[GreatATuin]

It was agreed here that the scientists claiming those things would automatically be put into the loony bin. That's called bias, and is unscientific. Anyone saying such a thing, and their so-called evidence, is automatically rejected.

There is a philosophy in science against scripture. Science claims to be in the search of truth, but only certain truths. That is disgusting to me.

all of these claims have been proved wrong by modern, and sometimes not-so-modern science

No it hasn't. In this discussion there was agreement that that there is no experimental evidence against Intelligent Design, as an example.

The standard for truth in science is experimental evidence and the Scientific Method. Where are these experiments?

You have declared and decided that something is wrong, but neglect to show experimental evidence showing this.

Shifting goalposts again? The claim was "Creationism was right all along". This claim was proven wrong by science, Scientific American describes how much better than I could (especially point 3, on how evolution is tested).

Intelligent Design, on the other hand, cannot be tested and therefore has no scientific value.

[Tom Bishop]

It was agreed here that the scientists claiming those things would automatically be put into the loony bin. That's called bias, and is unscientific. Anyone saying such a thing, and their so-called evidence, is automatically rejected.

There is a philosophy in science against scripture. Science claims to be in the search of truth, but only certain truths. That is disgusting to me.

all of these claims have been proved wrong by modern, and sometimes not-so-modern science

No it hasn't. In this discussion there was agreement that that there is no experimental evidence against Intelligent Design, as an example.

The standard for truth in science is experimental evidence and the Scientific Method. Where are these experiments?

You have declared and decided that something is wrong, but neglect to show experimental evidence showing this.

Shifting goalposts again? The claim was "Creationism was right all along". This claim was proven wrong by science, Scientific American describes how much better than I could (especially point 3, on how evolution is tested).

Intelligent Design, on the other hand, cannot be tested and therefore has no scientific value.

Creationism wasn't proven wrong either.

Scientific American: "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense" - Contains references to interpretation of fossil evidence, geologic evidence, etc.

None of it is experimental. You can only observe and interpret artifacts of the past, not experiment on it.

Can you pull out the Scientific Method and tell me exactly how those theories were demonstrated with experiment?

Carbon dating - observation and interpretation. Fossils - observation and interpretation. Nothing really in the way of strong experimental evidence and construction of artificial situations to determine that theories are correct. Only observation and interpretation. The Creation Scientists do have their own interpretations for those things, and say the same thing about how you can only observe and interpret.

If you aren't, or can't, adhere to experimental evidence as truth, it's not science. It's pseudoscience. Observation and interpretation. A fallacy as old as humanity.

[JRowe]

That's completely out of touch with reality. Satellites are everywhere. You can't cover that up with a couple scientists. The amount of work to build systems that could function just like satellites but without actual satellites is tremendous. If you align your dish with anything different from the position of the geostationary satellite it's supposed to get its stream from, it stops working. You can't build a system that would simulate that with just a few people, and you can even less suppose they'll never question anything or say anything. And that's just geostationary broadcasting satellites. There are many other types, some of them can actually be seen with the naked eye at the exact position they're supposed to be, including for example the ISS.

Assuming it could be "very simple" is delusional.

Reducing the number of even potential whistleblowers is simple. Don't move the goalposts, you asked how such a system could be faked and the secret kept, I answered.
The replacement system itself, yes, that would likely be more complex, but that's how these things go. It's the combination of trapping yourself in a corner because the lie was started, and the simple fact that they could and there are clear benefits to doing so in strictly practical terms. Everyone uses GPS. You're conflating the effects of satellites with satellites themselves though, any directional signal would require you to be pointed in the right direction, that's nothing special, and simply seeing something in the sky does not guarantee that it's in space.

[stack]

There is a philosophy in science against scripture. Science claims to be in the search of truth, but only certain truths. That is disgusting to me.

Just curious, when you reference 'scripture' do you mean Christian scripture, i.e., the bible or is it meant to be euphemistic of all religions?

