View Full Version : Flat Earthers
Sarmatian
09-07-2016, 21:27
Messing around on youtube, looking at some popular science videos, I've been recommended quite a number of videos that "prove" Earth is flat.
So, I've done a bit of research (as you do) and found out that there are probably tens of thousand of people who believe Earth is flat. Not illiterate people, but people who spent at least some time in school. And it's not even "the Bible tells us so" (although I assume that's the driving force)! There's a whole pseudo science about it. Internet sites, blogs, forums, youtube videos,
As a human race, do we really deserve to live or should someone put us all out of our misery?
All creationists due to their belief that the bible is infallible and must be taken literally must be flat earthers...or else they are just hypocrits
Kralizec
09-07-2016, 21:35
I've heard about them before, but I always assumed that it was some sort of parody like the Pastafarian church.
I'm not sure where the bible says anything about the curvature of earth, but that aside, it is obviously a valid opinion and might be true as long as we can't prove it wrong beyond a reasonable doubt. And "photos from space" don't count, the people who made them could be biased! :rolleyes:
I'm not sure where the bible says anything about the curvature of earth, but that aside, it is obviously a valid opinion and might be true as long as we can't prove it wrong beyond a reasonable doubt. And "photos from space" don't count, the people who made them could be biased! :rolleyes:
Its an immovable plain built on foundations and covered by a bowl, the celestial bodies are attatched to the bowl.
This was proven as scientific fact during the inquisition because the bible cannot be wrong.
Montmorency
09-07-2016, 23:17
Its an immovable plain built on foundations and covered by a bowl, the celestial bodies are attatched to the bowl.
This was proven as scientific fact during the inquisition because the bible cannot be wrong.
That sounds closer to ancient Chinese tradition than anything in the Bible.
Close.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Turtle
http://wiki.lspace.org/mediawiki/Great_A'Tuin
Montmorency
09-08-2016, 04:38
No, not that. From Zhang, Q. (2015). Making the New World Their Own: Chinese Encounters with Jesuit Science in the Age of Discovery...
For the most part, the Chinese cosmological discourses on the earth and the seas
reflected this imperial ideological geography that postulated the Four Seas
circumscribing a square earth. Of the three major cosmological traditions in
premodern China, two of them—the Theory of Vaulted Heaven (Gaitian shuo)
and the Theory of Spherical Heaven (Huntian shuo)—as well as their later
variants, tacitly or explicitly subscribed to this world picture. The third, the
Theory of Infinite Empty Space (Xuanye shuo 宣夜說, literally, “theory of ‘ubiquitous
darkness’”), was simply too abstract to have much bearing on such a
matter. As already noted in Chapter 2, one version of the Theory of Vaulted
Heaven depicts a heaven covering the surface of the earth and pivoting daily
around its center point. The earth is said to be square at its base and domeshaped
on its top.
It's actually pretty hilarious how fiercely the Chinese held onto Flat Earth for a couple hundred years, though the political motivations underlying the debates for both the Jesuits and the Mandarins are important and worth reading.
That sounds closer to ancient Chinese tradition than anything in the Bible.
Maybe they borrowed it from the chinese when they wrote the book.
Wasn't it Einstein who thought that the earth wasn't orbitting around the sun but vica versa. Supposedly he could back it up with calculations that are way too complicated for me. With some mathematical superpowers a very clever person who can troll everybody could probably prove that the earth is in fact flat, fourth dimension that sort of stuff, loopholes in time and space, even if anyone can see it isn't. This is fun really, more like a very good match of chess between grandmasters. Should you have an extraordinary level of intelligence, why not have some fun with it
I of the Storm
09-08-2016, 12:01
The scariest thing about them is that they usually aren't creationists/fundy christians. It's more closely affiliated to the whole field of conspiracy theories. AFAIK Flat Earthers are usually intersecting with Chemtrailers/Alien believers/whatever.
What I'm wondering all the time is, how do Flat Earthers and Hollow Earthers get along?
