1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?

« Last post by totallackey on Today at 03:50:23 PM »

...

I happen to believe that even science suggests the RET/spinning globe is capable of experiencing change in velocity and gaining/losing time over incidents such as giant earthquakes.

So, I wouldn't be so quick to discount the apparent stoppage of the sun and moon in the sky.

As for it being evidence of a flat earth, I agree. It would be silly to even suggest the stoppage of the sun/moon is related to a flat earth.

What caused you to correlate the two?

This verse was mentioned above:

Josh 10:13
The sun stood still and the moon stood motionless while the nation took vengeance on its enemies. The event is recorded in the Scroll of the Upright One. The sun stood motionless in the middle of the sky and did not set for about a full day.

It is being used to suggest the earth is flat since suddenly stopping rotation would cause a massive inertia backlash if the earth was spinning.

When you are pointing out how the bible suggests the earth is flat, your argument assumes a literal interpretation of the bible, so you literally ARE taking those scriptures LITERALLY. When it says "ends of the earth", you are taking that as the earth literally has ends. "To the four corners of the earth" you are taking it that the earth literally has four corners - hence you are taking it literally.

I am not taking it literally.

I am pointing out, as does your own source (which I quoted) states the Bible does suggest the earth is flat.

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?

« Last post by Pete Svarrior on Today at 02:46:46 PM »

Then why did you suggest that it was as justification why it isn't necessary to disprove?

I didn't. There was only one thing I called unfalsifiable in this thread, and it was not RET.

It's exactly how science works.  As long as there is the possibility that x is true, you cannot logically assume that it is not.

That argument is completely distinct from your previous one. I do not propose that RET is to be assumed false - I propose that there is no requirement of proving it false before entertaining alternatives.

Trying to shift the goal posts like this makes you look worse, not better. Please approach this discussion with some intellectual honesty.

I reached out to you with a simple question.  Can FE disprove RE gravity? I asked you the question, which, by definition puts the burden of proof on you. It really should be a simple yes or no answer.

Your understanding of burden of proof, and of context in human communication, is absolutely abysmal. In asking your question, you attempted to reverse the BoP of the entire debate, one which has been going for much longer than your attempted contribution. It is, first and foremost, your job to prove your position. Demanding that someone else proves the opposite of your position and declaring that no alternatives can be considered until then is asinine.

What I got instead, not surprisingly, is the knee jerk response "Has RE proven gravity"?

I said nothing to that effect. If you have a problem with something someone else has said, might I recommend taking it up with them?

I thought RE was unfalsifiable?

I'm still not sure where you got that from, but once again for those in the back: no one here said anything like that.

And I did look at the Wiki and all I saw were alternative theories justified simply because they were not inconsistent with RE gravity.  That is not the same thing as disproving it.  Perhaps you could point me in the right directions, but I'm guessing if anything in the Wiki disproves RE gravity...you would have directed me there in the first place instead of trying to deflect. Like I said, simple yes or no answer and if there is something in the Wiki, or even some confirmed, peer reviewed experiments, observations, discoveries...anything that disproved RE gravity, you would have simply answered "yes...and here it is".  But that is not the answer I got. Did they teach you in your high school that gravity has been disproven?  I think that would have been pretty big news.

Holy shit, you can't even read a Wikipedia page without hand-holding? I'll give you a hint: examples of some anomalies and discrepancies within your favourite gravitational model are listed under the Anomalies and Discrepancies subheading of the Gravity page.

And yes, the uncertainties of science are something that was taught in high school back in my day. Perhaps they dropped it around the same time as reading comprehension?

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?

« Last post by timterroo on Today at 01:29:27 PM »

...

I happen to believe that even science suggests the RET/spinning globe is capable of experiencing change in velocity and gaining/losing time over incidents such as giant earthquakes.

So, I wouldn't be so quick to discount the apparent stoppage of the sun and moon in the sky.

As for it being evidence of a flat earth, I agree. It would be silly to even suggest the stoppage of the sun/moon is related to a flat earth.

What caused you to correlate the two?

This verse was mentioned above:

Josh 10:13
The sun stood still and the moon stood motionless while the nation took vengeance on its enemies. The event is recorded in the Scroll of the Upright One. The sun stood motionless in the middle of the sky and did not set for about a full day.

It is being used to suggest the earth is flat since suddenly stopping rotation would cause a massive inertia backlash if the earth was spinning.

When you are pointing out how the bible suggests the earth is flat, your argument assumes a literal interpretation of the bible, so you literally ARE taking those scriptures LITERALLY. When it says "ends of the earth", you are taking that as the earth literally has ends. "To the four corners of the earth" you are taking it that the earth literally has four corners - hence you are taking it literally.

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?

« Last post by pricelesspearl on Today at 01:18:19 PM »

RE gravity is not unfalsifiable.

Irrelevant

Then why did you suggest that it was as justification why it isn't necessary to disprove? 

