The Earth Is Not Flat

[Strathos]

Millions of people have spent their entire lives studying astronomy, geology, physics, and a myriad other sciences that flat earthers all reject. All of our modern knowledge and technology is based on their work.

You will know them by their fruit.

Take eclipses for example. Flat earthers cannot even agree on what they are or how they happen. Astronomers, on the other hand, not only can explain that, but they can accurately predict when both lunar and solar eclipses will happen down to the minute, and where they will be visible from, even thousands of years into the future. Which side is more reliable?

I've read flat earth arguments for years and they never have anything new, and they have never proposed anything useful or insightful. It's all obfuscation, accusations of conspiracies, and appeals to wishful thinking. Their fruit is rotten.

I offer a challenge to all flat earthers: before I will consider any more of your arguments, I want you to do one thing. It's really simple, and it should be easy if you have anything even approaching a consistent model.

That is, come up with a map of the world that every flat earther here can agree on. Once you've done that, we can discuss your model. But until you take this first step, you don't even have a coherent position, and thus it's pointless to argue with you.

 

[prodromos]

Are you saying Argentina and New Zealand are close, or on a flat earth further away than a map shows? I posted one map with their trek. Another posted another map. Which one do you think is correct? The consensus was they took a shorter route than any other trek across that section. They did not cross the south pole. Unless they do it again and walked the actual edge, would it be even shorter? You say it was shorter because the closer they got to the south pole, the shorter their route would be. Except we see that those who actually went on a more direct route and did get closer and stayed closer to an actual "crossing" did take much longer and not shorter time, nor length. Is the trek between Argentina and New Zealand the shortest Antarctica distance? What would happen if you went east instead of west? Oh wait, people still want to go south. Is there not a base camp close to Africa, or do you have to sail to Argentina first?

Let me post a picture of their trek according to how you described Antarctica.

Do you understand the issue now?

 

[SeventyOne]

Again, you're saying that something is impossible for God to do, so it seems like you're the one contradicting scripture.

I would appreciate it if you didn't lie about me. It's one thing to disagree, it's another to make false accusations.

I'm stating the circumstances outlined in the scripture. Believe them, or don't. That's between you and Him.

 

[Strathos]

I would appreciate it if you didn't lie about me. It's one thing to disagree, it's another to make false accusations.

I'm stating the circumstances outlined in the scripture. Believe them, or don't. That's between you and Him.

Do you understand the concept of a miracle? It's a temporary suspension of the laws of nature. Saying that the laws of nature make a miracle impossible is incoherent.

 

[Timtofly]

Because it is a continent next to Africa and South America as well, so where do you put it? Once you choose which continent you place it under, what do you do with all the empty space under the other continents, because it will give the false impression that there is a massive ocean instead of the continent of Antarctica. Google maps is simply following the solution which has been in use for many decades. You are the first person I have come across who hasn't understood why Antarctica is usually stretched out at the bottom of the map. The arctic isn't because it is not a land mass.

Or the first person who questions hundreds of years of education. The north pole is not the problem. I guess some question the size of Greenland?? It is the southern hemisphere that has issues.

 

[SeventyOne]

Do you understand the concept of a miracle? It's a temporary suspension of the laws of nature. Saying that the laws of nature make a miracle impossible is incoherent.

Have you read what I've been saying at all? I've said over and over the account stated the sun and moon stopped and remained stationary over particular locations. That's what says and that's exactly what I've said.

What it doesn't say is the earth stopped, and that's where heliocentricity fails completely. One has to add that component to the miracle, which it does not say, to get the same desired results.

Ball-earthers have to add a component to the account in order for their model to fit because taking the account at face value invalidates the properties of heliocentricity. It is a real problem for you if you choose to also believe the scriptures are accurate. I honestly don't know where to go from here since there is no apparent effort of critical thought on your end, because this is as obvious as it gets.

 

[Timtofly]

Let me post a picture of their trek according to how you described Antarctica.

View attachment 282732
Do you understand the issue now?

No because you are using a map based on a globe. You are going to have to use that map, that no one is willing to make. The excuse is because it is impossible. But why? Are they stretching Antarctica to make it bigger than it is? Are they making it smaller than it is? Where is the geo-stationary sat. directly above the south pole taking a live stream view of Antarctica?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Where is the geo-stationary sat. directly above the south pole taking a live stream view of Antarctica?

Geostationary satellites are called that because their orbital period matches Earth's rotational period (24hrs) and they orbit in the Earth's direction of rotation. Polar satellites have to orbit the Earth pole to pole and the poles are on the Earth's axis of rotation - so you can't have a geostationary polar satellite.