[GreatATuin]

That's completely out of touch with reality. Satellites are everywhere. You can't cover that up with a couple scientists. The amount of work to build systems that could function just like satellites but without actual satellites is tremendous. If you align your dish with anything different from the position of the geostationary satellite it's supposed to get its stream from, it stops working. You can't build a system that would simulate that with just a few people, and you can even less suppose they'll never question anything or say anything. And that's just geostationary broadcasting satellites. There are many other types, some of them can actually be seen with the naked eye at the exact position they're supposed to be, including for example the ISS.

Assuming it could be "very simple" is delusional.

Reducing the number of even potential whistleblowers is simple. Don't move the goalposts, you asked how such a system could be faked and the secret kept, I answered.
The replacement system itself, yes, that would likely be more complex, but that's how these things go. It's the combination of trapping yourself in a corner because the lie was started, and the simple fact that they could and there are clear benefits to doing so in strictly practical terms. Everyone uses GPS. You're conflating the effects of satellites with satellites themselves though, any directional signal would require you to be pointed in the right direction, that's nothing special, and simply seeing something in the sky does not guarantee that it's in space.

It's not just "the right direction". It's the EXACT location of a geostationary satellite on its orbit over the equator. From any position on Earth, within range of that satellite. I'm not sure it's even possible to build an infrastructure without satellites that would achieve this result - let alone building it without anyone noticing something weird.

[GreatATuin]

Carbon dating - observation and interpretation. Fossils - observation and interpretation. Nothing really in the way of strong experimental evidence and construction of artificial situations to determine that theories are correct. Only observation and interpretation. The so-called 'Creation Scientists' do have their own interpretations for those things, and say the same thing about how you can only observe and interpret.

If you aren't, or can't, adhere to experimental evidence as truth, it's not science. It's pseudoscience. Observation and interpretation. A fallacy as old as humanity.

According to your own definition of science, which is, to put it softly, highly personal. Scientists don't happen to agree with it.

We find fossils. We find DNA samples. We analyze them. That's how we test the theory against the evidence we have. I'll quote the article: "For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 200,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominin creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not—and does not—find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (65 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly."

[Tom Bishop]

Carbon dating - observation and interpretation. Fossils - observation and interpretation. Nothing really in the way of strong experimental evidence and construction of artificial situations to determine that theories are correct. Only observation and interpretation. The so-called 'Creation Scientists' do have their own interpretations for those things, and say the same thing about how you can only observe and interpret.

If you aren't, or can't, adhere to experimental evidence as truth, it's not science. It's pseudoscience. Observation and interpretation. A fallacy as old as humanity.

According to your own definition of science, which is, to put it softly, highly personal. Scientists don't happen to agree with it.

Yes, actually, they do agree with it. Experimentation is a part of the Scientific Method. "Observe and interpret" is not the Scientific Method and is widely defined as Pseudoscience.

First sentence of the Wikipedia article for Pseudoscience:

Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method.[1]

If it doesn't follow the Scientific Method it's a Pseudoscience.

Science website phys.org says:

How scientists can learn what distinguishes science from pseudoscience

Pseudoscience mimics aspects of science while fundamentally denying the scientific method. A useful definition of the scientific method is:

principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

A key phrase is "testing of hypotheses". We test hypotheses because they can be wrong.

You have to test the hypothesis with an experiment, not observe and interpret.

Science historian Edgar Zilsel said:

Why is experiment so essential to empirical science? Mere observation is a passive affair. It means but “wait and see” and often depends on chance. Experiment, on the other hand, is an active method of investigation. The experimenter does not wait until events begin, as it were, to speak for themselves; he systematically asks questions. Moreover, he uses artificial means of producing conditions such that clear answers are likely to be obtained. Such preparations are indispensable in most cases. Natural events are usually compounds of numerous effects produced by different causes, and these can hardly be separately investigated until most of them are eliminated by artificial means. There is, therefore, in all empirical sciences a distinct trend toward experimentation.

Sciences in which experiment is not feasible are handicapped. They try to solve their problems by referring to other sciences in which experiments can be performed.

Experiment is indispensable because you cannot otherwise distinguish something which can be a natural event caused by numerous effects of different causes, as they often are.

These were lessons learned at the birth of Modern Science. Observation and interpretation is bad and fallacious.

