Absolute proof.. can't deny.. the earth is flat

[Shrewd Manager]

The truth is not cultish.

Of course not, but believing in things without proof scriptural or scientific, certainly is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Practically speaking, the earth is flat, at least where I'm standing. But even the ancients knew that the earth was a sphere.

And disbelieving something is not refuting it. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that Noah was real and the flood was world wide.

Practically speaking, the earth is flat, at least where I'm standing. But even the ancients knew that the earth was a sphere.

And disbelieving something is not refuting it. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that Noah was real and the flood was world wide.

How do you know what the ancients thought? They may have known that it was a sphere, but you would need to support that claim. From what I remember quite a few were thought to believe in a Flat Earth.

And no, there is no scientific evidence, and that is the sort that you need, for Noah's Flood. All of the scientific evidence tells us that it never happened. The odds are that you do not understand the concept of evidence.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Of course not, but believing in things without proof scriptural or scientific, certainly is.

I am confused. Are you saying that believing the earth to be round is cultish?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am confused. Are you saying that believing the earth to be round is cultish?

Ironically that is the way that it appears. The person with a cultish belief is accusing you of being cultish.

The problem may have been how you stated that nothing would convince you that the Earth was not a sphere. You should have told him that all of the scientific evidence tells us that it is a sphere. There is no reliable evidence that the Earth is flat.

 

[Aussie Pete]

How do you know what the ancients thought? They may have known that it was a sphere, but you would need to support that claim. From what I remember quite a few were thought to believe in a Flat Earth.

And no, there is no scientific evidence, and that is the sort that you need, for Noah's Flood. All of the scientific evidence tells us that it never happened. The odds are that you do not understand the concept of evidence.

There are written records. Greece was a naval power. Simple observations of ships coming over the horizon demonstrate that the earth is curved. I've seen that myself. I was in the Navy.

The Greeks were intelligent, educated and we still use their mathematics. Erasthones devised a method to calculate the circumference of the earth. He was about 900 miles out, pretty good considering the tools he had to work with.

Science has refuted nothing with respect to Noah's Ark and the world wide flood. "I don't believe it and I'm a scientist" is not refutation.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Ironically that is the way that it appears. The person with a cultish belief is accusing you of being cultish.

The problem may have been how you stated that nothing would convince you that the Earth was not a sphere. You should have told him that all of the scientific evidence tells us that it is a sphere. There is no reliable evidence that the Earth is flat.

I think my brain is about to melt down.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think my brain is about to melt down.

You should try to understand the concept of evidence. You could build up your strength from there. Your belief that the Earth is a sphere is valid. You just do not know how to express that belief properly.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

I am confused. Are you saying that believing the earth to be round is cultish?

Certainly, if you can't 'show me the curve', Biblically or empirically.

And, because we know its absolutely not in the Bible, falling back on observation and experiment, which are the best proofs, do you say, of GE?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Certainly, if you can't 'show me the curve', Biblically or empirically.

And, because we know its absolutely not in the Bible, falling back on observation and experiment, which are the best proofs, do you say, of GE?

Do you understand the the Earth is very large and that showing the curve can be rather difficult. There is other clear evidence for the fact that the Earth is a globe. There is no scientific evidence for a Flat Earth. You probably do not even understand the concept of evidence.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Do you understand the the Earth is very large and that showing the curve can be rather difficult. There is other clear evidence for the fact that the Earth is a globe. There is no scientific evidence for a Flat Earth. You probably do not even understand the concept of evidence.

Those sure are some sweeping claims, you seem to be saying (a) it's too hard to physically prove earth curve, yet (b) there's no evidence it's flat.

So without evidence of curvature, why is the default position not planar? Certainly all the great navigators, explorers and surveyors of history were happy to proceed on this basis. Not good enough for you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Those sure are some sweeping claims, you seem to be saying (a) it's too hard to physically prove earth curve, yet (b) there's no evidence it's flat.

So without evidence of curvature, why is the default position not planar? Certainly all the great navigators, explorers and surveyors of history were happy to proceed on this basis. Not good enough for you?