Wasn't it Einstein who thought that the earth wasn't orbitting around the sun but vica versa. Supposedly he could back it up with calculations that are way too complicated for me. With some mathematical superpowers a very clever person who can troll everybody could probably prove that the earth is in fact flat, fourth dimension that sort of stuff, loopholes in time and space, even if anyone can see it isn't. This is fun really, more like a very good match of chess between grandmasters. Should you have an extraordinary level of intelligence, why not have some fun with it
You mean like this?
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/blog/einsteins-relativity-proves-earth-flat
I also hope that you're saying Einstein was joking.
Unless you want to talk about what is the standard for not moving in the universe. You could define it as your brain and then every time you shake the entire universe around your head, you have proven your point. :dizzy2:
You mean like this?
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/blog/einsteins-relativity-proves-earth-flat
I also hope that you're saying Einstein was joking.
Unless you want to talk about what is the standard for not moving in the universe. You could define it as your brain and then every time you shake the entire universe around your head, you have proven your point. :dizzy2:
I think he was trolling, but I don't know it was actually Einstein, but someone made a clear case. Things like this are fun no, a battle of minds much greater than ours (well mine at least). My much much much smarther brother once a tricked me into believing that 1+1 isn't in fact 2. I cheated and never told him I did and please don't tell him should you meet him because he foolishy links that I am just as smart as him, trust me I'm not. But this is all fun, and should be seen as that. So the earth is flat ok... it aren't religious nutjobs who claim it is so really so stock up on popcorn
EDIT, Just before some deranged viking pisses in my neck, I havent watched the video but know what it's about
Gilrandir
09-08-2016, 13:22
What I'm wondering all the time is, how do Flat Earthers and Hollow Earthers get along?
Who said they do?
I think he was trolling, but I don't know it was actually Einstein, but someone made a clear case. Things like this are fun no, a battle of minds much greater than ours (well mine at least). My much much much smarther brother once a tricked me into believing that 1+1 isn't in fact 2. I cheated and never told him I did and please don't tell him should you meet him because he foolishy links that I am just as smart as him, trust me I'm not. But this is all fun, and should be seen as that. So the earth is flat ok... it aren't religious nutjobs who claim it is so really so stock up on popcorn
EDIT, Just before some deranged viking pisses in my neck, I havent watched the video but know what it's about
When I read that page, and I just read the end, it seemed to me like the argument made no sense and the conclusion came out of nowhere.
The physics that guy uses have to be pretty weird if he can have a satellite flying above a flat earth and so on.His gravity must stop at a certain distance but then he drops things from said satellite and gravity makes them fall down. :dizzy2:
I really can't be bothered to waste my time reading all of it though.
Don't feel alone Hussie this is trolling for people who are a bit smarter than us
Don't feel alone Hussie this is trolling for people who are a bit smarter than us
I didn't say I can't understand it, I said it seems like hogwash although I didn't read all of it.
Physics is not all that hard to understand if someone can explain it well enough.
I don't even need to have full understanding of all the principles he uses though to suspect that he is using them wrong.
Take this for example:
Let us again venture into thought experiment: eject some pods towards the earth from one such of our imaginary satellites at regular intervals along our orbit such that they are in free fall. Again, we can assume these are straight lines extending below to a translatable location on the surface of the earth, its geolocation. We can say these lines are normal to the trajectory of the satellite and they are normal to the ground, thus making the lines parallel. Since the orbit is straight, and the orbit relates directly to the geographical locations it is above, we have come a long way to show the planet is also flat.
This is almost circular reasoning because the trajectories are only parallel if the earth is flat, yet he says their parallelism proves that the earth is flat. If he had some actual proof that the trajectories are parallel it might warrant further consideration.
I really don't have the time to get into all the details though, you can probably just read the comments for better dismissals.
Messing around on youtube, looking at some popular science videos, I've been recommended quite a number of videos that "prove" Earth is flat.
So, I've done a bit of research (as you do) and found out that there are probably tens of thousand of people who believe Earth is flat. Not illiterate people, but people who spent at least some time in school. And it's not even "the Bible tells us so" (although I assume that's the driving force)! There's a whole pseudo science about it. Internet sites, blogs, forums, youtube videos,
As a human race, do we really deserve to live or should someone put us all out of our misery?
