[TheTruthIsOnHere]

I've gotten the impression that the official flat earth theory community is one that prefers to reconcile the true nature of the shape of our world with strictly scientific means. I believe this is a disastrous misstep. One way to highlight this blunder is that 70-82% of Americans believe in God or a higher power... as opposed to roughly 15% of scientists that share the belief.

Now I understand the Zetetic Method dictates that we start with a question, and then a search for the answer using observations with no conclusion in mind. However, to answer the questions "How did we get here? Where did we come from?" using this method is obviously a tall order. The fact that belief in God is something that has to this point been strictly faith-based, despite thousands of years worth of scientists and "natural philosophers" on the Vatican's payroll attempting to prove the existence of a Benevolent Creator, attests to the difficulty.

Anyone with a rational, logical mind would have to agree it's absurd to believe someone or something, a magic man in the sky, could possibly be at the root of our existence.

Or is it? In my opinion, the more absurd concept is the only other competing, contemporary view: The Big Bang. Anyone that has ever looked at the sheer odds involved with modern science's heliocentric view of our Earth, has to agree they are astounding. The chance that the "rock" we live on ended up in precisely the place it needs to be in relation to our emergence, evolution and survival -the goldilocks theory - is unfathomable to anyone that purports to have a mind rooted in reason and logic.

With that said, the belief in heliocentric, orbiting spheres through vacuum space is Gospel in the mainstream mind. The same mainstream that expresses their overwhelming  consensus on the existence of God. Do you not see the contradiction? Is this not absurd?!? The very model and concept "flat-earthers" are routinely ridiculed for is explained word for word in the first chapter of the most important book to all theology! I personally don't understand the disconnect. Whether it has arisen through centuries of planning, by those hoping to separate God from science altogether, or is a natural trend towards secularism, is anyone's guess.

One certain place we can trace this disconnect to is the advent of heliocentric theory which brings with it the idea that we are no longer the important, center of the known universe beings we believed to be, but instead just an lucky happenstance in a universe too vast to ever comprehend, our actions too insignificant to ever be important. Separating Man from his divine origins was no easy task, nonetheless, that is where we are in our present day.

In conclusion, there is a large population of people out there that somehow laugh at the possibility of an Earth created exactly as described in the book they unequivocally believe to be the word of God. These are the people that need to be exposed to the "Flat-Earth Theory." In my opinion, it is obviously a "square peg, round hole" scenario trying to convince the other segment of society that recognize themselves as atheist. But for those who look at the incredible odds that humanity is the result of a big bang and realize it's absurdity, let us educate them with a view of a world that puts them back into the center of the universe, regardless of its shape.

Thanks for the read, fellow truth seekers!

[Rushy]

We don't use religious texts because they are vague and open to interpretation. Their authors use rather prominent methods of writing that allow for broad notions and mental gymnastics. There is no room for either in a forum devoted to the truth.

[Saddam Hussein]

the sheer odds involved...are astounding. The chance that the "rock" we live on ended up in precisely the place it needs to be in relation to our emergence, evolution and survival -the goldilocks theory - is unfathomable to anyone that purports to have a mind rooted in reason and logic.

I hate this argument so much.  Humanity wasn't flying around on a spaceship before it decided to settle on Earth.  It's precisely because humanity emerged and evolved on Earth that it's suited to our survival.  If humanity had emerged and evolved anywhere else, we'd be saying that that place was the "Goldilocks zone."  Anyway, the earth is flat.  Whether or not God is real is irrelevant to that fact.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

the sheer odds involved...are astounding. The chance that the "rock" we live on ended up in precisely the place it needs to be in relation to our emergence, evolution and survival -the goldilocks theory - is unfathomable to anyone that purports to have a mind rooted in reason and logic.

I hate this argument so much.  Humanity wasn't flying around on a spaceship before it decided to settle on Earth.  It's precisely because humanity emerged and evolved on Earth that it's suited to our survival.  If humanity had emerged and evolved anywhere else, we'd be saying that that place was the "Goldilocks zone."  Anyway, the earth is flat.  Whether or not God is real is irrelevant to that fact.

I hate any argument that hinges on the fact that evolution, described as the process of single celled organisms turning into people discussing complex ideas from thousands of miles away from each other, even exists. It has never been proven, and is as pseudo-scientific as Newton's concepts on universal gravitation.

I believe it is totally relevant whether God exists or not, as to whether we are the center of the universe or just another planet orbiting just another star. Refuting heliocentric theory is the first step in convincing others that our planet could possibly be flat.

As far as religious texts go, oral tradition is the root of all the major "myths" and "ethos" that are common among all religions. Creation, the Flood, Christ-figures etc. The author is humanity itself. No one man came up with these ideas shared between countless civilizations, some thousands of miles removed, never in contact with one another, but still have very similar origin stories.

[Fortuna]

If there is a one in ten trillion chance of something happening, given enough time, it will happen.

In fact, I'm sure there are one-in-ten-trillion things happening right now all over the universe.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

If there is a one in ten trillion chance of something happening, given enough time, it will happen.

In fact, I'm sure there are one-in-ten-trillion things happening right now all over the universe.