I did not say that or imply that. Where did you get that crazy idea from? In fact I told you that there was other evidence for the spherical Earth. Of course there are the photos from NASA, you will improperly claim that they are fake, even though you have no evidence for it. And using quote mining is not evidence. That is just to forestall a possible lame attempt at denial.

You should learn what evidence is. It is not that hard of a concept to understand. Scientists have to be honest so there is a very clear definition of what scientific evidence is. Read my sig for the definition.

To even have scientific evidence one first needs a testable hypothesis. You need to be bold enough to put your money where your mouth is. If your beliefs are true you should be able to come up with a model that can possibly be shown to be wrong.

So, what reasonable test could possibly show that your version of the Flat Earth is wrong? If you answer "there is no such test" then you have admitted to reasoning irrationally and not having any scientific evidence for your beliefs.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

I did not say that or imply that.

showing the curve can be rather difficult.

My apologies if I misunderstood you to be suggesting it's too hard to show curve.

Of course there are the photos from NASA,

All I need to say is they're unverified. But I'll add that there are many examples of digital manipulation in these pics, substantial variation between them, and surprisingly few pics overall. Oh, and digital images are easy to fake for professionals.

And using quote mining is not evidence.

Neither is parroting Nasa claims.

You should learn what evidence is.

You keep saying that. However, you first need to prove that I don't know what evidence is. Seeing as your views are by nature opinion evidence, they'll be inadmissible unless you can demonstrate you're a subject matter expert. I'll assume that you have degrees in science and law for the purposes of the exercise, and note that the weight of any opinion you give may only be determined by the cogency of its justification, including and in particular any assumptions on which it is based. Any statistical methods need to be validated against experimental data, which in turn requires a solid experimental methodology with, as you say, appropriate controls of all kinds.

If your beliefs are true you should be able to come up with a model that can possibly be shown to be wrong.

The FE model is falsifiable - just show us the predicted curve, with physical proof - observation and experiment that meets the scientific method ie is repeatable, verifiable and accounts for variables and assumptions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My apologies if I misunderstood you to be suggesting it's too hard to show curve.

It can be done. For example photographs of the power lines at Lake Pontchartrain show the curvature of the Earth.

All I need to say is they're unverified. But I'll add that there are many examples of digital manipulation in these pics, substantial variation between them, and surprisingly few pics overall. Oh, and digital images are easy to fake for professionals.

But they are verified. An inability to understand on your part does not negate that fact. And no, there is not digital manipulation of the sort that you claim. I have seen Flat Earthers complain when they do not understand perspective. For example the perspective of a globe from space will change as one changes one's distance from the globe. If one is very close one will only see a fraction of the globe. Whatever you are close to will look larger. If you have a camera and a globe of the Earth you can reproduce this. As you get further and further away you get closer and closer to seeing half of the Earth at a time.

Neither is parroting Nasa claims.

Incorrect. The evidence from NASA is still evidence. Your denial does not refute it. The burden of proof to refute it is still upon the Flat Earthers. And since they do not understand science or even simple geometry they always fail at doing so.

You keep saying that. However, you first need to prove that I don't know what evidence is. Seeing as your views are by nature opinion evidence, they'll be inadmissible unless you can demonstrate you're a subject matter expert. I'll assume that you have degrees in science and law for the purposes of the exercise, and note that the weight of any opinion you give may only be determined by the cogency of its justification, including and in particular any assumptions on which it is based. Any statistical methods need to be validated against experimental data, which in turn requires a solid experimental methodology with, as you say, appropriate controls of all kinds.

You have proven it yourself. And no, my opinions can be backed up by valid sources. That does not make them mere opinions. My opinions are also backed up by reason. Yours are not. All you have is denial. Denial is not evidence.

The FE model is falsifiable - just show us the predicted curve, with physical proof - observation and experiment that meets the scientific method ie is repeatable, verifiable and accounts for variables and assumptions.

Sorry, but you cannot base your test upon the merits of another model. Your test has to be based upon the merits of your own model. Besides that you have shown that you deny evidence when it is presented to you. That is actually a loss in a debate. When someone presents evidence to you you have to be able to show how it is wrong. Otherwise it is still evidence. So if I presented a picture of the Earth from space you would have to show how that picture is false.