[GreatATuin]

"A key phrase is "testing of hypotheses" "

That's what biologists do. They test hypotheses, and the hypotheses of the theory of evolution have been thoroughly confirmed through observation and experiment, because comparing fossils and analyzing DNA samples is already much more that just passive "observation". Are they not the result of artificial means used to produce conditions that allow to obtain answers?

[stack]

Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method.[1]

How is the above not the definition of the 'scriptures'?

[AATW]

Scores of scientists are writing books about how God does not exist and that science prevails. Clearly a theme.

Is there a theme though? Are there "scores" of scientists writing books like that? You cherry picked a few books.
Go to a bookshop and look in the science section. Pretty much all the books are just talking about the science.
A few may have an anti-God agenda but I'd suggest it's a tiny minority of scientists. In fact, in your cherry picked examples 2 of those are by the same author, Dawkins! That doesn't shout to me that there's a huge anti-God movement in science.

As for Aristotle, from your source:

Aristotle is highly critical of the anthropomorphizing of divinities, pervasive throughout Greek culture. He thinks not only that the stories told about the traditional gods are absurd, but that these gods do not exist

So he was certainly against the polytheistic religion of the day. As a Christian, so am I and, I assume, so are you.
Whether he was an atheist...maybe, but what of it?
As JSS said, there is no "head" of science who is pushing an anti-God agenda. Scientists are individuals who will have individual beliefs and many prominent scientists down the centuries have been Christians. The idea that science was started and continues to this day as a concerted effort to disprove God is nonsense, as is the notion that Christianity and Science are in opposition to one another and you have to "pick a side".

The only "philosophy" in science is to discern truth about the physical universe we find ourselves in. It has nothing to say about whether there is any purpose behind it. And, conversely, religion should concern itself with our purpose and what, if anything, happens after we shuffle off this mortal coil. It shouldn't have anything to say about, say, the shape of the earth.

Now find us a modern contemporary scientist held in high regard who claims:
"Creationism was right all along!"
or
"The world REALLY IS 6000 years old!"
or
"The Earth is the central body of the Universe!"
Support any of those positions and you are rejected from normal science discourse. You are deemed a quack scientist or whatever. They don't believe in the scriptures, or that they could be true.

They don't believe in your interpretation of the scriptures. Nor do I. Nor do most of the people at your church, if you go to one. I don't know anyone at my church who believes most of those things. Probably there are more young earth Creationist Christians than flat earth ones. I believe them to be misguided in their interpretations. As I said earlier in the thread, some Christians when confronted with science which conflicts with their understanding of Scripture conclude that the science must be wrong. I would suggest they should consider that their understanding may be wrong. As I said earlier, if you're going to take everything literal in the Bible then how are you believing that the earth is a circle (Isaiah 40:22) and a square (Isaiah 11:12). Circles famously don't have corners. You are literally trying to square a circle.

Many people believe that the scriptures are "true" without believing that everything in them has to be scientifically accurate. The Bible often uses poetic language to teach us deeper truths.

The things you mention are not rejected by scientists because of an inherent underlying philosophy which is anti-God or anti-Christian. If that were so why would there be any Christians who are scientists, which there demonstrably are. These things are rejected because the weight of scientific evidence is against them. There are many ways to tell we live on an old earth, and a globe.

If someone came along with compelling evidence that we do not then would they be rejected out of hand? It's hard to know because there is no compelling evidence other than "but my book says...". I believe that scientists are always open to amending their ideas if newer ones come along which demonstrably model the world better - Einstein's theories overturned centuries of Newtonian physics. But the start would have to be some proper, compelling evidence of a young or flat earth and thus far none has been presented.

You are creating a false dichotomy where you claim you either have to believe in Scripture or science. I'd suggest no such dichotomy exists. The only reason you think it does is because of your interpretation of Scripture, one which is not shared by most people with faith.
You do not need to "pick a side", but you might need to amend your understanding of Scripture in the light of modern (and no so modern, in some cases) science.

[JRowe]

It's not just "the right direction". It's the EXACT location of a geostationary satellite on its orbit over the equator. From any position on Earth, within range of that satellite. I'm not sure it's even possible to build an infrastructure without satellites that would achieve this result - let alone building it without anyone noticing something weird.