*cough*
http://blog.drwile.com/?p=12379
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5muY64Oyp10
Doesn't contribute to the discussion but still relevant.
...it's just the sort of thing that generally governments do...
*cough*
http://blog.drwile.com/?p=12379
A young earth cretin who believes in the infallible bible but doesn't believe in the infallible bible.
Thanks Vuk for pointing out a typical "christian" creationist hypocrit:thumbsup:
Gilrandir
09-09-2016, 12:52
This is almost circular reasoning because the trajectories are only parallel if the earth is flat, yet he says their parallelism proves that the earth is flat. If he had some actual proof that the trajectories are parallel it might warrant further consideration.
I was taught at school that lines may seem parallel only at a discrete distance. They will eventually converge anyway.
Seamus Fermanagh
09-09-2016, 14:56
I was taught at school that lines may seem parallel only at a discrete distance. They will eventually converge anyway.
I'm still angry that I cannot watch something disappear into a black hole.
I was taught at school that lines may seem parallel only at a discrete distance. They will eventually converge anyway.
You mean like, at the end of the universe?
The theoretical definition of parallel would mean they never converge, in reality it is quite possible due to inaccuracies etc. of course.
I'm still angry that I cannot watch something disappear into a black hole.
Be glad, if you can you are probably too close to it
I'm still angry that I cannot watch something disappear into a black hole.
Be glad, if you can you are probably too close to it
You can if you disappear into it as well and somehow manage to survive until then. Which, admittedly, could be quite hard.
Here's some more to have fun with:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDKc6X8TXNE
wooly_mammoth
09-10-2016, 03:54
Uh, you can have as many parallel trajectories on a spherical surface as you want. These are just circles normal to a polar axis.
And because it was mentioned above, the point Einstein was trying to make was that pretty much everything in the Universe is moving relative to everything else. You can't pinpoint one body in the Universe, say that it is in absolute rest and that everything else moves around it, while that body remains absolutely still.
You can if you disappear into it as well and somehow manage to survive until then. Which, admittedly, could be quite hard.
You will disappear alright, a black hole is simply mass so dense that it sucks up everything. They can only grow these things are jerks
You will disappear alright, a black hole is simply mass so dense that it sucks up everything. They can only grow these things are jerks
Now I'm just sad that you thought I did not know that about a black hole.
Sarmatian
09-10-2016, 11:37
What are you talking about. A black hole is a hole (duh!). You fall down through it and appear in another universe.
I plan on doing that repeatedly until I find one in which they make me Supreme Ruler of Everything.
What are you talking about. A black hole is a hole (duh!). You fall down through it and appear in another universe.
I plan on doing that repeatedly until I find one in which they make me Supreme Ruler of Everything.
There is actually a theory that every black hole is the birth of a new universe and that this is how a universe produces offspring and so on.
I'm sceptical though because what happens to all the matter? Does the new universe only contain the matter/energy that fell into the black hole or is there also magic involved? And if matter falling into a black hole/universe makes it expand and increases its energy, why does our universe expand without gaining more energy? What if two black holes collide?
http://www.space.com/33176-gravitational-waves-from-second-black-hole-collision.html
http://www.nature.com/news/the-black-hole-collision-that-reshaped-physics-1.19612
Does this mean that two entire universes were torn apart or collided into one another? What would it look like if another universe violently collided with ours? If our universe expands and mostly contains nothing, what does it expand into anyway?
Greyblades
09-10-2016, 14:06
There is actually a theory that every black hole is the birth of a new universe and that this is how a universe produces offspring and so on.
I though the big crunch theory was that all matter would eventually start falling back towards the big bang's ignition point and form a great ball of matter that would form a unimaginably massive black hole which would then apparantly explode into a new universe.
Gilrandir
09-10-2016, 14:19
You mean like, at the end of the universe?