But since you requested it here is a picture that clearly shows curvature of the surface of the Earth:

 

[ewq1938]

The FE model is falsifiable - just show us the predicted curve, with physical proof - observation and experiment that meets the scientific method ie is repeatable, verifiable and accounts for variables and assumptions.

Well, there are Christian pilots that have flown around the world and attest that there is no edge or ice wall or any flatness to the Earth, plus they have seen the curve of the Earth since they are up so high.

Also there is no evidence of anyone or thing falling off the supposed edge of the planet nor run into or seen this ice wall that some say is around the entire perimeter.

The only evidence of FE is based on misinterpreting a handful of OT verses and a few "experiments" that I personally don't feel is convincing like water always being flat etc. Are there even any FE believers that aren't Christians? Keep in mind I do agree with a lot of FE videos that shows NASA faking things and using green screens to make it seem like they are in zero gravity when they aren't so it's not like I accept everything certain organizations feed us.

 

[ewq1938]

But since you requested it here is a picture that clearly shows curvature of the surface of the Earth:

Eh, that actually doesn't show any surface so I think you would need a picture of actual ground. FE can just say the ground is not even under that water or the towers are different sizes. I reject FE....just showing a flaw using that pic to show a curve.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Eh, that actually doesn't show any surface so I think you would need a picture of actual ground. FE can just say the ground is not even under that water or the towers are different sizes. I reject FE....just showing a flaw using that pic to show a curve.

You have to be kidding. The water is a surface. Why would you need a picture of the ground? Flat Earthers always try to claim that the bodies of water are "flat".

 

[Shrewd Manager]

It can be done. For example photographs of the power lines at Lake Pontchartrain show the curvature of the Earth.

If you accept the Lake Ponchartrain photos, how do you respond to the long distance photos showing target objects at distances that should be obscured by curve? This is Mt Canigou at 443km.

But they are verified. An inability to understand on your part does not negate that fact. And no, there is not digital manipulation of the sort that you claim. I have seen Flat Earthers complain when they do not understand perspective. For example the perspective of a globe from space will change as one changes one's distance from the globe. If one is very close one will only see a fraction of the globe. Whatever you are close to will look larger. If you have a camera and a globe of the Earth you can reproduce this. As you get further and further away you get closer and closer to seeing half of the Earth at a time.

How are they verified, by whom and by what process? Pls link the report. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. It's not the apparent size of the digital images of the globe that are of concern. To use your approach, how would they be falsified?

Incorrect. The evidence from NASA is still evidence. Your denial does not refute it. The burden of proof to refute it is still upon the Flat Earthers. And since they do not understand science or even simple geometry they always fail at doing so.

It's just very weak and unreliable evidence, because it's digital imagery (easily simulated), unverifiable (I can't go out there to check it), not otherwise independently verified, and includes items that give grounds for suspicion of tampering (eg copy and pasted clouds, odd colour schemes, lighting indicating direction of sun being off, variation of size and location of objects, etc). Digital photographic evidence is never good evidence.

You have proven it yourself. And no, my opinions can be backed up by valid sources. That does not make them mere opinions. My opinions are also backed up by reason. Yours are not. All you have is denial. Denial is not evidence.

Neither are bald assertions. 'Valid sources' is entirely the QED. If you're relying unquestioningly on Nasa et al, then I say you're heading cult-wards.

Sorry, but you cannot base your test upon the merits of another model. Your test has to be based upon the merits of your own model.

That's a very odd thing to say. If you want to prove something is not planar, then show it has curvature. There's nothing impermissible or magical about that. It's elementary.

So if I presented a picture of the Earth from space you would have to show how that picture is false.

Not if it's unfalsifiable, unverified and easy to fake.

Btw, that pic of Lake Ponchartrain implies the earth would be about 2,000km in circumference. Like living on a golf ball?

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Well, there are Christian pilots that have flown around the world and attest that there is no edge or ice wall or any flatness to the Earth, plus they have seen the curve of the Earth since they are up so high.

None of them have done a north-south circumnavigation. Wonder why that is. Good to see someone's actually trying to put forth proofs, though!

Also there is no evidence of anyone or thing falling off the supposed edge of the planet nor run into or seen this ice wall that some say is around the entire perimeter.

