Questions for Flat Earthers

Oldmantook said:

Why do you suppose that Antarctica is a no-fly zone? Not many pilots flying over that area and those who do, don't talk.

Click to expand...

It's not. You can go on holiday there.

Oldmantook said:

In terms of satellites vs. Byrd, you have simply assumed the satellite data given to the public is correct and not subject to error or even falsification. Your argument is known as an a priori fallacy

Click to expand...

It's funny you should say this because this is what I was going to say you were more or less doing (though I must admit I had to lookup the word priori)

You had assumed, based on what you read in the Bible that the Earth is flat and that the Bible is not subject to error. When you are shown evidence that there is an error, you reject the evidence. I recognize that an infallible creator inspired the writers of the Bible and because of that, I understand why you feel have no reason to doubt any of it's information. Now one Major thing we differ on is the nature of that information or "data" as it were.......I believe the information about the sun rising and falling above the flat circular Earth, with a water covered dome over it, and so on as depicted in the Bible is or was at least, a hypothesis, at best, a supposition. I say that with all due respect.

I am not trying to imply that the all powerful, all knowing creator and sustainer of life is fallible. Especially if that belief is a integral matter of your world view. For the sake of my own faith, I am willing to concede that point. I do however surmise that the human beings entrusted with communicating the will of that creator and the history of creation are fallible men and therefore portions must be verified in order to determine which portions are factual and which portions are metaphorical, instructional, the scientific knowledge that was indicative of that time and so on.

We can't use primarily Biblical data to verify the scientific knowledge in the Bible. As we know, this method does not work if you are trying to independently verify empirical data. A statement from the interview of an explorer could possibly verify some data if it was not proven false by other even more reliable verifiable data.

Which brings me to your rejection of NASA satellite data.

Oldmantook said:

We are told that we have geostationary satellites which operate at higher altitudes beyond low earth orbit and mid-earth orbit, yet NASA has admitted that they have not gone higher than LEO.

Click to expand...

From the NASA website: "There are many satellites currently in geosynchronous orbits. The weather satellite pictures (GIF, 60k) we see on the news come from these satellites."
NASA - Geosynchronous Satellites


Also from the NASA website "NASA also uses geosynchronous satellites to send communications and data back and forth between spacecraft, such as the Space Shuttle and the Hubble Space Telescope, and control centers on Earth."

This quote would seem to indicate that the space program has even traveled beyond geosynchronous orbit.

In a further orbit than that, NASA has launched a satellite to a Lagrange point which is approximately 1.5 million km above Earth. It orbits the sun with the "Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), used for studying the nature of the universe by mapping background microwave radiation."

Also according to the NASA website "Since the 1960s, NASA has developed polar-orbiting operational environmental satellites for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)." These satellites orbit the Earth north to south instead of around the equator and record weather data across the entire globe.

In 1956 the site of the United States Amundsen–Scott South Pole Station was founded by your man Richard E. Byrd. The year round residents of the station has performed numerous topographic surveys of the area surrounding the South Pole over the past 60 years, mapping out the accessible portions of Antarctica in great detail on the ground thus proving it is one land mass and not a separate land "beyond the South Pole" other than what we have now discovered

You stated NASA has made some conflicting and false statements about their satellite data. I have provided a statement made by NASA indicating that they have indeed achieved geosynchronous orbit around the Earth with a link to their website. While you have not provided any contrary information showing NASA is falsifying or posting contradictory information. With that said, I would like to also put forward an article about a rocket recently sent to outer space from India as the NY Times article reports "NEW DELHI — India’s space agency launched a flock of 104 satellites into space over the course of 18 minutes on Wednesday, nearly tripling the previous record for single-day satellite launches and establishing India as a key player in a growing commercial market for space-based surveillance and communication."
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/15/world/asia/india-satellites-rocket.html?_r=0

Just one of dozens of companies that send satellites to outer space every year for GPS navigation, weather and communication. The company Virgin Galactic is even taking reservations for people that want to experience outer space Virgin Galactic, the world's first commercial spaceline
Not only those companies but the governments of numerous countries confirm satellite launces and data transmissions, Russia, Israel, Turkey, China, Korea, and the UK to name a small fraction of space capable countries with the USA and India having sent rovers even to Mars.