The theoretical definition of parallel would mean they never converge, in reality it is quite possible due to inaccuracies etc. of course.
Before posting this I would like to make a reservation:
1. I'm in no way a mathematician, so don't try to start an argument after you have read the following information.
2. I just remembered the statement about converging parallel lines and found this corroboration. If it is no corroboration (to your mind) see #1.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_at_infinity
In projective geometry, any pair of lines always intersects at some point, but parallel lines do not intersect in the real plane. The line at infinity is added to the real plane. This completes the plane, because now parallel lines intersect at a point which lies on the line at infinity. Also, if any pair of lines intersect at a point on the line at infinity, then the pair of lines are parallel.
I though the big crunch theory was that all matter would eventually start falling back towards the big bang's ignition point and form a great ball of matter that would form a unimaginably massive black hole which would then apparantly explode into a new universe.
That's also a theory, these theories are not like Highlanders, there can be more than one as long as we can't definitely prove that one of them is correct. There is also the one where the universe expands until everything freezes. The crunch and the freeze are terrible for our offspring though unless they can one day escape to a parallel universe (provided there even is one) before they get burnt or freeze. I know, before that we will have to get off this planet either way, it's just why bother with children if it all just ends in a few billion trillion years or so anyway? ~;)
Before posting this I would like to make a reservation:
1. I'm in no way a mathematician, so don't try to start an argument after you have read the following information.
2. I just remembered the statement about converging parallel lines and found this corroboration. If it is no corroboration (to your mind) see #1.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_at_infinity
In projective geometry, any pair of lines always intersects at some point, but parallel lines do not intersect in the real plane. The line at infinity is added to the real plane. This completes the plane, because now parallel lines intersect at a point which lies on the line at infinity. Also, if any pair of lines intersect at a point on the line at infinity, then the pair of lines are parallel.
I think that is more a thought construct than actually true for real parallel lines.
See this related article for reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projective_plane
As it says, it relates to painting, where you actually do let parallel lines cross in one point to create the illusion of three dimensions and so on. It is merely a matter of perspective though, take the following picture. You can see several lines that appear to meet in the middle if you'd draw them on and on, that appears to be the point at infinty. In reality they would not meet though if they are actually parallel, it is a matter of perspective. The guy in my last video seems to turn this into a related mistake when he paints a triangle over some light rays to "prove" that the sun is just hovering a few thousand meters above earth. :dizzy2:
In mathematics it seems to serve some purposes that I won't research now because it would take too much time, it does not seem very relevant for the wrong "explanation" given by flat earthers though.
18875
I will also apologize for not being good at explaining or understanding this in English, the terms are all different from the ones I learned in German so some concepts seem new at first but really aren't, or are they? :sweatdrop:
If two black holes collide you get a very big black hole I guess, one would have to be significantly bigger than the other.
musing is fun
If two black holes collide you get a very big black hole I guess, one would have to be significantly bigger than the other.
musing is fun
Yeah, but I meant if the theory that every black hole is a new universe were true, two of them colliding would mean two universes collide. Doesn't sound pleasant to me. :sweatdrop:
Yeah, but I meant if the theory that every black hole is a new universe were true, two of them colliding would mean two universes collide. Doesn't sound pleasant to me. :sweatdrop:
I am just glad these things are way to complicated for me. Two movie tips for free if you are in a wtf-mood, 'Singularity' and 'pi'. In pi are some things that everybody who followed a basic course in arts about some things should be well-known, the neverending number that is pi and the 2/3 composition in everything. Really fun, great movies
Gilrandir
09-10-2016, 16:20
I think that is more a thought construct than actually true for real parallel lines.
In mathematics it seems to serve some purposes
:laugh4: Mathematics IS a thought construct, so in its world anything may be true when it serves some purpose and nothing is real.
:laugh4: Mathematics IS a thought construct, so in its world anything may be true when it serves some purpose and nothing is real.
