Debunking Flat Earth

[JacksBratt]

What photos? My mother was a pro photographer and I'm pretty good with a camera myself, and I've never seen any photos that are incompatible with a globe earth.

And anyway, if you have such evidence, why do you resort to name calling like a five year old?

Here's a conundrum.....

The horizon is always at eye level. On the ground, at sea level, at 30,000 feet in an air craft.... even from high altitude. The horizon is always right there mid frame.

On a ball, the higher you go, the further you would see. This further horizon, on a ball, would be lower and lower and lower. You would need to continue lowering your line of sight to see the horizon..

This is not the fact that we see.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yep, heard that before.. However, a billiard table is flat.. but all the balls are round... It's a common but poor assumption.... If we are created by a great designer... the shape of one object does not determine the shape of the other.. but.. I understand the assumption.

Oh, so you're implying that the Sun and Moon are actually rolling along ON the top of the earth's surface? If that were the case, I think things would be a lot flatter, and hotter, than they are.

But seriously, Jacks. My analogy above is an empirical one and not only of an inductive nature, but one that just about anyone could do.

A child, living in a mansion, who never ventures outside but overlooks from their window a slum below... should they assume that they live in the slum as well?

This is a false analogy. Do you know of any children who have thus lived in a mansion, never ventured outside but thought they lived in a slum? Your reference (or misuse) of Plato's Cave aside, I think this is a bad argument on your part.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Here's a conundrum.....

The horizon is always at eye level. On the ground, at sea level, at 30,000 feet in an air craft.... even from high altitude. The horizon is always right there mid frame.

On a ball, the higher you go, the further you would see. This further horizon, on a ball, would be lower and lower and lower. You would need to continue lowering your line of sight to see the horizon..

This is not the fact that we see.

That's what you'd expect from a flat earth. Go figure.

/Tongue-in-cheek

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

That's kind of an overstatement and can't be universally applied, and even if it can be applied, from a social science view, it isn't done so in identical ways among the various Christian denominations to the same extent, with the same intensity or in the same relation to accepting what are primarily biblical doctrines rather than scientific doctrines.

I agree, and this is a problem. Who is right? Christianity has no method to determine what is true between claims of biblical interpretation and revelation.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Not in spirit and in truth.

There's a total difference in what you have posted and what true Ekklesia do/ live like/ in line with all of God's Description, His Word.

Says you. Other Christians say differently. Christians disagree on every point of doctrine and has no way to determine who is correct.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I agree, and this is a problem. Who is right? Christianity has no method to determine what is true between claims of biblical interpretation and revelation.

Just as we might not want to broad-brush the whole of atheism and smear the entirety of atheists everywhere by insisting that they're all somehow "the same," you might also consider that the degree to which any one Christian is aware of, or becomes educated about, good methods of thinking (i.e. incorporating Critical Thinking into their views of the world and of the Bible) can and will vary. Not all atheists express the same kind of atheism: Nietzsche is not Richard Dawkins; the ideas of the Satanic Temple are not necessarily those of Sartre or Camus. Likewise, various Christians will be educated to different degrees and also vary in their reliance upon a bona-fide and intelligent method by which to aid in his/her determining what is "true." (...whatever "truth" is).

Take Jimmy Carter, for instance. While the guy (a fellow Christian brother, actually) has often been seen as having been a wishy-washy president, I actually appreciate the fact that his education very likely played into his own Christian views of the world, as well as into his politics. And the fact that he, like you, was educated to work on sub-marines, that same education probably played into his Christian faith. So, being a Christian doesn't mean one has to be, or remain, stupid. No, ignorance is an existential choice and not one that is honored in the pages of the Bible, despite the misinterpretations that some more Hyper-Fundamentalist Christians may try to spin upon their reading of Sacred Words.

 

[essentialsaltes]

LOL this picture is what I expected.. It has been proven to be pasted into that shot....