Having said that, there are plenty of satellite images of Antarctica.

It's not rocket science - oh, wait...

 

[Strathos]

Have you read what I've been saying at all? I've said over and over the account stated the sun and moon stopped and remained stationary over particular locations. That's what says and that's exactly what I've said.

What it doesn't say is the earth stopped, and that's where heliocentricity fails completely. One has to add that component to the miracle, which it does not say, to get the same desired results.

It can be inferred in the text that the earth stopped. Or perhaps it didn't stop, but the sun and moon still appeared to stand still. It's a miracle.

Ball-earthers have to add a component to the account in order for their model to fit because taking the account at face value invalidates the properties of heliocentricity. It is a real problem for you if you choose to also believe the scriptures are accurate. I honestly don't know where to go from here since there is no apparent effort of critical thought on your end, because this is as obvious as it gets.

If you assume that the earth did not stop just because it didn't explicitly say so in the text, it could still happen. God can do paradoxical things that we can't understand. How do you think the Trinity works?

 

[Strathos]

Really, this argument is silly. God could make the earth stop. He could make the sun and the moon move in ways that they appeared to stop. He could make them appear to stop only in that part of the world at that time but keep moving for everyone else. He could make them both stop and keep moving at the same time if He wanted to.

The passage says that Joshua told God to make the sun and the moon stop moving for a day, and that is what they recorded happening. We don't know how God did it, that's why it's a miracle. It's most likely beyond human understanding.

 

[d taylor]

It can be inferred in the text that the earth stopped. Or perhaps it didn't stop, but the sun and moon still appeared to stand still. It's a miracle.

Not from the witness from the Bible, and the Bible should be the only witness to its own text, Scripture interprets Scripture.

What is happening when believing that Joshua 10 is actually stating the earth stopped rotating because people at that time knew no better. Is completely a science influenced interpretation of Biblical text.

 

[prodromos]

No because you are using a map based on a globe.

I am using a map fitting your earlier claim.

Antarctica is the land that keeps the oceans in place. It is land, not ice. Ice just covers the land. If a human walks the coast line of Antarctica, they would have walked the longest continuous length of land on earth.

 

[prodromos]

Or the first person who questions hundreds of years of education. The north pole is not the problem. I guess some question the size of Greenland?? It is the southern hemisphere that has issues.

The issue of map distortion is the same moving North of the equator as it is moving South of the equator.
Greenland has an area of 2.2 million square km, yet most maps depict it as large as Africa which has an area of 30.4 million square km. Greenland fits within India which has an area of 3.2 million square km.

 

[Paul4JC]

Really, this argument is silly. God could make the earth stop. He could make the sun and the moon move in ways that they appeared to stop. He could make them appear to stop only in that part of the world at that time but keep moving for everyone else. He could make them both stop and keep moving at the same time if He wanted to.

The passage says that Joshua told God to make the sun and the moon stop moving for a day, and that is what they recorded happening. We don't know how God did it, that's why it's a miracle. It's most likely beyond human understanding.

God could do all the but not create a "flat" earth? Could it also be beyond human understanding?

 

[Strathos]

Not from the witness from the Bible, and the Bible should be the only witness to its own text, Scripture interprets Scripture.

What is happening when believing that Joshua 10 is actually stating the earth stopped rotating because people at that time knew no better. Is completely a science influenced interpretation of Biblical text.

As opposed to your conspiracy - fueled interpretation?

Face it, flat earth is stated nowhere in the Bible.

 

[Strathos]

God could do all the but not create a "flat" earth? Could it also be beyond human understanding?

Oh sure He could. But then He would also have to be constantly fooling our senses to make it appear to be round. If you want to go that route, we might as well all be brains in jars somewhere. There might be no earth at all. That's called solipsism.

 

[d taylor]

As opposed to your conspiracy - fueled interpretation?

Face it, flat earth is stated nowhere in the Bible.

Give me a date when was it fully accepted that the sun did not move and it was actually the earth rotating.

 

[Strathos]

Give me a date when was it fully accepted that the sun did not move and it was actually the earth rotating.

Never, because the sun does move.

 

[Junia]

as has been pointed out before: the Earth can't be flat or cats would have pushed everything off the edge a long time ago:

tulc(that's simply a scientific fact)

this post wins the whole thread!!!

 

[Ophiolite]

That is, come up with a map of the world that every flat earther here can agree on. Once you've done that, we can discuss your model. But until you take this first step, you don't even have a coherent position, and thus it's pointless to argue with you.

But it's disturbingly satisfying.