That's why I suspect Einstein had a very naughty sense of humour when he said the sun is actually circling around earth. Everything can be made impossible to dismiss if you are really good at doing that. Someone who has no idea of formulas whatsoever can conclude that the earth is round just by watching a ship dissapearing at the horizon, you cant see it anymore it's gone. I wish I was smart enough to join the fun but I'm not. We can be creative with blunt tools that's all
:laugh4: Mathematics IS a thought construct, so in its world anything may be true when it serves some purpose and nothing is real.
Some of it can be applied to real world phenomena though, about some other parts I'm not so sure, that was the difference I tried to make.
I'm not the expert to ask when it comes to translating physical models to mathematics though.
That's why I suspect Einstein had a very naughty sense of humour when he said the sun is actually circling around earth. Everything can be made impossible to dismiss if you are really good at doing that. Someone who has no idea of formulas whatsoever can conclude that the earth is round just by watching a ship dissapearing at the horizon, you cant see it anymore it's gone. I wish I was smart enough to join the fun but I'm not. We can be creative with blunt tools that's all
As Wooly Mammoth already said, the idea was that movement is a relative thing that can depend on the observer.
Consider this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jHsq36_NTU
Now IMO the video is not entirely correct, because the "old" solar model is not wrong just because it does not take the movement of the solar system in the galaxy into account, it is simply a model from a different point of view, which is what Einstein meant. I'd also say the idea that the sun is dragging the planets along with it is fals because the entire galaxy and everything in it were probably spinning around from the start, so the planets would keep moving at 70k km/h if the sun suddenly disappeared, they'd just move in completely different directions based on the next stronger gravitational pull etc. I also didn't check whether the movement through the galaxy is at a 90° angle compared tothe "planetary disc" around the sun.
That said, it illustrates that movement is always relative to the observer. From a fixed point in the universe, the solar system moves really fast, when you look at earth from the sun, you see it spinning around, when you look from earth, you can easily think the entire universe spins around you, which is true if you define yourself as the central point of reference. Or in other words, when you run around in a computer game, what really moves on your screen is not your character, but the entire level around it. Because you are used to it, your brain thinks you move around in a world, but your character always stay at the same point of your monitor while the world around your character rotates and moves based on your inputs. :dizzy2:
It is like in a train, where from your point of view, the train does not move, but everything outside does. For someone outside the train it looks the other way around. So in the same way, from our spinning earth it looks as though the sun revolves around us, but that's only because we don't feel that our planet moves since we move with it. I think that is what Einstein meant, if that is clear enough. I'm sure Montmorency, Seamus or someone else can say it more eloquently in three sentences. :sweatdrop:
Train is a nice example, if you ride a train that moves at the speed of time and you walk forward, are you really getting ahead of time then, or just the perception of time which is alsways relative. In the end our perception of time is only what we can see, that doesn't make it real it's only what we percieve. My socially cripled but incredibly intelligent brother could make sense to that, I really can't, he thinks I am just as smart as him but I'm not. What is time, I don'tknow
So.. you would basically need to gather a few of the more vocal flat earthers and fly them into space and circumnavigate the globe - and let them "experience" for them selves the roundness they so hate.
Not a bad idea, but I kinda like it that someone who is smart enough can actually prove that the earth is in fact flat and get away with it, it's like a very clever heist
Not a bad idea, but I kinda like it that someone who is smart enough can actually prove that the earth is in fact flat and get away with it, it's like a very clever heist
They haven't proven anything. If they had, the earth WOULD be flat after all. :dizzy2:
kudo's if they do, it only shows the limitations of the tools at our disposal
kudo's if they do, it only shows the limitations of the tools at our disposal
Yin and Yang? :dizzy2:
Are you a wizard or a lizard?
Sarmatian
09-21-2016, 18:42
kudo's if they do, it only shows the limitations of the tools at our disposal
You can not prove correct something that is incorrect.
Yin and Yang? :dizzy2:
Are you a wizard or a lizard?
Where is your playfullness and sense of humour, how hilarious would it be if someone can mathematically prove that the earth isn't round even when we all know it is. My brother 'proved' to me that 1+1 is in fact not 2, I caught him at a certain point but it took me a while but he almost had me.