So I am not basing my agreement with the spherical Earth on one or two first hand accounts with no verification. Everything I am saying has been proven by astronomy, by satellite photographs and and various sensors, by topographic survey, nautical navigation, and manned flight to outer space. First hand accounts of people traversing the globe on sea and air on a daily basis consistently have proven a spherical Earth for hundreds of yrars.

If you are to follow the evidence, it only leads to a spherical Earth. Flat Earth has a couple first hand accounts from people who could not see the Earth in it's entirety. It just can't stand up to the mountain of evidence against it. If we are going to engage in an honest discussion, it must be acknowledged that belief in a flat Earth is based on Faith and not evidence/data.

Again, what empirical evidence do you have that can dispute the mountain of verifiable information of a spherical Earth? If you stick to the Biblical argument and Admiral Byrd's out of context quote, tell me how you have verified the eyewitness account without using faith?

Faith is a wonderful thing and I am not attacking faith. I understand that when something is believed in by faith, for the faithful, it is just as acceptable a truth as verifiable fact. However, our language does distinguish between faith and fact. I invite you to do the same.

God Bless You and Your Faith

ViaCrucis said:

You and Adam had a chat about astronomy recently, and he told you this? Rad, how's he doing by the way? Did you bother to ask if he had a bellybutton or not? Or are you two just acquaintances rather than close friends?

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

The point was that Adam was a smart guy. He knew stars were way out there. He wasn't a moron.
If you can accept this much, then we know the sun and stars are far far away, and that above that area, or firmament was water, and water below on earth.

Did you think the sky was some sort of metal when you were a kid? Do you think anyone ever did...let alone Adam? Do you even actually believe there was a real Adam and Eve??

to @Oldmantook

But contrary to the Isaiah 40:22 metaphor of the 'circle of the Earth' is the Isaiah 11:12 metaphor of the 'four corners of the Earth'.

So yes, a flat earth could indeed be circular and in fact is easier to argue than is a more squarish flat earth. But a circle cannot have corners.

So while I believe the flat Earthers are devout in their faith and beliefs, and I have no desire to shake that faith in any way, a spherical Earth is far more easy to justify. As is a great cloud of eye witnesses who will testify to their personal experience with a spherical Earth while nobody has been able to give eye witness testimony to a flat one.

And one does not have to give up any part of the authority of the Scriptures to believe in a spherical Earth. The writers of the Old and New Testaments had not traveled far from their birthplaces and knew nothing of what was beyond the lands of the near east and the Roman Empire. They were not men of science but men of faith. And if the scriptures are indeed inspired of God, they still had only their own language and experience and artistic interpretations to draw on to write down the words.

But whether flat Earthers or those who believe in spherical planets, moons, and suns, sincerity of faith and desire to know the will of God and to follow it is a beautiful thin

Foxfyre said:

But contrary to the Isaiah 40:22 metaphor of the 'circle of the Earth' is the Isaiah 11:12 metaphor of the 'four corners of the Earth'.

So yes, a flat earth could indeed be circular and in fact is easier to argue than is a more squarish flat earth. But a circle cannot have corners.

So while I believe the flat Earthers are devout in their faith and beliefs, and I have no desire to shake that faith in any way, a spherical Earth is far more easy to justify. As is a great cloud of eye witnesses who will testify to their personal experience with a spherical Earth while nobody has been able to give eye witness testimony to a flat one.

And one does not have to give up any part of the authority of the Scriptures to believe in a spherical Earth. The writers of the Old and New Testaments had not traveled far from their birthplaces and knew nothing of what was beyond the lands of the near east and the Roman Empire. They were not men of science but men of faith. And if the scriptures are indeed inspired of God, they still had only their own language and experience and artistic interpretations to draw on to write down the words.

But whether flat Earthers or those who believe in spherical planets, moons, and suns, sincerity of faith and desire to know the will of God and to follow it is a beautiful thing.

Click to expand...

Perhaps God referred to different things when talking about the corners or a circle? For example I could call the orbit of a satellite a circle.

"A circular orbit is the orbit at a fixed distance around any point by an object rotating around a fixed axis."
Circular orbit - Wikipedia

Especially if there was no object at the moment IN that orbit. The path itself might be called a circle. God was seen hovering over the sea in creation week. Again He was seen in a flying wheel in Ezekiel's day. Perhaps He usually uses a certain flight path that could be called a circle? Who knows?

