A question for flat earth people

[JackRT]

All smoke and mirrors and math equations that only mean something to a handful of people.

A bird.... can take off from the ground and fly so high that I can barely see it... What is keeping it from continuing to keep going. Only the lack of O2 and thinning air that won't allow them to fly... Nothing at all to do with velocity... nothing...

Everything to do with velocity. Sorry to shatter your illusions. All that smoke and mirrors and math equations actually work. Those Laws of gravity and motion pioneered by Newton 400 years ago have taken us into orbit, to the moon and back and have sent probes to every planet and beyond. The true test of science is "does it work?" Well, it works just fine.

 

[JacksBratt]

Someone with an open mind sees something happening in the natural world and thinks deeply about it. After long thought she comes up with a "I think it might have happened like this." This is what is called an hypothesis --- it might also be called an "educated guess". This forms the basis for further observation and experiment. After time the hypothesis looks better and better and begins to be regarded as a theory but not quite. A good theory must be falsifiable. So after some further thought about her theory she uses it to make a prediction about something that has never been observed before. This will be the basis of a brand new experiment. If the prediction is falsified, the theory will either have to be modified or rejected outright. This has happened many times in science. If the prediction is confirmed by the experiment then we now have a solid theory. This does not mean that it is set in stone because this process of prediction, experiment and confirmation will continue. A theory can never be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt because in science it is impossible to know absolutely everything about anything. However a theory can be disproven because there always remains the possibility that at some point in time something will be observed that will negate the theory. So, in short, in science theory is as good as it gets.

Very good...

Now tell me why the, at least three, experiments that were designed to prove that we were spinning and moving... came up with no evidence for any movement or rotation... but we ignore them?

In fact, one in particular, not only proved that we don't move.. but the stars move.

If you don't know about these.. then... you must realize that they have been kept from you for some reason. Should you not question why you don't know about them?

 

[A_Thinker]

Understood. But... the bible states that:

2 Timothy 3:16-17 King James Version (KJV)
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

If some men and women in white lab coats come up with something that contradicts the Biblical truth... I'm going to go with the bible.

Why?.... because..... "let God be true and every man a liar".... and....God will make those who proclaim to be wise... to be fools"...

So, when you say "Perhaps not meant for scientific knowledge" I'll say...it is still the word of God and it is what I build my house on... not on the sand , read "words and wisdom of men".

The way the bible is written... it is pretty simple to know when it is waxing poetic and when it is telling the plain old truth.

Many want Genesis to be poetry or allegory... there is no indication or reason for it to be such.... other than the simple fact that atheistic, evolutionists have told us that it is not scientific.

I note that the 2 Timothy passage (of which I am quite familiar) says nothing about scientific knowledge.

"is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: ... "

I'll make an educated guess and say that you really don't base all of your scientific thought on the poetic passages of the Bible.

Would that be a true statement or not ???

 

[A_Thinker]

Very good...

Now tell me why the, at least three, experiments that were designed to prove that we were spinning and moving... came up with no evidence for any movement or rotation... but we ignore them?

In fact, one in particular, not only proved that we don't move.. but the stars move.

If you don't know about these.. then... you must realize that they have been kept from you for some reason. Should you not question why you don't know about them?

Perhaps the first question should be ... from WHOM are you getting these claims ... and what is their scientific credibility?

The answers to those questions may well make the rest of your assertions moot ...

 

[Tom 1]

Someone with an open mind sees something happening in the natural world and thinks deeply about it. After long thought she comes up with a "I think it might have happened like this." This is what is called an hypothesis --- it might also be called an "educated guess". This forms the basis for further observation and experiment. After time the hypothesis looks better and better and begins to be regarded as a theory but not quite. A good theory must be falsifiable. So after some further thought about her theory she uses it to make a prediction about something that has never been observed before. This will be the basis of a brand new experiment. If the prediction is falsified, the theory will either have to be modified or rejected outright. This has happened many times in science. If the prediction is confirmed by the experiment then we now have a solid theory. This does not mean that it is set in stone because this process of prediction, experiment and confirmation will continue. A theory can never be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt because in science it is impossible to know absolutely everything about anything. However a theory can be disproven because there always remains the possibility that at some point in time something will be observed that will negate the theory. So, in short, in science theory is as good as it gets.