I should have looked at the internet, believe me or not I cracked this one myself http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/57131.html
Where is your playfullness and sense of humour, how hilarious would it be if someone can mathematically prove that the earth isn't round even when we all know it is. My brother 'proved' to me that 1+1 is in fact not 2, I caught him at a certain point but it took me a while but he almost had me.
I should have looked at the internet, believe me or not I cracked this one myself http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/57131.html
Been there, had that at the uni...
The point is just that you can't call it proof if it contains an error as Sarmatian just told you as well.
It's more like fake-proof and in the case of some flat earthers I seriously doubt they do it just for fun.
I have heard enough crazy ideas (e.g. the theory of relativity proves that we are all god / ghosts exist etc.) that people take very seriously that I cannot always suspect a joke every time anymore. :stare:
I don't think they actually believe it, could be wrong of course. But I think you can can proof something that is actually wrong if you are a clever cheater and I can see the fun in that. If they actually believe it it's still fun. I can make a mental map on how it could be done if you relativate spacetime and position, but math isn't my thing. I fully understand that it's not actually true but I bet someone can actually troll his way into making it is
I of the Storm
09-22-2016, 13:57
I don't think they actually believe it, could be wrong of course ...
I'm afraid you are. You wouldn't believe what some people believe.
Assume for a moment that the little part called "common sense" is absent in a brain, and that said brain wants the world/it's life to be more interesting than it actually is - then you can almost glimpse at the mental zone some people are in.
1+0 = 10
It seems to me that they are trying to convince us of their hypothesis (theory yet?) using what appear to be science, but not really following the rules of such.
Same as with my math example – for someone not familiar with the rules of mathematics, it seems to be accurate. It’s a mighty enterprise to falsify all existing theories of a spherical earth. And mind you – these are scientific theories viewed by peers. So they need to be proven false. Not only that – they need to come up with new theories, which by the scientific method, need to be reviewed by peers and experts on the fields in question. Take the gyroscope experiment they claim is proof of a static earth. This needs to be reviewed by those who are experts on the science of gyroscopes before going off on the interwebs with their proven empirical study.
Their origin is not too unfamiliar for a student of religion – where a book become the basis of a movement. The fact that the author of this book further wrote other publications exposing the true basis of this “theory” – a basis which remove all neutral position, exposes them and their hypothesis as nothing other than bible thumping thugs. I am not saying that scientists can’t be men or women of faith – but as soon as they drag in the infallibility of a man-written book from a time where science was an infant and most likely unknown to the authors (yes, plural), they no longer claim the neutral observer. All science must conform to the book who claims the earth has four corners. Which incidentally does not conform to the circle plate hypothesis of the flat earth society.
Lastly… what about summer solstice in Antarctica? Why can you see the sun up all day and all night if the sun is skirting the edge of Antarctica, which according to their hypothesis, circumnavigates the earth? This model should show the sun more or less the same as in winter solstice just higher on the sky since it is nearer (summer) – but as soon as the sun has passed your vantage point you should be in the dark about 12 hours until the sun comes again.
Assume for a moment that the little part called "common sense" is absent in a brain, and that said brain wants the world/it's life to be more interesting than it actually is[...]
You mean sort of like this?
But I think you can can proof something that is actually wrong if you are a clever cheater and I can see the fun in that.
Some people just really want to believe something is possible, right? :sweatdrop:
I'm afraid you are. You wouldn't believe what some people believe.
Assume for a moment that the little part called "common sense" is absent in a brain, and that said brain wants the world/it's life to be more interesting than it actually is - then you can almost glimpse at the mental zone some people are in.
You don't need to tell me that I grew up in the Dutch bilble-belt, there is some progress there as well though, dinasours actually existed but they were just too big too fit on Noah's arc so they died. They actually believe that I'm not kidding
Searching youtube for good debates against Flat Earth is difficult because they (Flat Earth adherers) has flooded the interwebs with their pseudo-science.
Good old youtube spyware suggested this for me:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3GD9gXzUBk
Not available in Germany...