Well, at least we agree we've sent spacecraft to the moon.

Oh yes.. the Foucault pendulum that ... has been seen to reverse it's motion during an eclipse..

Even if that were true, it has no bearing on whether the earth is spinning. Just that there is some other rare effect that occurs in certain circumstances. 99.9% of the time, it demonstrates the rotation of the earth.

This is the only and final "go to" -- The Foucault Pendulum is not the nail in the coffin of FE like many would like... It is the last bit that some have to hang on to though.

No, it's hardly the last desperate straw we're clinging to; it's literally the first thing I thought of.

However, since your "Searching for Truth" tagline is apparently meant in some sort of ironic fashion, I'll leave you be.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, at least we agree we've sent spacecraft to the moon.

Oh, I don't know about that! The movie, Capricorn One, was actually a cleverly crafted documentary rather than just what everyone thought it was ...

 

[JacksBratt]

Oh, so you're implying that the Sun and Moon are actually rolling along ON the top of the earth's surface? If that were the case, I think things would be a lot flatter, and hotter, than they are.

But seriously, Jacks. My analogy above is an empirical one and not only of an inductive nature, but one that just about anyone could do.

This is a false analogy. Do you know of any children who have thus lived in a mansion, never ventured outside but thought they lived in a slum? Your reference (or misuse) of Plato's Cave aside, I think this is a bad argument on your part.

Analogies are just a concept to help get a point across... nowhere is it meant to be literal and exhaustive parallel....

Oh, and nowhere did I say that the sun and moon are rolling along the surface. This is the sort of muddying of the waters that I see here... usually to deflect, distort or confuse the original point.

There is no reason to believe that because the sun, moon and other planets are spheres... that we are.
Yes, if the big bang theory was applied, this could be assumed.. However, this is a created universe we are looking at.


A squirrel looking out at a herd of deer can assume that it is a deer.

 

[JacksBratt]

That's what you'd expect from a flat earth. Go figure.

/Tongue-in-cheek

What's that... the truth... a concept that is applicable?

 

[JacksBratt]

I agree, and this is a problem. Who is right? Christianity has no method to determine what is true between claims of biblical interpretation and revelation.

The bible is the one collection of text that has the most copies of the original documents available.. by far. Even compared to any of the scholars or writings of any ancient text.
Combine this with the fact that it is also the collection of text that is, again by far, the ones with the least amount of time that transpired from the event to the recording of it.

The bible, also, when taken from simple context, is easy enough for even uneducated to comprehend. The deeper that you delve into the scriptures, the layers unfold.

Yes, there are disagreements of the application of it.. However, from what I have found, any and every "religion" is man made and as such is imperfect.

The basic message from the bible is not a religion but a the desire of our creator to have a relationship with His creation.

 

[Yekcidmij]

There is no reason to believe that because the sun, moon and other planets are spheres....

So are they all just disks with one side facing directly at earth so that I can conveniently see them through my telescope?

 

[JacksBratt]

Well, at least we agree we've sent spacecraft to the moon.

Nope.... I may not believe totally in the FE even though I am intrigued... but I certainly don't believe that we went to the moon....

Have you not seen a movie or two.. that picture is a basic photography 101 to make.

Even if that were true, it has no bearing on whether the earth is spinning. Just that there is some other rare effect that occurs in certain circumstances. 99.9% of the time, it demonstrates the rotation of the earth.

Actually, it negates the idea that the movement is caused by the spinning of the earth. The earth does not stop and go backwards during an eclipse.... This phenomenon proves that some other force is acting on the pendulum....

No, it's hardly the last desperate straw we're clinging to; it's literally the first thing I thought of.

Well, then, what's your next one?

However, since your "Searching for Truth" tagline is apparently meant in some sort of ironic fashion, I'll leave you be.

Fair enough.

 

[JacksBratt]

So are they all just disks with one side facing directly at earth so that I can conveniently see them through my telescope?