Thanks. I think believers can sometimes be baffled by the idea that someone can be sincere, and have integrity, and yet not arrive at a belief in God. Sometimes Darwin for example gets a bashing as having come up with his theory with some sort of evil and malicious intent. Looking at the little I’ve read from his journals and other writing it’s evident that he sincerely battled with what he understood about the bible and what his observations were telling him. To my mind he was arguing internally against a kind of religious straw man version of God, but that’s just what I think. Or Bertrand Russell - his arguments in ‘why I am not a Christian’ make complete sense within his own way of thinking. When writing about Augustine in history of philosophy he clearly admires Augustine as a philosopher but is utterly baffled by his religious beliefs. Sometimes Christians look at that kind of thing and assume some sort of devious intent.

 

[A_Thinker]

Being that I am not a FE'er... I can still understand their point of view...
Gravity is not understood... the FE doesn't need it and the globe depends on it.

If the earth is a ball... then why would gravity not just be GOD....

The Flat Earth theory does need a force very much like it. Without such a thing, ... what holds us (and everything else) to the surface of the earth ???

Why ... when you throw a ball UP into the air ... does it eventually change direction and begin to come DOWN ???

P.S. Of course, God holds all things together. But there is evidence that He, in most cases, incorporates SYSTEMS and PROCESSES, through which He accomplishes His will.

And I wouldn't argue that God is not the SOURCE of gravity, ... but, as a CONSISTENT feature of life on Earth, ... the force which we call gravity is certainly in undeniable existence.

 

[Chinchilla]

That sounds pretty poetic ...

Why would he compare air to something solid

 

[Tom 1]

Right ... we'll just assume that the universe works like your vacuum cleaner.

If space is a vacuum then why doesn't it suck in all the air from Earth's atmosphere? Actually, the answer to this is interesting.

While gravity is most certainly a real thing, the answer to this question is not “because gravity is stronger”.

The actual answer is that the vacuum of space does not exert any force on the atmosphere at all. It does not “suck” the air. We associate the word “suck” with “vacuums” but it’s a misnomer. That’s not what vacuums do.

Consider an example where we’ve pumped all of the air out of some airtight container and created a vacuum inside of it. Let’s say we’re on Earth, at sea level, and we poke a hole in the container. What will happen?

Air will rush into the container and fill it. Okay. But why did it do that? Was it because the vacuum sucked the air into the container? No.

What’s actually happening there is that the air pressure around the container is forcing air into the space with no pressure. The air that fills the container is being pushed by air pressure into the empty space.

Vacuums never “suck” air. What they do is present an empty space and then air pressure forces the air into the vacuum.

Air pressure is not uniform throughout the atmosphere. The lower the altitude, the higher the air pressure; thus, as you move higher, the air pressure decreases. In fact, at the upper limits of the atmosphere, the air pressure reduces to basically nil.

And since there’s no real air pressure to speak of up there, then there is no force pushing the air into the empty space.

Now, this doesn’t mean gravity isn’t at work here. In fact, gravity is the reason we have air pressure in the first place. Gravity pulls on the atmosphere, compressing it, and creating pressure.

If we could magically turn off gravity then the atmosphere would be released from that compression and spring away from the Earth.

So, at the root of it, gravity keeps the most highly pressurized atmosphere near the surface. When our very thin outer atmosphere intercepts the vacuum of space, there is very little air pressure to push into that vacuum.

Reminds me of something I was trying to remember earlier and couldn’t, about the relative air pressure between the lungs and outside of the body at high altitude. I read up on it before doing a high altitude hike, it’s a similar thing to what you describe about the movement of gases at the edge of the atmosphere, i.e when you go above around 3,500m air pressure starts to drop off meaning that air no longer rushes into your lungs when they are extended by your diaphragm, so, as you get higher you need to make a conscious effort to suck more air in.

 

[Tom 1]

Why would he compare air to something solid

Poetic language is visual language - the writer is using what, in the familiar terminology of his place and time, seemed an effective visual metaphor. What would be the reason to read some sort of hidden scientific message into the text?

 

[Chinchilla]

Poetic language is visual language - the writer is using what, in the familiar terminology of his place and time, seemed an effective visual metaphor. What would be the reason to read some sort of hidden scientific message into the text?

Well I'm not I simply read what is says .

How about this ? Job 9:6

 

[Tom 1]

Well I'm not I simply read what is says .