You've already had it pointed out to you how it's easy to build almost anything without people finding it weird. You have to assume some basic competence on their part, they aren't going to share every little detail with every stray contractor and janitor.
It literally is just the right direction, it doesn't point to an exact location, it points to any one of a number of points along a line between the satellite dish and the point at extreme altitude where a satellite is said to be.

[inquisitive]

It's not just "the right direction". It's the EXACT location of a geostationary satellite on its orbit over the equator. From any position on Earth, within range of that satellite. I'm not sure it's even possible to build an infrastructure without satellites that would achieve this result - let alone building it without anyone noticing something weird.

You've already had it pointed out to you how it's easy to build almost anything without people finding it weird. You have to assume some basic competence on their part, they aren't going to share every little detail with every stray contractor and janitor.
It literally is just the right direction, it doesn't point to an exact location, it points to any one of a number of points along a line between the satellite dish and the point at extreme altitude where a satellite is said to be.

We have many people spaced apart receiving from the same satellite with different angles depending on location. All caclulations are correct and based on a round earth and a geosynchronous position.
We can also receive from 20 GPNSS satellites from 4 systems.

[Tom Bishop]

Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method.[1]

How is the above not the definition of the 'scriptures'?

The Scientific Method is a process of investigation. The Scientific Method is a process of investigating the world, which has been declared by Modern Science to be the correct way to do so.

The scriptures are allegedly historical records. It's a mix of observational claims, accounts of man, and alleged accounts from God. The observational accounts from man can be characterized as pseudoscience, but the accounts from God can only be a lie or mistake, rather than faulty science. They are claims moreso than an incorrect process of investigation.

If we take all which is claimed and said as true, there really isn't an alternative explanation to the assumed physical processes. Many of the supernatural accounts can only be a fib. God created man from dirt? What is the alternative physical process for that? Again, it is impossible to take all which is claimed as true to create alternative secular physical explanations. It can only be a fib or some sort of mistaken delusion which the writer thinks is true.

"A key phrase is "testing of hypotheses" "

That's what biologists do. They test hypotheses, and the hypotheses of the theory of evolution have been thoroughly confirmed through observation and experiment, because comparing fossils and analyzing DNA samples is already much more that just passive "observation". Are they not the result of artificial means used to produce conditions that allow to obtain answers?

Fossil evidence is interpretive. DNA evidence is more experimental, and is interesting when comparing living creatures. But there is still interpretation and assumption when attempting to deduce what occurred back in time.

None of the topics of Creationism, Age of Earth, or a Central Earth can be disproved or shown wrong by science. Aside from the tools and hypothesis for the Science explanations being based on pseudoscience and the possibility of other natural processes to any observation, the Creationists also alternatively say that God created a mature earth, just as God created a mature Adam. God created an adult Adam, not an infant Adam. It stands that God would have created trees with rings and rocks with layers, in instant fast forward mode, as he apparently did with the creation of Adam.

It is also said that there may be an unsaid gap of time between the creation of Earth and the creation of man (Adam and Eve) in scripture. It's missing the parts where God put in place the Watchers over the Earth, created the other Angels, etc. The creation of Earth and the creation of man are different chapters. The 6000 year timeline is based on lineage and starts at Adam, to which some have appropriated as the age of the Earth.

It is uninteresting to me to talk about what might have been or what might have happened. But it should be understood that it is unable to be confirmed or debunked. Like ID, the subject of creation is not really debunkable or in the realm of Science.

--

In regards to the topic of a Central Earth, this one is a little more interesting and tangible, since the official explanation of Astronomy is that it looks like we are at the center of the universe, but that it is merely an illusion.

Edwin Hubble says:

Such a condition [the red shifts] would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central earth. The hypothesis cannot be disproved but it is unwelcome and would be accepted only as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore, we disregard this possibility and consider the alternative, namely, a distribution which thins out with distance.

A thinning out would be readily explained in either of two ways. The first is space absorption. If the nebulae were seen through a tenuous haze, they would fade away faster than could be accounted for by distance and red-shifts alone, and the distribution, even if it were uniform, would appear to thin out. The second explanation is a super-system of nebulae, isolated in a larger world, with our own nebula somewhere near the centre. In this case the real distribution would thin out after all the proper corrections had been applied.