And if you are being intellectually honest, you shouldn't accept A or B, until you can disprove C

This is completely at odds with how scientific progress is made. I respect your right to an opinion, but I fundamentally disagree that intellectual honesty comes into this. At best, it's your own unorthodox personal preference.

It's exactly how science works.  As long as there is the possibility that x is true, you cannot logically assume that it is not.  To do so is intellectually dishonest, not to mention a logical fallacy. There could be a black swan out there, somewhere you never know. It's absurd to suggest that "scientific progress" is made by assuming something is true when you don't know that it is.  That is the exact opposite of science. But that is exactly what FE does.  You start with the premise that RE gravity does not exist without eliminating the possibility that it does.

If you are trying to change someone's mind

We aren't. We offer information to those who seek it. We encourage people to perform their own experiments, and to experience the world that surrounds them for themselves. If you choose not to do that, that's fine. Your prerogative.

You engaged us entirely by choice. We didn't reach out to you, and we're not here to convince you. By pretending otherwise, you reinforce my conviction that you seek to reverse the BoP.

  I reached out to you with a simple question.  Can FE disprove RE gravity? I asked you the question, which, by definition puts the burden of proof on you. It really should be a simple yes or no answer.  What I got instead, not surprisingly, is the knee jerk response "Has RE proven gravity"?, which has nothing to do with what I asked.  Those are two entirely different questions and that response was just a pathetic, transparent way of trying to deflect.  Answering a question with a question is called avoiding answering.

If the RE gravity explanation is incorrect, you'd think after thousands of years, somebody would have come up with something, somewhere, at some time, that occurs (or doesn't occur) that is inconsistent with it.

Sure. And they have. The discrepancies between observation and theory are well-documented - some of them even made it to the Wikipedia page on the subject. But I don't see why you'd waste the FES's time with something that's already taught within the mainstream at high school level. It's got nothing to do with us.

I thought RE was unfalsifiable?  You can't have it both ways.  And I did look at the Wiki and all I saw were alternative theories justified simply because they were not inconsistent with RE gravity.  That is not the same thing as disproving it.  Perhaps you could point me in the right directions, but I'm guessing if anything in the Wiki disproves RE gravity...you would have directed me there in the first place instead of trying to deflect. Like I said, simple yes or no answer and if there is something in the Wiki, or even some confirmed, peer reviewed experiments, observations, discoveries...anything that disproved RE gravity, you would have simply answered "yes...and here it is".  But that is not the answer I got. Did they teach you in your high school that gravity has been disproven?  I think that would have been pretty big news.

5

Flat Earth Community / Re: Moon Landing 50th Anniversary.

« Last post by ChrisTP on Today at 01:16:40 PM »

think of who profits from this- the Russians, the Brits and the Americans, or more specifically those countries governments. Together they can use these lies to keep their citizens under control.

I don't know how the chaps at Jodrell Bank monitoring a Russian probe or the Apollo manned mission in any way keeps me under control.
What does that mean?

Maybe it means you are on a flat earth website arguing your point, for what you believe should be readily apparent and indisputable to the masses?

It is indisputable to the masses. flat earthers make up tiny fraction while them very vast majority of people have accepted the earth is a spheroid. The tiny fraction of people that do dispute it really have little to no impact on the masses.

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?

« Last post by totallackey on Today at 01:05:17 PM »

You've heard of figurative speech, right?

I have.

You are taking those phrases literally.

I'm not.

I am merely pointing out the Bible, as your own source points out, suggests the earth is flat.

Do you really believe the earth is a square? Even FET does not suggest it to be square.

I do not know.

I do not know that FET suggests a square, infinite plane, or other shape.

FET does suggest "flat."

Do you really believe the sun and moon stopped in the sky? Even if it literally stopped in the sky, how is this evidence of a flat earth? It seems like a stretch to interpret those scriptures to be anything other than metaphors.

I happen to believe that even science suggests the RET/spinning globe is capable of experiencing change in velocity and gaining/losing time over incidents such as giant earthquakes.

So, I wouldn't be so quick to discount the apparent stoppage of the sun and moon in the sky.

As for it being evidence of a flat earth, I agree. It would be silly to even suggest the stoppage of the sun/moon is related to a flat earth.

What caused you to correlate the two?

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?

« Last post by timterroo on Today at 12:58:25 PM »

Here is a site that discusses how the bible "seems to suggest the earth is flat", and why it actually does not suggest it to be flat.

https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/earth/does-bible-teach-earth-flat/

Your four corners:

North, south, east, west

On your provided site the word "suggest," or its derivatives appears five times.

First, "Nearly everyone understands that a sphere does not have an edge. Indeed, we can travel indefinitely around a sphere and never reach a boundary or edge. On the other hand, if the earth is flat, it must have an edge somewhere, unless the earth is an infinite plane. However, few people today suggest the latter, and no one in the ancient world did. Bible skeptics are fond of pointing out that the phrase “four corners of the earth” appears three times in the Bible. Surely, the skeptics claim, this must refer to a flat, square earth—thus proving that the Bible teaches a flat earth."