How about this ? Job 9:6

Anyone who reads anything is interpreting it. That’s simply how it works - whenever anyone reads a passage from the bible (or a cf forum post) it is interpreted according to what is in that person’s brain - all of their knowledge, experience, influences and perceptions. Your example doesn’t strengthen your argument - I’ve included the previous verse to make the point -
“He moves mountains without their knowing it and overturns them in his anger. He shakes the earth from its place and makes its pillars tremble.”
‭‭Job‬ ‭9:5-6‬ ‭NIV‬‬
http://bible.com/111/job.9.5-6.niv

Do mountains ‘know’ if they are being moved or not? Does the earth have pillars?

 

[A_Thinker]

Well I'm not I simply read what is says .

How about this ? Job 9:6

This seems to speaks of earthquakes.

Is it your interpretation that the Earth rests upon pillars ?

 

[JacksBratt]

Everything to do with velocity. Sorry to shatter your illusions. All that smoke and mirrors and math equations actually work. Those Laws of gravity and motion pioneered by Newton 400 years ago have taken us into orbit, to the moon and back and have sent probes to every planet and beyond. The true test of science is "does it work?" Well, it works just fine.

So, at what point is this "velocity" necessary? Like I said, a bird can fly so high that I can barely see it.. What is to stop it from continuing... up and up and up.. at way less than this mystic velocity.

I guess, when it gets way up there, it will have stronger and stronger forces impeding it's gaining of altitude?

 

[Chinchilla]

This seems to speaks of earthquakes.

Is it your interpretation that the Earth rests upon pillars ?

How about this one Psalms 104:5

 

[Chinchilla]

Anyone who reads anything is interpreting it. That’s simply how it works - whenever anyone reads a passage from the bible (or a cf forum post) it is interpreted according to what is in that person’s brain - all of their knowledge, experience, influences and perceptions. Your example doesn’t strengthen your argument - I’ve included the previous verse to make the point -
“He moves mountains without their knowing it and overturns them in his anger. He shakes the earth from its place and makes its pillars tremble.”
‭‭Job‬ ‭9:5-6‬ ‭NIV‬‬
http://bible.com/111/job.9.5-6.niv

Do mountains ‘know’ if they are being moved or not? Does the earth have pillars?

Is a star angel or ball of hydrogen ?
Revelation 9:1
“And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit.”
Matthew 2:9
“When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.”

 

[JacksBratt]

I note that the 2 Timothy passage (of which I am quite familiar) says nothing about scientific knowledge.

"is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: ... "

I'll make an educated guess and say that you really don't base all of your scientific thought on the poetic passages of the Bible.

Would that be a true statement or not ???

I would have to look into that... Like I said, it is quite obvious when the bible is being poetic or a parable...

Could you help me out by showing me a scientific based portion of the bible that is written as poetry?

 

[JacksBratt]

Perhaps the first question should be ... from WHOM are you getting these claims ... and what is their scientific credibility?

The answers to those questions may well make the rest of your assertions moot ...

LOL, these are very credible scientists... look it up.. There is a reason you have not heard about them and it's not due to the credibility of them or their work.

It's good, however, that you are in line with the most common retort to evidence contrary to academia.... that being.. discredit the person...not... investigating the evidence.

 

[Tom 1]

Is a star angel or ball of hydrogen ?
Revelation 9:1
“And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit.”
Matthew 2:9
“When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.”

What do you think? To my mind the basic principle is about taking the time to look at each passage, book, part of the bible in its own context. Anyone can do it. I think it’s a mistake just to pick it up, read it, and assume that whatever you (or anyone else) happens to think is the only ‘correct’ interpretation.

 

[JacksBratt]

The Flat Earth theory does need a force very much like it. Without such a thing, ... what holds us (and everything else) to the surface of the earth ???

See... you are thinking in your globe trained mind... Until the globe.. there was no need to have anything "hold us down". Not until we started spinning on an earth where people on one side were upside down to those on the other side... this posed a problem. Gravity fixed it.

Why ... when you throw a ball UP into the air ... does it eventually change direction and begin to come DOWN ???

Maybe because it's heavier than the air molecules around it? IDK... I'm just saying that a bird comes nowhere close to an "escape velocity" yet flies super high.

 

[Tom 1]

See... you are thinking in your globe trained mind... Until the globe.. there was no need to have anything "hold us down". Not until we started spinning on an earth where people on one side were upside down to those on the other side... this posed a problem. Gravity fixed it.

What would keep people from falling or floating off a flat earth? What would determine which side is up and which side down, and in relation to what?