If you check the logs of the great explorers like Captain Cook, you'll find otherwise (interminable ice walls, not falling off!).

The only evidence of FE is based on misinterpreting a handful of OT verses and a few "experiments" that I personally don't feel is convincing like water always being flat etc. Are there even any FE believers that aren't Christians? Keep in mind I do agree with a lot of FE videos that shows NASA faking things and using green screens to make it seem like they are in zero gravity when they aren't so it's not like I accept everything certain organizations feed us.

Well, that gives me some hope you'll look into it further.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you accept the Lake Ponchartrain photos, how do you respond to the long distance photos showing target objects at distances that should be obscured by curve? This is Mt Canigou at 443km.

I would have to verify your claims, but Flat Earthers often ignore the fact that the atmosphere regularly refracts light. We can see that on a small scale with mirages. I have seen photos where flat earthers misidentified landmarks. And even if they do not there are three factors that one needs to consider. The height of the object being observed. The height of the observer. And the amount of refraction on that day. If one sees something that one does not appear on every cloudless day it is a good bet that what you are seeing is a result of refraction.

By the way, even if accurate those photos would not refute a spherical Earth. It would only refute an Earth with our known diameter. And even if it showed that the Earth was not a sphere it would still not be evidence for a Flat Earth. Do you understand this?

How are they verified, by whom and by what process? Pls link the report. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. It's not the apparent size of the digital images of the globe that are of concern. To use your approach, how would they be falsified?

NASA is a reliable source. Like it or not I do not need a report for that.

And one complaint that Flat Earthers have is in regard to the relative size of the land masses. I was anticipating that failed argument.

It's just very weak and unreliable evidence, because it's digital imagery (easily simulated), unverifiable (I can't go out there to check it), not otherwise independently verified, and includes items that give grounds for suspicion of tampering (eg copy and pasted clouds, odd colour schemes, lighting indicating direction of sun being off, variation of size and location of objects, etc). Digital photographic evidence is never good evidence.

False, there is nothing wrong with pictures that use digital imagery. If that is the case you just refuted the image that you posted. Like it or not that is a digital image too. Anything that you see on your computer is digital. There is nothing wrong with that sort of picture. Once again, if you want to claim that they are fake the burden of proof is upon you. I did not reject your picture just because it was digital.

Neither are bald assertions. 'Valid sources' is entirely the QED. If you're relying unquestioningly on Nasa et al, then I say you're heading cult-wards.

No, you like most science deniers do not know what a valid source is. In the sciences honesty is extremely important If someone is shown to be a liar it is the end of his career most of the time. To be reliable in the sciences one must put one's ideas through the gauntlet of peer review. You are projecting. You are the one with cult like beliefs since you do not understand the concept of evidence or how we know what is reliable and what is not.

That's a very odd thing to say. If you want to prove something is not planar, then show it has curvature. There's nothing impermissible or magical about that. It's elementary.

I did at the end of the post. You do not seem to realize how difficult that is with an immense globe. It is not until one gets to the height of the ISS that the curvature begins to be blatantly obvious.

Not if it's unfalsifiable, unverified and easy to fake.

Btw, that pic of Lake Ponchartrain implies the earth would be about 2,000km in circumference. Like living on a golf ball?

Those pictures do not appear to be easy to fake. Flat Earthers cannot seem to do so.
Where did you get those numbers from? Another Flat Earther? Here is the info that you need. How high the towers are. The amount of the towers that are covered by the curve, and the altitude of the person taking the picture.

But regardless of how big the Earth is, and I seriously doubt the figure that you claimed without any evidence, the image does clearly show curvature of the Earth. That alone refutes your beliefs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

None of them have done a north-south circumnavigation. Wonder why that is. Good to see someone's actually trying to put forth proofs, though!

How do you know that? Now I cannot pull up any such circumnavigations without doing a search for it, but by your claim you appear to be able to prove that no such event ever happened. Be careful with what you claim. You just put the burden of proof upon yourself.

If you check the logs of the great explorers like Captain Cook, you'll find otherwise (interminable ice walls, not falling off!).

Citation needed.

Well, that gives me some hope you'll look into it further.

And you might do the same. You cannot even explain sunrise and sunset with your model. Such an everyday failure makes your idea look laughably wrong.