That's an interesting assertation, but it's just that. Not any kind of explanation how single celled organisms came to be then became upright man.

And I believe you are being modest... The actual odds are more like a trillion trillion... And if you believe in the big bang, anything that happened, happened very suddenly.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-probability-of-the-earth-existing-if-there-was-a-reboot-from-Big-Bang

To put it in context, the odds are impossibly astronomical, no pun intended.

[Lord Dave]

If there is a one in ten trillion chance of something happening, given enough time, it will happen.

In fact, I'm sure there are one-in-ten-trillion things happening right now all over the universe.

That's an interesting assertation, but it's just that. Not any kind of explanation how single celled organisms came to be then became upright man.

And I believe you are being modest... The actual odds are more like a trillion trillion... And if you believe in the big bang, anything that happened, happened very suddenly.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-probability-of-the-earth-existing-if-there-was-a-reboot-from-Big-Bang

To put it in context, the odds are impossibly astronomical, no pun intended.

Well the only other two options are:
Intelligent design.  Like by aliens.
God (whose existence requires evolution or magic)

And since we've seen evolution occur in bacteria, I'm going to go with that one.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

If there is a one in ten trillion chance of something happening, given enough time, it will happen.

In fact, I'm sure there are one-in-ten-trillion things happening right now all over the universe.

That's an interesting assertation, but it's just that. Not any kind of explanation how single celled organisms came to be then became upright man.

And I believe you are being modest... The actual odds are more like a trillion trillion... And if you believe in the big bang, anything that happened, happened very suddenly.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-probability-of-the-earth-existing-if-there-was-a-reboot-from-Big-Bang

To put it in context, the odds are impossibly astronomical, no pun intended.

Well the only other two options are:
Intelligent design.  Like by aliens.
God (whose existence requires evolution or magic)

And since we've seen evolution occur in bacteria, I'm going to go with that one.

There is absolutely no evidence of intermediary species, that is fossil record of fish growing legs, or a non fabricated "missing link" from ape to man. Also absolutely no evidence of a single celled organism ever becoming multicellular, only hypotheses at this point. If you want to hang your hat on that be my guest.

This just goes to show how perverse science has become in replacing God, that they have done so with an absolute lack of proof but the conditioned mind of man gobbles up their apparent insignificance like a starving dog.

[Lord Dave]

If there is a one in ten trillion chance of something happening, given enough time, it will happen.

In fact, I'm sure there are one-in-ten-trillion things happening right now all over the universe.

That's an interesting assertation, but it's just that. Not any kind of explanation how single celled organisms came to be then became upright man.

And I believe you are being modest... The actual odds are more like a trillion trillion... And if you believe in the big bang, anything that happened, happened very suddenly.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-probability-of-the-earth-existing-if-there-was-a-reboot-from-Big-Bang

To put it in context, the odds are impossibly astronomical, no pun intended.

Well the only other two options are:
Intelligent design.  Like by aliens.
God (whose existence requires evolution or magic)

And since we've seen evolution occur in bacteria, I'm going to go with that one.

There is absolutely no evidence of intermediary species, that is fossil record of fish growing legs, or a non fabricated "missing link" from ape to man. Also absolutely no evidence of a single celled organism ever becoming multicellular, only hypotheses at this point. If you want to hang your hat on that be my guest.

This just goes to show how perverse science has become in replacing God, that they have done so with an absolute lack of proof but the conditioned mind of man gobbles up their apparent insignificance like a starving dog.

There are "links".  We have quite a few of them.  While we don't have a fossil for every species that's ever existed, we have enough to see the changes.  A picture can still be seen even with a few pieces missing.

And please, don't go with "absolute lack of proof".  That's God.  Want proof God made the universe? You have a book that was written by man.  That's all the proof you have.  Which is basically like a science book, only you can't prove any of it happened.

[Blanko]

Treating the evolution of humans as a matter of odds is fallacious at best and ignorance of the scale of the universe at worst. The moment you realise that you are not special, the problem of odds disappears; of course if you track the biological process of evolving into the exact species we are right now, the odds are microscopic, but the same is true for any other intelligent species. There could be hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of intelligent species in the universe right now, many of which might consider themselves to be special, just like we do.

The problem with discussing this with Christians, which you seem to also be a part of, is that Christians can rarely separate their notion of humans being God's image or the Earth being God's creation from the natural process as defined by science. This leads to humans or the Earth as being seen as the "end goal" of evolution, as seen in your link about the "probability of Earth", suggesting that the Earth we inhabit today is somehow better than any other habitable planet. What you really should be doing is treating all habitable planets and intelligent species the same, and consider the process of having any one of them come into existence. If that process is physically and biologically viable, given enough time and space, it will happen; and given the sheer size of the universe, the odds of it never having happened are impossibly astronomical (pun intended).

If that process led to humans coming into existence, your problem is solved. The mistake is thinking that our particular form couldn't have come into existence by chance. Just think of it like this: if our physical forms were different in any numbers of ways, but our cognitive capacity the same, we would still be making that same mistake.