Now imagine deep under the earth where no man ever was, that there are four areas that correspond to certain points on the surface. We could call those corners. Or if we were talking about the east and west and north and south parts of the earth...that could be called corners. Etc.

People should stop assuming God is dumb and wrong.

The most compelling argument for a spherical Earth is that you can fly east on the same latitude as New York City and will arrive on the other side of the Earth at Perth, Australia.

And you can fly west on the same latitude as New York City and will arrive on the other side of the Earth at Perth, Australia.

I have never found a flat Earth believer who could adequately explain that.

Foxfyre said:

The most compelling argument for a spherical Earth is that you can fly east on the same latitude as New York City and will arrive on the other side of the Earth at Perth, Australia.

And you can fly west on the same latitude as New York City and will arrive on the other side of the Earth at Perth, Australia.

I have never found a flat Earth believer who could adequately explain that.

Click to expand...

We do not need the orbit path of God while near earth to fit gravity. (He flies under His Own power) Therefore a path such as the one you suggest would be a circle also.

Jimmy D said:

I took that from a post a made a while back, I should probably have included the 'flat earth map'......

Click to expand...

Why do Flat Earthers put the North Pole at the centre of the Earth? Mediaeval maps put Jerusalem at the centre, so that the Pacific rim marked the edge of the Earth.

Also, the length of a degree of latitude is constant from the North Pole to the Antarctic coast, so that the area of a 1°-wide ring increases monotonically with distance from the North Pole. One could equally well have a Flat Earth model in which the area of a 1° ring was constant, and in which the length of a degree of latitude decreased with increasing distance from the North Pole. No doubt there are other possible models, which mathematicians would be interested in studying.

dad said:

Perhaps God referred to different things when talking about the corners or a circle? For example I could call the orbit of a satellite a circle.

"A circular orbit is the orbit at a fixed distance around any point by an object rotating around a fixed axis."
Circular orbit - Wikipedia

Especially if there was no object at the moment IN that orbit. The path itself might be called a circle. God was seen hovering over the sea in creation week. Again He was seen in a flying wheel in Ezekiel's day. Perhaps He usually uses a certain flight path that could be called a circle? Who knows?

Now imagine deep under the earth where no man ever was, that there are four areas that correspond to certain points on the surface. We could call those corners. Or if we were talking about the east and west and north and south parts of the earth...that could be called corners. Etc.

People should stop assuming God is dumb and wrong.

Click to expand...

I don't believe God is either dumb or wrong, and I love the Scriptures and believe God speaks to me through them, but I believe in a spherical Earth.

If Isaiah can use different words (i.e. metaphors/symbolism) to describe the Earth, then so can all the other writers of the Bible. And because they lacked the scientific knowledge and/or personal experience to know what lay beyond what they personally could see or travel, they explained things as they understood them the best that they could with the language and experience they had to work with.

None of the writers of the Old or New Testament had apparently ever seen or traveled beyond the near east plus Europe and north Africa extending from the near east to what is now Italy. So they used metaphors, symbols, and imagery that would be familiar and understandable to others with their same experience.

It is no different now. God puts thoughts and understanding into our mind/hearts in language and imagery that we can understand here and now in the 21st century. For me I have no problem reconciling the Scriptures to what I believe of science, including the Earth, but I don't require others to share my beliefs.

If you believe in a flat Earth but love God, I have to believe that he respects your faith and devotion to Him.

dad said:

We do not need the orbit path of God while near earth to fit gravity. (He flies under His Own power) Therefore a path such as the one you suggest would be a circle also.

Click to expand...

Ah yes, but also if you fly north from the same longitude as New York city and continue in one direction, you will arrive at Perth, Australia. And if you fly south from the same longitude as New York City and continue in one direction, you will arrive at Perth, Australia. So traveling east or west you get to Perth. Or traveling north or south you get to Perth.

I just can't reconcile that fact with a flat Earth. And if the north pole is at the center of the Earth, where is the south pole?

AV1611VET said:

Ya ... you guys remind us over and over and over and over and over how the Bible speaks of a flat earth.

Then when some Bible believer actually believes it, you guys scratch your heads and act surprised.

Click to expand...

I'm not surprised at all; I foresaw that this would happen. I think that Henry Morris tried to make out that the Bible says that the Earth is a sphere because he needed to attract scientists, who would never accept a flat Earth, into his creationist organisation. However, this strategy didn't work; Morris is dead, and only about 5% of scientists have adopted creationism, so the creationist organisations have to rely on the churches, most of whose members are not scientifically educated, for their support. In short, 'scientific creationism' has failed, but religious creationism is thriving.