Can you read my post again.. then edit this one? Nowhere did I suggest this...


This is another problem here... reading comprehension.

 

[JacksBratt]

I'll assume that you are totally unaware of the FE model..... and the fact that this test, done by Eratosthenes, works on the FE model...

 

[Yekcidmij]

Can you read my post again.. then edit this one? Nowhere did I suggest this...

You're right - I misread it.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Nope.... I may not believe totally in the FE even though I am intrigued... but I certainly don't believe that we went to the moon....

O, so they pasted in a picture of the earth, and they also pasted in a picture of the moon.

Actually, it negates the idea that the movement is caused by the spinning of the earth.

Hardly. We observe that when a car is running, and the brake is not depressed, then pressing the accelerator causes the car to move. One day, we notice that pressing the accelerator does not cause the car to move. We are briefly puzzled by this contravention of natural law, until we discover we have forgotten to release the parking brake. This special circumstance (like the eclipse) causes things to be different. This does not negate our general rule of how cars work. Similarly, the eclipse effect (if it exists) does not affect our understanding of how the Foucault pendulum works almost all the time, in particular, the dependence of the motion on latitude.

This phenomenon proves that some other force is acting on the pendulum....

But only at that time of eclipse. At other times, our usual understanding is valid.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I'll assume that you are totally unaware of the FE model..... and the fact that this test, done by Eratosthenes, works on the FE model...

If you use three locations, it should be sufficient to show that the earth is not flat.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Just as we might not want to broad-brush the whole of atheism and smear the entirety of atheists everywhere by insisting that they're all somehow "the same," you might also consider that the degree to which any one Christian is aware of, or becomes educated about, good methods of thinking (i.e. incorporating Critical Thinking into their views of the world and of the Bible) can and will vary. Not all atheists express the same kind of atheism: Nietzsche is not Richard Dawkins; the ideas of the Satanic Temple are not necessarily those of Sartre or Camus. Likewise, various Christians will be educated to different degrees and also vary in their reliance upon a bona-fide and intelligent method by which to aid in his/her determining what is "true." (...whatever "truth" is).

Take Jimmy Carter, for instance. While the guy (a fellow Christian brother, actually) has often been seen as having been a wishy-washy president, I actually appreciate the fact that his education very likely played into his own Christian views of the world, as well as into his politics. And the fact that he, like you, was educated to work on sub-marines, that same education probably played into his Christian faith. So, being a Christian doesn't mean one has to be, or remain, stupid. No, ignorance is an existential choice and not one that is honored in the pages of the Bible, despite the misinterpretations that some more Hyper-Fundamentalist Christians may try to spin upon their reading of Sacred Words.

Like someone else said this is for another thread, but until Christians can come up with a way to determine the truth of how we get salvation between the many competing ideas why should I accept any of them? Atheists just lack a belief in God, Christians tell us that our eternal life is at stake, I would think god would make it clear to all Christians how we are saved if it is of grave importance, if not, then he is not worth worshiping.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Like someone else said this is for another thread, but until Christians can come up with a way to determine the truth of how we get salvation between the many competing ideas why should I accept any of them? Atheists just lack a belief in God, Christians tell us that our eternal life is at stake, I would think god would make it clear to all Christians how we are saved if it is of grave importance, if not, then he is not worth worshiping.

Perhaps. But you might also keep in mind the academic observation that Atheists can't agree on which form of Ethics will make 'morality' a real and truly useful and meaningful thing.

Many atheists not only lack a belief in God but also a discernible North Star by which to guide their emotional proclivities in the realm of ethics and morality. So, since atheists can't seem to agree among themselves about this stuff, it sounds like the fact that being that human beings 'disagree' on religion and ethics (and politics), all of this is more or less simply an endemic condition of being human rather than being either Christian or Atheist, and atheists are making existential leaps of certain kinds just as are Christians.

However, at least you and I are leaping on the same round planet, so I guess that's something!