I could post a German video of an astrophysicist who does a few TV shows, but that wouldn't help much I guess.
Funny thing is that one flat earther made a reply to said video and demonstrated that he had no clue what he was talking about.
Seamus Fermanagh
09-23-2016, 20:37
Flat Earthers still believe in gravity, do they not?
Gravity of a substantial degree mandates spheroids. How hard can that be to accept?
Sarmatian
09-23-2016, 20:59
Flat Earthers still believe in gravity, do they not?
Gravity of a substantial degree mandates spheroids. How hard can that be to accept?
goddidit
They believe in discs flying over their head because... well because! Gravity isn't gonna give them sleepless nights.
Flat Earthers still believe in gravity, do they not?
They do not believe in gravity. They postulate elecromagneticism as the basis of sticking to the surface of the earth.. the flat one that is.
Good debate info found here (one of the first I watched)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsOz_J6tJVU
One of the things the flat earther says is that they do not believe in anything they can't see or verify themselves and I am amazed that Stephan doesn't jump at this disrepancy, considering just minutes before, the flat earther claimed he went from atheist to theist. So... mr. flat earth - did you see god or verifiy the claim of a god's existence?
Will have to watch that discussion when I have an hour to spare or while I do something else. :sweatdrop:
But this is related and also funny:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Q4MBdwizzg
Also a/the related video with Neil deGrasse Tyson:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuwjWZV8EA0
Oh yeah, for his Burj Khalifa- example, there was a video that said there is a cone or sphere of light around the sun and when it gets dark in the evening, that's because the sun is so far away over flat earth, that you can't see it anymore because you can't see that far or so. :dizzy2:
Seamus Fermanagh
09-25-2016, 19:14
It is galling enough to teach year after year among a raft of students who, despite being reasonably bright, can be shockingly ignorant. And then to see people actively expending brain energy to achieve intellectual lemmingism.
AaaaaRRRRRRRRrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhh
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-26-2016, 02:48
Its an immovable plain built on foundations and covered by a bowl, the celestial bodies are attatched to the bowl.
This was proven as scientific fact during the inquisition because the bible cannot be wrong.
I... just.
OK, look. Christian flat-Earthers are a modern thing. The concept of a Flat Earth had been pretty much thrown out by about 300 BC based on the observation of the curvature of the Earth. Initially the Greeks believed the Earth was a Cylinder until they went far enough North to realise it was a sphere. I'm sure there were peasants in the medieval period who believed the Earth was flat, but they likely only travelled a few miles from their village. All educated people understood it was a sphere.
People didn't believe Columbus would fall off the edge of the Earth they, accurately, believed his crews would starve before he circumnavigated the Earth and reached India. It was his dumb luck that he hit land that far South before he hit India, or rather before his crew had to resort to eating each other.
Flat-Earthers today are part of the anti-intellectual conspiracy movement, which is why they're concentrated in the US - people who glory in being ignorant because knowledge is a lie perpetuated by the "Elite" who are controled by Jewish bankers/Lizardmen/Aliens.
I... just.
OK, look. Christian flat-Earthers are a modern thing. The concept of a Flat Earth had been pretty much thrown out by about 300 BC based on the observation of the curvature of the Earth. Initially the Greeks believed the Earth was a Cylinder until they went far enough North to realise it was a sphere. I'm sure there were peasants in the medieval period who believed the Earth was flat, but they likely only travelled a few miles from their village. All educated people understood it was a sphere.
People didn't believe Columbus would fall off the edge of the Earth they, accurately, believed his crews would starve before he circumnavigated the Earth and reached India. It was his dumb luck that he hit land that far South before he hit India, or rather before his crew had to resort to eating each other.
Flat-Earthers today are part of the anti-intellectual conspiracy movement, which is why they're concentrated in the US - people who glory in being ignorant because knowledge is a lie perpetuated by the "Elite" who are controled by Jewish bankers/Lizardmen/Aliens.
So christians don't believe in the bible then.
British 19th century flat earthers cited passages stretching from Genesis to Revelation to support their views.
