Is the Earth Flat?

[prodromos]

List your proofs that you have proven, that enables you to say globe earth is fact.
Have you been able to adhere water to the complete area of a rotating sphere. Or Have you been able to during day light hours photograph the moon, out in the darkness of space 230,000 miles from earth. Or have you sent a balloon up to photograph the curvature of the earth without a fish-eye lens.

Using a water level to observe that the horizon drops below eye level as you view from higher altitudes proves the earth is a globe.

Even with a fish-eye lens there is no distortion when the horizon is in the centre of the lens, so from the many videos taken from high altitude you can clearly see the curvature when you pick frames with the horizon dead centre. You also see the opposite where the horizon is above the centre and should be curving upwards due to the distortion, yet ends up appearing flat.

I have flown between continents in the southern hemisphere and the flight times absolutely cannot be reconciled with a flat earth. They fit perfectly, however, with a globe earth.

The earth is a massive object, thus the force due to gravity is strong enough to hold water onto the surface in all directions. Any experiment with small objects like a basketball do not have sufficient mass to cause a strong enough gravitational force to hold water on to their surface. I suspect you know this already which is why you demand it as a proof, knowing full well that it cannot be provided.

 

[d taylor]

Can you see that the moon is a solid object with craters, mountains etc.? (And therefore also possible to land on, for example).

And if we agree its a solid ball-like shaped object, the famous question arises - if the apple falls, does the moon also fall?

But i do not agree the moon is a sphere. the moon is a convex disk just like the sun that faces downward to the earth.

A sphere would not distort into an oval shape, as the moon/sun does as it moves over the horizon line.

​

 

[trophy33]

But i do not agree the moon is a sphere. the moon is a convex disk just like the sun that faces downward to the earth.

What do you mean by "I do not agree the moon is a sphere". Even if you believe the blue sky is behind it like behind clouds and its not in the space, its still possible to send a probe around it (like its possible to get above clouds), which already happened and the other side of the moon is mapped, too.

What math or mechanics do you apply to explain and predict the movement of the moon, its regular stages and its "holding up in the sky without falling"?

 

[prodromos]

Yes it is

It does not matter 1/4 moon, half moon, 3/4 moon the blue is behind what ever part of the moon is showing. When the moon is seen during the day time.

This is a photo of a United A320 at 34000 feet. The body of the aircraft is white, yet when viewed through that much of the atmosphere it takes on a blue hue which is due to Raleigh scattering as @Yttrium stated earlier

 

[prodromos]

A sphere would not distort into an oval shape, as the moon/sun does as it moves over the horizon line.

View attachment 332583

​

Your ability to misinterpret the evidence is nothing short of amazing. The moon remains perfectly circular all the way down to near the horizon where atmospheric refraction causes what has dipped below the horizon to remain visible a little longer. If what you claimed was true then the moon would be circular directly overhead but would gradually appear to flatten throughout its journey to the horizon. It would not suddenly flatten just before disappearing.

 

[d taylor]

This is a photo of a United A320 at 34000 feet. The body of the aircraft is white, yet when viewed through that much of the atmosphere it takes on a blue hue which is due to Raleigh scattering as @Yttrium stated earlier

-​

Well you can call it anything you like, it is still not the reason the moon can not be photographed out on space. The reason the moon can not be photographed out in space is because the moon is in the dome where God placed it after creating the moon. Just like this plane is flying across the face of the dome..

 

[Lost4words]

-​

Well you can call it anything you like, it is still not the reason the moon can not be photographed out on space. The reason the moon can not be photographed out in space is because the moon is in the dome where God placed it after creating the moon. Just like this plane is flying across the face of the dome..

Oh dear oh dear, you really believe that!!! Very sad...

 

[d taylor]

Oh dear oh dear, you really believe that!!! Very sad...

Complete Jewish Bible Genesis 1
God said, “Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to divide the day from the night; let them be for signs, seasons, days and years; and let them be for lights in the dome of the sky to give light to the earth”; and that is how it was. God made the two great lights — the larger light to rule the day and the smaller light to rule the night — and the stars. God put them in the dome of the sky to give light to the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. So there was evening, and there was morning, a fourth day.

 

[trophy33]

Complete Jewish Bible Genesis 1
God said, “Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to divide the day from the night; let them be for signs, seasons, days and years; and let them be for lights in the dome of the sky to give light to the earth”; and that is how it was. God made the two great lights — the larger light to rule the day and the smaller light to rule the night — and the stars. God put them in the dome of the sky to give light to the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. So there was evening, and there was morning, a fourth day.

Why exactly do you think its important to believe in a literal reading of the creation story, when it contradicts the scientific evidence, when it requires believing in a massive conspiracy for centuries (even from Christian astronomers) and in all countries, when its not needed for the theological message of the story and when it changes nothing about Christianity?