AV1611VET said:

Let me give you educatees a sound piece of advice: Be careful how you interpret the Bible; someone just might believe it.

Click to expand...

Exactly so. The Bible speaks of a flat Earth, so people who believe the Bible rather than the scientific evidence and who do not need the support of scientists, think that Morris was wrong and that the Earth really is flat.

Astrophile said:

Why do Flat Earthers put the North Pole at the centre of the Earth? Mediaeval maps put Jerusalem at the centre, so that the Pacific rim marked the edge of the Earth.

Also, the length of a degree of latitude is constant from the North Pole to the Antarctic coast, so that the area of a 1°-wide ring increases monotonically with distance from the North Pole. One could equally well have a Flat Earth model in which the area of a 1° ring was constant, and in which the length of a degree of latitude decreased with increasing distance from the North Pole. No doubt there are other possible models, which mathematicians would be interested in studying.

Click to expand...

Jerusalem is the center of the earth.

Foxfyre said:

I don't believe God is either dumb or wrong, and I love the Scriptures and believe God speaks to me through them, but I believe in a spherical Earth.

If Isaiah can use different words (i.e. metaphors/symbolism) to describe the Earth, then so can all the other writers of the Bible. And because they lacked the scientific knowledge and/or personal experience to know what lay beyond what they personally could see or travel, they explained things as they understood them the best that they could with the language and experience they had to work with.

None of the writers of the Old or New Testament had apparently ever seen or traveled beyond the near east plus Europe and north Africa extending from the near east to what is now Italy. So they used metaphors, symbols, and imagery that would be familiar and understandable to others with their same experience.

It is no different now. God puts thoughts and understanding into our mind/hearts in language and imagery that we can understand here and now in the 21st century. For me I have no problem reconciling the Scriptures to what I believe of science, including the Earth, but I don't require others to share my beliefs.

If you believe in a flat Earth but love God, I have to believe that he respects your faith and devotion to Him.

Click to expand...

I no more believe in a flat earth than I do a flat moon...and I doubt anyone in the bible did either.

Foxfyre said:

Ah yes, but also if you fly north from the same longitude as New York city and continue in one direction, you will arrive at Perth, Australia. And if you fly south from the same longitude as New York City and continue in one direction, you will arrive at Perth, Australia. So traveling east or west you get to Perth. Or traveling north or south you get to Perth.

I just can't reconcile that fact with a flat Earth. And if the north pole is at the center of the Earth, where is the south pole?

Click to expand...

Relax, the earth isn't flat.

dad said:

I no more believe in a flat earth than I do a flat moon...and I doubt anyone in the bible did either.

Click to expand...

Ah so you were engaging in more formal debate and competently arguing the opposing side. A good indication of somebody who has seriously considered both arguments and chose the one most plausible or compelling. A very good ability to have, by the way.

Actually I do think the people of the Bible thought of the Earth as flat because they didn't give the whole concept of geography a whole lot of thought. "To the ends of the Earth" was just a metaphor for as far and wide as God's creation extended. And they described their experience in terms that they knew and understood. Just as I don't think of New York City as curved away from Los Angeles, which it is, but think of traveling from one to the other as pretty much a straight line.

And of course they knew nothing of astrophysics so the physical shape of the sun and moon didn't concern them and they could not distinguish the visible planets from the stars.

dad said:

Jerusalem is the center of the earth.

Click to expand...

How can Jerusalem be the centre of the Earth if the Earth is a sphere?

dad said:

The point was that Adam was a smart guy. He knew stars were way out there. He wasn't a moron.

Click to expand...

Not knowing something doesn't make one a moron. Of course how you could possibly know this about Adam I have no idea.

If you can accept this much, then we know the sun and stars are far far away, and that above that area, or firmament was water, and water below on earth.

Did you think the sky was some sort of metal when you were a kid? Do you think anyone ever did...let alone Adam? Do you even actually believe there was a real Adam and Eve??

Click to expand...

I was born and raised in a society where I was taught, from a very young age, about basic things, like that the sun is a star, or rather that stars are just suns but much further away, and that the earth is round. But that knowledge was taught to me, I didn't know it intuitively.

