphor and what is not....
    Following your heart, flying by what you're feeling..... not good when it comes to dealing with the will of God and what the Bible says.
     
  19. JacksBratt

    JacksBratt Just a Brat

    Messages:
    3,832
    Ratings:
    +742
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Protestant
  20. JacksBratt

    JacksBratt Just a Brat

    Messages:
    3,832
    Ratings:
    +742
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Protestant
    Who snapped this picture?

    [​IMG]

    Or, who got the film from the camera to get this image back to earth?

    [​IMG]

    As a fact, this is a freeze frame of a video in which the camera pans up as the lunar module blasts off.... how?

    Another impossible picture below. The picture above is correct as to how they leave the moon in the lunar module. Below is how they land. Who, again, was taking all these pictures of the lunar lander........landing?

    [​IMG]

    Anyway, there are whole presentations on the holes in this story. I believe it will be one of the next "conspiracy theories" to be exposed as total hoaxes.