[Saddam Hussein]

There is absolutely no evidence of intermediary species, that is fossil record of fish growing legs, or a non fabricated "missing link" from ape to man.

That is ridiculous.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Science and religion don't have to be at odds. One describes the physical aspects of our existence, albeit better in some fields than other, and one deals with the metaphysical, things that cant be accounted for otherwise. The wholesale abandonment of either discipline is disastrous.

I don't refute science as a useful methodology to learning more about our world, but there is still so much it can't account for. There are over 200 sets of circumstances that have to be satisfied for our existence to even happen, and the odds are below 0 when you objectively look at them.

As far as the shape of earth goes, it just seems counter intuitive to reject things that support heliocentric theory, yet take for gospel things with far less documented proof, such as evolution. (Eventhough big bang is just about as terrible at accounting for any of it)

The true nature of our world, and the true nature of man are two sides of the same coin.

And no, I'm not a christian or member of any particular sect, just someone who has experienced things not explainable by studying our physical world.

[Rama Set]

the odds are below 0 when you objectively look at them.

This doesn't even make sense. 

As far as the shape of earth goes, it just seems counter intuitive to reject things that support heliocentric theory, yet take for gospel things with far less documented proof, such as evolution.

Your lack of awareness for the supporting evidence for evolution does not mean it does not exist.

(Eventhough big bang is just about as terrible at accounting for any of it)

The Big Bang says nothing about evolutionary theory.

[Lord Dave]

Science and religion don't have to be at odds. One describes the physical aspects of our existence, albeit better in some fields than other, and one deals with the metaphysical, things that cant be accounted for otherwise. The wholesale abandonment of either discipline is disastrous.

I don't refute science as a useful methodology to learning more about our world, but there is still so much it can't account for. There are over 200 sets of circumstances that have to be satisfied for our existence to even happen, and the odds are below 0 when you objectively look at them.

As far as the shape of earth goes, it just seems counter intuitive to reject things that support heliocentric theory, yet take for gospel things with far less documented proof, such as evolution. (Eventhough big bang is just about as terrible at accounting for any of it)

The true nature of our world, and the true nature of man are two sides of the same coin.

And no, I'm not a christian or member of any particular sect, just someone who has experienced things not explainable by studying our physical world.

Yes, science can't explain everything.  But the number of things it can't explain is shrinking.  Plus, the "Metaphysical" explains nothing.  Like at all.

Also, how do you have a probability below 0?

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Below zero probability indicates impossible.

This thread is for believers in flat earth theory exclusively, pointing out the flaw in denying intelligent design in the formation of our world.

I'm not here to debate with anyone else about origins of man.

I'm explicitly trying to point out a better vehicle for advancing flat earth theory.

[Lord Dave]

Below zero probability indicates impossible.

This thread is for believers in flat earth theory exclusively, pointing out the flaw in denying intelligent design in the formation of our world.

I'm not here to debate with anyone else about origins of man.

I'm explicitly trying to point out a better vehicle for advancing flat earth theory.

0 is impossible.  A negative probability isn't possible. 

Like: the probability of getting a unicorn when flipping a penny is -10/2


And if magic is the best way to move FET forward, then you're in reverse.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

If intelligent design is magic, then evolution is slight of hand.

If relying on convincing a legion or armchair scientists to abandon their faith in concepts they truly don't understand, like GR, black holes etc, is the only way to advance the theory I'd say it's a lost cause.

There are things science will never explain, for example, how life itself came about. The very principles held most dear, such as, matter can not be created or destroyed, every action has an equal and opposite reaction, point to the paradox of something coming from nothing.

[Saddam Hussein]

If intelligent design is magic, then evolution is slight of hand.

I prefer the comparison of skyhooks to cranes.  Evolution makes perfect sense when you actually understand it.  The only people who dispute that it happened are those who clearly have no real understanding of it beyond misinformation that they've read on the Internet.  The two arguments you've been making throughout this thread are Hoyle's fallacy and "God of the gaps."  Look them up.  They're very basic, very common fallacies that have been debunked many, many times before.  You're just the latest guy who's stumbled onto them, and you're no less wrong than the thousands of people who fell for them before.

[Rushy]

There are things science will never explain, for example, how life itself came about.

The theory of how life began is called Abiogenesis, and while there are significant gaps in knowledge, it is generally well accepted. Several experiments have shown that what we consider organic matter can arise from non-organic events.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Ironic that evolution is so well accepted here, but no explanation of how a flat plane came into existence. Im assuming the heliocentric big bang isn't part of flat earth theory, so what then? How can you take bits and pieces of modern science and only keep the parts that validate your view, which I will have to admit there's not a lot of scientists chomping at the bit to prove the earth is flat.

Same reason you don't find a lot trying to prove creationism.

Same reason you don't find a lot trying to go against Einstein's GR.

It's career suicide.

The point of this entire thread is to point out the obvious that you CAN NOT through stricly scientific means convince the general public that the earth is flat.

However many believe the bible to be the absolute word of God, with a detailed depiction of a still earth, constructed in a way that supports flat earth.

The ultimate fallacy is trusting in some pseudoscience and rejecting that which doesn't suit your needs.