1

Flat Earth Community / Re: Discourse on Gravity and Evolution

« on: February 06, 2017, 09:00:33 PM »

And thank you! For answering me in kind

I don't think evolution would make humans insignificant per say. Existence is existence no matter how it's looked at. I don't really prescribe to the Big Bang Theory, but (and perhaps I've had too much indulgence in folk world-view) I do tend to think of 'nothingness' as it's own element. To be honest, I don't think either the Round Earth or Flat Earth theories can be true without a large leap in understanding the incorporeal aspects of creation. And science still walks on egg shells when mentioning anything remotely preternatural.

Forget I said anything about volcanoes. I have since done much research and learned that the mainstream explanations for volcanoes are satisfactorly vague, in the sense that they neither prove nor disprove either FET or RET. Sorry!

The main things about FET that I find most convincing are as follows:
-The fact that aero and nautical travel methods DO NOT account for any curvature when setting course and they have absolutely no trouble navigating.
-The building of railways and bridges also DO NOT account for curvature, and turn out functional after the building is done.
-The fact that it would be really easy to pretend a chunk of ice somewhere near the ice wall is in fact 'antarctica' when it isn't.
-The fact that in recorded cases navigators in the southern hemisphere have found themselves 15 to 30 miles off course using the global trigonometry method of navigation.
-The fact that my eyes see a straight horizon.
-The fact that I don't see why anyone cares so much about if there is something in 'outer space'....it feels like an attempt to abandon Earth, a place which I love.
-the global organisations that have an apparent ice wall surrounding a flat earth map in their logos (Lmao!)
And a few other things that escape my mind at the moment.

But what I find super confusing is the debate over the circumpolar stars and the nature of the sky and it's celestial bodies if it's nature is unlike the Space we are widely taught about. Also, if the moon is closer than we think it is, then why weren't the lunar landing true? As in the moon was more accessible than they lead us to believe? And that is why their 'space' gear was so dinky lol

2

Flat Earth Community / Discourse on Gravity and Evolution

« on: February 05, 2017, 11:34:41 PM »

I've noticed that the Flat Earth Theory has taken a deep breath this year, causing more people to be interested in the 'conspiracy theories' surrounding NASA. To start, I don't strongly believe, nor strongly disbelieve Flat Earth. I like the idea of it. I'm a huge folk tale lover, and the idea of an actual ice wall that guards the edges of the world is very appealing to me, among other things. Having had tastes of FET in the past, I kept my thoughts about it to myself, but with the recent hype, I was hoping to get some calm answers to a few questions.

I've seen plenty about the sun and moon; explanations for their movement, the seasons and the phases. What I've never seen is an explanation for their ability to move or to stay suspended in the atmosphere at all. Maybe I haven't looked hard enough? If anyone can clue me in on that, I would like that very much.

Second, I wont presume that all FET believers are against the Theory of Evolution, as I myself sit unknowably between the two ideas, but I've never understood why anyone thinks FET disproves evolution, except when the FET believers are bible thumping. I mean, when I think of evolution, I think less about it as 'survival of the fittest' and more of it as 'the un-survival of the not fit'. It's certainly true that biological organisms adapt and alter over time, that much can be discerned in one person's observations over one lifetime. It's true weather patterns swing from drastic to not so drastic depending on the condition of the land as the changing seasons sweep over it. And it's true that some creatures go extinct when others don't due to any such factors. I guess what I'm asking for here is an explanation about the physical origins of creatures according to Intelligent Design ideas. I don't see why evolution isn't considered the vehicle by which Intelligent Design does what it does. If there is a reason why the FET movement would benefit from discounting evolution or it's proponents, I'd like to know that too. I see also that those that believe in evolution usually ridicule Flat Earth Theorists, but I don't know who started throwing mud first.

And lastly, has anyone explained volcanoes and where the lava comes from/what the ecological point of it is, according to Flat Earth Theory? Where would the earths core be in order to produce magma?

Thank you for your time