Both explanations seem plausible, but neither is permitted by the observations.

The apparent departures from uniformity in the World Picture are fully compensated by the minimum possible corrections for redshifts on any interpretation. No margin is left for a thinning out. The true distribution must either be uniform or increase outward, leaving the observer in a unique position.

But the unwelcome supposition of a favoured location must be avoided at all costs… Such a favoured position, of course, is intolerable… Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position, the departures from uniformity, which are introduced by the recession factors, must be compensated by the second term representing effects of spatial curvature. There seems to be no other escape.

Stephen Hawking says in A Brief History of Time:

...all this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look in might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe."

There is, however, an alternate explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy, too. This, as we have seen, was Friedmann’s second assumption. We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty: it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe.

Funny that the universe should be that way.

And did you catch that there is a scientific belief based on 'grounds of modesty'? Truly, scientific.

See the observations at https://wiki.tfes.org/Cosmological_Principle

[JRowe]

It's not just "the right direction". It's the EXACT location of a geostationary satellite on its orbit over the equator. From any position on Earth, within range of that satellite. I'm not sure it's even possible to build an infrastructure without satellites that would achieve this result - let alone building it without anyone noticing something weird.

You've already had it pointed out to you how it's easy to build almost anything without people finding it weird. You have to assume some basic competence on their part, they aren't going to share every little detail with every stray contractor and janitor.
It literally is just the right direction, it doesn't point to an exact location, it points to any one of a number of points along a line between the satellite dish and the point at extreme altitude where a satellite is said to be.

We have many people spaced apart receiving from the same satellite with different angles depending on location. All caclulations are correct and based on a round earth and a geosynchronous position.
We can also receive from 20 GPNSS satellites from 4 systems.

Anyone can say anything's true. The hard part would be showing that it and only it is true. Every time I ever see you post, it's always the same assertion, and you always leave the discussion when pushed to give anything more. Grow up.

[GreatATuin]

You've already had it pointed out to you how it's easy to build almost anything without people finding it weird. You have to assume some basic competence on their part, they aren't going to share every little detail with every stray contractor and janitor.
It literally is just the right direction, it doesn't point to an exact location, it points to any one of a number of points along a line between the satellite dish and the point at extreme altitude where a satellite is said to be.

From a given location, it could be indeed a number of points along a line. From another location, it would have to be along another line. And so on, for any given location within coverage of the satellite. How many floating non-satellite devices do you need to achieve this result?

We have many people spaced apart receiving from the same satellite with different angles depending on location. All caclulations are correct and based on a round earth and a geosynchronous position.
We can also receive from 20 GPNSS satellites from 4 systems.

Anyone can say anything's true. The hard part would be showing that it and only it is true. Every time I ever see you post, it's always the same assertion, and you always leave the discussion when pushed to give anything more. Grow up.

If absolutely everyone who uses a satellite dish, or a BGAN phone, says it works for them only when it points to the position a satellite on a geosynchronous orbit, could it be, just maybe, because that's what actually works?

You still provide zero explanation on how an alternative system without satellites could even be possible. Yet you want us to believe it would be easy to build it and keep it a secret. You have absolutely no idea how to build such a system or what it would look like or how it could even be possible to make it work, and you still assert it would be easy. Amazing. We're talking about building an absolutely massive infrastructure, that would have to be at least as complex as the thousands of existing satellites it's supposed to simulate. And having no one, ever, just wondering what this infrastructure is actually for. And no one outside the project ever noticing.

[JRowe]

From a given location, it could be indeed a number of points along a line. From another location, it would have to be along another line. And so on, for any given location within coverage of the satellite. How many floating non-satellite devices do you need to achieve this result?

Offhand, no idea, it's not exactly the easiest thing to calculate with how many unknowns there necessarily are. Again, you have to assume some basic competence on the part of the developers, they're hardly going to release schematics and figures for the whole secret. There can still be intersections of lines, and points that serve alternate purposes.

You still provide zero explanation on how an alternative system without satellites could even be possible.

You literally responded to me explaining how an alternative system without satellites would be posssible. Don't grandstand, it just makes you look desperate.

