Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Debunking Flat Earth
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Whyayeman" data-source="post: 74299988" data-attributes="member: 415320"><p>Genesis? No mention of flatness anywhere in Bk 1. (Or globe shape either.) I wonder sometimes why these forced arguments (flat earth is by no means the only one) gain traction with a certain kind of Christian belief, and why Biblical references eventually creep in. Is it because anything that challenges the literal truth of the Bible must be shown to be wrong, even when the arguments are tortuous and strained. </p><p>The speculation in 'possible a bit of lensing' is an example. The regular passage of the sun across the sky, disappearance below the western horizon and its reappearance over the eastern horizon is a daily occurrence and is most obviously explained as the result of the earth's rotation. There could be no night and day if both the sun and the earth are fixed and static.</p><p>The mechanics of the orthodox view of an orbiting, rotating spherical earth are simple, observable and actually quite elegant. Our experience of day and night, the seasons, lunar and planetary motion are well explained with beautiful economy. This cannot be said for any version of a flat earth theory. Flat earth theory is unnecessarily complex. (Should we think about Morton's Fork here?)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Whyayeman, post: 74299988, member: 415320"] Genesis? No mention of flatness anywhere in Bk 1. (Or globe shape either.) I wonder sometimes why these forced arguments (flat earth is by no means the only one) gain traction with a certain kind of Christian belief, and why Biblical references eventually creep in. Is it because anything that challenges the literal truth of the Bible must be shown to be wrong, even when the arguments are tortuous and strained. The speculation in 'possible a bit of lensing' is an example. The regular passage of the sun across the sky, disappearance below the western horizon and its reappearance over the eastern horizon is a daily occurrence and is most obviously explained as the result of the earth's rotation. There could be no night and day if both the sun and the earth are fixed and static. The mechanics of the orthodox view of an orbiting, rotating spherical earth are simple, observable and actually quite elegant. Our experience of day and night, the seasons, lunar and planetary motion are well explained with beautiful economy. This cannot be said for any version of a flat earth theory. Flat earth theory is unnecessarily complex. (Should we think about Morton's Fork here?) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Debunking Flat Earth
Top
Bottom