Second, "The many instances of anthropomorphisms in the Bible, suggesting such things as God having hands (Psalm 8:3; Isaiah 66:2) or eyes (Proverbs 15:2) clearly are not literal. There also is an inconsistency in the flat-earth argument here. Flat-earthers believe that the firmament is a transparent dome over the earth, and hence is curved. On the other hand, no body of water is curved, but rather all seas have flat surfaces. But John described a sea of glass, which, by every other use, must be flat, so why is this one curved?"

Third, "Flat-earthers who pursue this distinction suggest that the phrase “in the firmament of heaven” of Genesis 1:17 (and possibly Genesis 1:14–15 as well) ought to be understood as “inside the firmament of heaven.”

Fourth, "Presumably, this was while still in the wilderness. Next, the devil took Jesus to the pinnacle of the Temple in Jerusalem and suggested that Jesus cast himself down (Matthew 4:5). Note that there was considerable distance between the wilderness and the Temple (at least 50 miles)."

Fifth, " For instance, the phrase “ends of the earth” appears 28 times in the King James Version, and, if taken literally, suggest that the earth has an edge, which would rule out a spherical earth."

In the only instance your article figuratively "leaves the Bible to its own devices," so to speak, your article clearly states the Bible does indeed suggest the earth is flat, as a sphere does not possess four corners and does not have an end.

You've heard of figurative speech, right?

You are taking those phrases literally. Do you really believe the earth is a square? Even FET does not suggest it to be square. Do you really believe the sun and moon stopped in the sky? Even if it literally stopped in the sky, how is this evidence of a flat earth? It seems like a stretch to interpret those scriptures to be anything other than metaphors.

8

Flat Earth Community / Re: Moon Landing 50th Anniversary.

« Last post by totallackey on Today at 12:56:56 PM »

think of who profits from this- the Russians, the Brits and the Americans, or more specifically those countries governments. Together they can use these lies to keep their citizens under control.

I don't know how the chaps at Jodrell Bank monitoring a Russian probe or the Apollo manned mission in any way keeps me under control.
What does that mean?

Maybe it means you are on a flat earth website arguing your point, for what you believe should be readily apparent and indisputable to the masses?

9

Flat Earth Community / Re: Moon Landing 50th Anniversary.

« Last post by AllAroundTheWorld on Today at 12:30:51 PM »

think of who profits from this- the Russians, the Brits and the Americans, or more specifically those countries governments. Together they can use these lies to keep their citizens under control.

I don't know how the chaps at Jodrell Bank monitoring a Russian probe or the Apollo manned mission in any way keeps me under control.
What does that mean?

10

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?

« Last post by totallackey on Today at 12:07:03 PM »

Here is a site that discusses how the bible "seems to suggest the earth is flat", and why it actually does not suggest it to be flat.

https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/earth/does-bible-teach-earth-flat/

Your four corners:

North, south, east, west

On your provided site the word "suggest," or its derivatives appears five times.

First, "Nearly everyone understands that a sphere does not have an edge. Indeed, we can travel indefinitely around a sphere and never reach a boundary or edge. On the other hand, if the earth is flat, it must have an edge somewhere, unless the earth is an infinite plane. However, few people today suggest the latter, and no one in the ancient world did. Bible skeptics are fond of pointing out that the phrase “four corners of the earth” appears three times in the Bible. Surely, the skeptics claim, this must refer to a flat, square earth—thus proving that the Bible teaches a flat earth."

Second, "The many instances of anthropomorphisms in the Bible, suggesting such things as God having hands (Psalm 8:3; Isaiah 66:2) or eyes (Proverbs 15:2) clearly are not literal. There also is an inconsistency in the flat-earth argument here. Flat-earthers believe that the firmament is a transparent dome over the earth, and hence is curved. On the other hand, no body of water is curved, but rather all seas have flat surfaces. But John described a sea of glass, which, by every other use, must be flat, so why is this one curved?"

Third, "Flat-earthers who pursue this distinction suggest that the phrase “in the firmament of heaven” of Genesis 1:17 (and possibly Genesis 1:14–15 as well) ought to be understood as “inside the firmament of heaven.”

Fourth, "Presumably, this was while still in the wilderness. Next, the devil took Jesus to the pinnacle of the Temple in Jerusalem and suggested that Jesus cast himself down (Matthew 4:5). Note that there was considerable distance between the wilderness and the Temple (at least 50 miles)."

Fifth, " For instance, the phrase “ends of the earth” appears 28 times in the King James Version, and, if taken literally, suggest that the earth has an edge, which would rule out a spherical earth."

In the only instance your article figuratively "leaves the Bible to its own devices," so to speak, your article clearly states the Bible does indeed suggest the earth is flat, as a sphere does not possess four corners and does not have an end.