Yet you want us to believe it would be easy to build it and keep it a secret.

Ditto for explaining why. If you object to my explanations, say why, don't just pretend they never happened. You act like " And having no one, ever, just wondering what this infrastructure is actually for. And no one outside the project ever noticing," isn't something I haven't already addressed.

[stack]

Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method.[1]

How is the above not the definition of the 'scriptures'?

The Scientific Method is a process of investigation. The Scientific Method is a process of investigating the world, which has been declared by Modern Science to be the correct way to do so.

The scriptures are allegedly historical records. It's a mix of observational claims, accounts of man, and alleged accounts from God. The observational accounts from man can be characterized as pseudoscience, but the accounts from God can only be a lie or mistake, rather than faulty science. They are claims moreso than an incorrect process of investigation.

If we take all which is claimed and said as true, there really isn't an alternative explanation to the assumed physical processes. Many of the supernatural accounts can only be a fib. God created man from dirt? What is the alternative physical process for that? Again, it is impossible to take all which is claimed as true to create alternative secular physical explanations. It can only be a fib or some sort of mistaken delusion which the writer thinks is true.

Why are you only narrowly focused on Christianity? What about the other religions of the world?

[AATW]

If we take all which is claimed and said as true, there really isn't an alternative explanation to the assumed physical processes. Many of the supernatural accounts can only be a fib. God created man from dirt? What is the alternative physical process for that? Again, it is impossible to take all which is claimed as true to create alternative secular physical explanations. It can only be a fib or some sort of mistaken delusion which the writer thinks is true.

Maybe early Genesis isn't describing physical processes. Maybe the language is more poetic and trying to teach us deeper truths than the physical processes at work.
What's the important message of early Genesis? Is it the age of the earth of the physical processes of creation?
Or is it telling us that we are a creation. And it tells us who we are created by and what we are created for.
I'd suggest these are the important truths of Genesis.
Scripture can be "true" without being scientifically accurate.

None of the topics of Creationism, Age of Earth, or a Central Earth can be disproved or shown wrong by science.

Technically true, but when it comes to things like the age of the earth we have evidence from many branches of science that it's very old.
It's possible that all those branches are wrong by factors of millions but as the evidence builds up it seems increasingly unlikely.
Especially when the only counter argument from fundamentalists is "but my book says..." - and many people believe in that book and don't interpret it that way in the light of modern science.

Obviously you can't do an experiment to determine the age of the earth but you can make a hypothesis about things like the age of the earth and evolution and look at whether the evidence backs up those hypotheses. Yes, it's possible that God created the earth 6,000 years ago and planted a load of evidence which makes us think it's much older. Seems pretty unlikely though. A more plausible explanation for the apparent contradiction is that the Bible is not to be read like a science book. And why would it be? Scripture has a different purpose...

"The Bible shows the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go.
- Galileo Galilei

[Wonderer]

Phew -okay, read through all of those posts.

Looks to me like the common theme here is "we know better than the people who devote their lives to this".

A quick list looks like:

• Physicists - Should be clear but everyone from astrophysicists to geophysicists use the round earth model to get their results
• Geologists - The age of the earth, the pressures and movements of plates and so on come from these people
• Historians - In depth studies of what the ancients thought and how we're influenced by them (RE: claims about ancient Greeks)
• Engineers -Designing planes (and their flight paths), building large bridges, tall buildings, long straight roads, any long tunnels (like those at the LHC)

All of these people use the round earth model to get the results they do. They build things that stay standing, make predictions that come true and are continually vetted by their peers.

Flat earth belief requires the claim either all of those people are in on a conspiracy or that you know the subject better than all of those specialists who've spent their lives studying that particular area.

I'm not saying the minority cannot be right I'm just saying that when your position requires you to claim you're more knowledgable in such a wide variety of disciplines than all of those people perhaps you should be prepared to reevaluate that position.

[JRowe]

I'm not saying the minority cannot be right I'm just saying that when your position requires you to claim you're more knowledgable in such a wide variety of disciplines than all of those people perhaps you should be prepared to reevaluate that position.

Are you more knowledgeable than Einstein because you know how to work an iphone better than he ever did?