Here are some things I did believe as a kid because I didn't know any better until I learned otherwise:

I thought my home town was its own country. There was my home town, America, and China, those were the three countries that existed on earth. Then I learned that my home town wasn't its own country, it was a small town in one state out of fifty states that make up the United States.

Well, then, I intuited, America is on the top of the earth! Best country is on top right? Well, nope. Also, I learned that Japanese people aren't Chinese when I was a small tyke and asked a Japanese lady who knew my parents when she came from China. There's more countries than just America and China?! And Americans can look different too?!

Once there was this gorgeous sunset, and I was awestruck by it, the way the light shimmered gold glowing on top of the clouds--it was heaven! I could see heaven! It was right there!

Not me this time, but when I was in Kindergarten we were coloring pictures, I chose to color the person in my picture with a brown crayon, all the other kids laughed at me, "People aren't brown!" they said. Mrs. Howe had to explain to a room of five year olds that not all human beings can be depicted using the peach colored crayon.

Because I didn't know any better until I learned.

So, yes, people believe all kinds of things when they don't know otherwise. They will fill in the gaps with other things in order to satisfy questions. Why does the sun go across the sky? Ah, the night dragon chases the sun and consumes it over the horizon and then it is reborn in the morning. I need rain to water my crops so my family and village can survive, the masterful forces which rule the clouds must not be angered--after all, people have minds and can choose to be kind or mean, why wouldn't this be true of the sky itself?

But maybe I'm the strange one. Maybe you just came out of the womb knowing everything.

-CryptoLutheran

ViaCrucis said:

Not knowing something doesn't make one a moron. Of course how you could possibly know this about Adam I have no idea.



I was born and raised in a society where I was taught, from a very young age, about basic things, like that the sun is a star, or rather that stars are just suns but much further away, and that the earth is round. But that knowledge was taught to me, I didn't know it intuitively.

Here are some things I did believe as a kid because I didn't know any better until I learned otherwise:

I thought my home town was its own country. There was my home town, America, and China, those were the three countries that existed on earth. Then I learned that my home town wasn't its own country, it was a small town in one state out of fifty states that make up the United States.

Well, then, I intuited, America is on the top of the earth! Best country is on top right? Well, nope. Also, I learned that Japanese people aren't Chinese when I was a small tyke and asked a Japanese lady who knew my parents when she came from China. There's more countries than just America and China?! And Americans can look different too?!

Once there was this gorgeous sunset, and I was awestruck by it, the way the light shimmered gold glowing on top of the clouds--it was heaven! I could see heaven! It was right there!

Not me this time, but when I was in Kindergarten we were coloring pictures, I chose to color the person in my picture with a brown crayon, all the other kids laughed at me, "People aren't brown!" they said. Mrs. Howe had to explain to a room of five year olds that not all human beings can be depicted using the peach colored crayon.

Because I didn't know any better until I learned.

So, yes, people believe all kinds of things when they don't know otherwise. They will fill in the gaps with other things in order to satisfy questions. Why does the sun go across the sky? Ah, the night dragon chases the sun and consumes it over the horizon and then it is reborn in the morning. I need rain to water my crops so my family and village can survive, the masterful forces which rule the clouds must not be angered--after all, people have minds and can choose to be kind or mean, why wouldn't this be true of the sky itself?

But maybe I'm the strange one. Maybe you just came out of the womb knowing everything.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

Dad fessed up that he has been playing devil's advocate with these arguments - see Posts #133 and #134. And I appreciate that he did as it has provided some excellent discussion.

Foxfyre said:

Dad fessed up that he has been playing devil's advocate with these arguments - see Posts #133 and #134. And I appreciate that he did as it has provided some excellent discussion.

Click to expand...

I've never been under the impression that he believed the earth was flat--which is what he said he didn't believe. But that hasn't been our argument.

-CryptoLutheran

ViaCrucis said:

I've never been under the impression that he believed the earth was flat--which is what he said he didn't believe. But that hasn't been our argument.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

That may be--I have enough trouble keeping up with my own arguments and probably miss other discussions more than I see them.

But is there no room for divine inspiration or discernment through observation in your philosophy? Have you never had a revelation, not taught to you by any other person, that allowed you to figure out something or understand something or know something without being taught?

I mean somebody--probably numerous somebodies--without being taught, had to figure out that the Earth is round and therefore challenge, at least in his/their mind, that his/their concept of a flat Earth was flawed.