 

[Halbhh]

Why exactly do you think its important to believe in a literal reading of the creation story, when it contradicts the scientific evidence, when it requires believing in a massive conspiracy for centuries (even from Christian astronomers) and in all countries, when its not needed for the theological message of the story and when it changes nothing about Christianity?

Another perhaps bigger error in YEC I think are added ideas YEC uses that aren't anywhere in the text, while YEC claims to be simply reading the text....such as adding the idea that the days in the vision have to be days without any time periods between them (which simply isn't anywhere in the text) or the added idea that zero or little time passed during verse 1 before the moment in verse 2 (at which moment the Earth is already existing as a water world, and of unstated age...). But perhaps these additions are just symptomatic of not reading well, with a listening attitude to get the real messages.
If we really listen to the text, it is inspiring, and the theme that is repeated seven times of how the Earth and creation is 'good' for us is like a springboard, to help transport us into a better state of mind.

If we can just read with listening, the chapter will transport us!

 

[Lost4words]

Complete Jewish Bible Genesis 1
God said, “Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to divide the day from the night; let them be for signs, seasons, days and years; and let them be for lights in the dome of the sky to give light to the earth”; and that is how it was. God made the two great lights — the larger light to rule the day and the smaller light to rule the night — and the stars. God put them in the dome of the sky to give light to the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. So there was evening, and there was morning, a fourth day.

Interpretation, interpretation, interpretation!!!!

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Complete Jewish Bible Genesis 1
God said, “Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to divide the day from the night; let them be for signs, seasons, days and years; and let them be for lights in the dome of the sky to give light to the earth”; and that is how it was. God made the two great lights — the larger light to rule the day and the smaller light to rule the night — and the stars. God put them in the dome of the sky to give light to the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. So there was evening, and there was morning, a fourth day.

Why do you assume that "dome" should be understood as a physical construct?

 

[prodromos]

Why exactly do you think its important to believe in a literal reading of the creation story, when it contradicts the scientific evidence, when it requires believing in a massive conspiracy for centuries (even from Christian astronomers) and in all countries, when its not needed for the theological message of the story and when it changes nothing about Christianity?

I suspect it boils down to pride. They are part of an 'elect' group of Christians who have not bent the knee before what they consider the false idol of science. It makes them special.

 

[d taylor]

Why do you assume that "dome" should be understood as a physical construct?

-​

The Bible describes the raqia that way. It is physical because it is holding back a huge amount of water, some which was used to flood the earth in Genesis 6..

 

[d taylor]

Why exactly do you think its important to believe in a literal reading of the creation story, when it contradicts the scientific evidence, when it requires believing in a massive conspiracy for centuries (even from Christian astronomers) and in all countries, when its not needed for the theological message of the story and when it changes nothing about Christianity?

-
​

There is no indication from The Bible, to not take the creation account as anything but literal.

 

[Hans Blaster]

If you are going to give a science lie answer, you can keep your science lies. I already hear enough lies in daily life from government, media and other sources.

I asked you how luminous you think stars are and you start referring to "science lies". What's your deal? Is there anything (besides your bible) that you trust or will even not treat as a blatant lie? (Or are you just scared that finding the answer to my question will destroy your flat earth delusion?)

 

[Hans Blaster]

-​

Well you can call it anything you like, it is still not the reason the moon can not be photographed out on space. The reason the moon can not be photographed out in space is because the moon is in the dome where God placed it after creating the moon. Just like this plane is flying across the face of the dome..

Really? The plane is "blue" just like the sky and you think it is just flying between the blue thing and the photographer?

Try this out:

What if some of the blue light in the plane image is coming from the space *between* the plane and the ground?

 

[trophy33]

-
​

There is no indication from The Bible, to not take the creation account as anything but literal.

Almost everything in the creation story looks metaphorical or symbolic. From the number seven, days, dust, serpents, woman from men's side, trees, serpent...

So its actually quite difficult to read it literally, if you are not biased.

 

[d taylor]

I asked you how luminous you think stars are and you start referring to "science lies". What's your deal? Is there anything (besides your bible) that you trust or will even not treat as a blatant lie? (Or are you just scared that finding the answer to my question will destroy your flat earth delusion?)

Well stars are not light years away, so call that what you want. Deceived men of science stating their beliefs, that they actually believe to be true, but actually is not.

 

[d taylor]

Almost everything in the creation story looks metaphorical or symbolic. From the number seven, days, dust, serpents, woman from men's side, trees, serpent...

So its actually quite difficult to read it literally, if you are not biased.

Why stop at creation, why not apply that to a person spending three days in the belly of a fish, floating axe heads, parting of the waters of Red Sea, people walking on water, people being raised from the dead, people being taken away and appearing miles away from their original location all which go against science.

May be you do, you might need a Jefferson Bible.