Are you familiar with the word "raqia" and its place in biblical cosmology?
So christians don't believe in the bible then.
British 19th century flat earthers cited passages stretching from Genesis to Revelation to support their views.
Are you familiar with the word "raqia" and its place in biblical cosmology?
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c015.html
:shrug:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c015.html
:shrug:
You linked to young earth cretins.
But hey lets go with those dinosaurs on the arc fruitcakes.
From your link.. a solid arch. it supported the waters above and had door or windows to let in rain or snow and had the stars fixed to it.....Gen.Gen.Ps.Gen.Isa.Mal.
Though of course the correct translation is bowl not arch, the bowl which covered the flat earth.
You linked to young earth cretins.
But hey lets go with those dinosaurs on the arc fruitcakes.
From your link.. a solid arch. it supported the waters above and had door or windows to let in rain or snow and had the stars fixed to it.....Gen.Gen.Ps.Gen.Isa.Mal.
Though of course the correct translation is bowl not arch, the bowl which covered the flat earth.
First of all, no need to insult people just because they're probably wrong. If you call someone a cretin, how do you want to convince them of anything?
Secondly, what are you talking about? I linked to an article where they say the bible says the earth is round, which clearly contradicts your point that the bible supposedly says it is flat.
As for "Gen.Gen.Ps.Gen.Isa.Mal.", I don't speak lizard, please write that again in English. ~;)
Not sure what arch you are talking about, even when I search on the page I linked, I can't find a single instance of the word arch. :dizzy2:
After looking for the word "raqia", I assume this is what you're talking about:
http://biologos.org/blogs/archive/the-firmament-of-genesis-1-is-solid-but-that’s-not-the-point
Links can help, you know. :sweatdrop:
First of all, no need to insult people just because they're probably wrong. If you call someone a cretin, how do you want to convince them of anything?
Young earth creationists are cretins, they cannot be convinced of anything other than their blind belief because "the bible is right".
Secondly, what are you talking about? I linked to an article where they say the bible says the earth is round, which clearly contradicts your point that the bible supposedly says it is flat.
And I took their article which says the opposite, such is the contradictory nature of scripture and their arguements.
As for "Gen.Gen.Ps.Gen.Isa.Mal.", I don't speak lizard, please write that again in English. ~;)
Those are the sources of biblical passages the use on their website which support the flat earth theory.
Gen-Genesis. Ps-Psalms. Isa-Issaiah. Mal-Malachi
Not sure what arch you are talking about, even when I search on the page I linked, I can't find a single instance of the word arch. :dizzy2:
Try the word I used, or use the english translation from the english bible.
After looking for the word "raqia", I assume this is what you're talking about:
http://biologos.org/blogs/archive/the-firmament-of-genesis-1-is-solid-but-that’s-not-the-point
See how easy it is.
Links can help, you know.
Links would only be required if Phillipus Flavius wished to push the point.
The initial point was All creationists due to their belief that the bible is infallible and must be taken literally must be flat earthers...or else they are just hypocrits
So either creationists must accept the earth is flat or they must agree the bible is not an infallible accurate rendition...which would mean they can't be creationists anymore as they reject the basis of their own arguement.
Gilrandir
09-26-2016, 17:22
The initial point was All creationists due to their belief that the bible is infallible and must be taken literally must be flat earthers...or else they are just hypocrits
Sounds like "All muslims must be eager to kill the infidels, otherwise they are not muslims".
Sounds like "All muslims must be eager to kill the infidels, otherwise they are not muslims".
Yet that is not supported by scripture.
But I see your point. I therefore amend my initial point from "all creationists" to "creationists who believe in the litteral interpretation and infallibility of the bible in opposition to scientific obsevations"
Though I do think that it wopuld be pretty hard to find a creationist who doesn't believe in the literal interpretation of the bible in opposition to scientific observations.
Seamus Fermanagh
09-26-2016, 20:01
Yet that is not supported by scripture.
But I see your point. I therefore amend my initial point from "all creationists" to "creationists who believe in the litteral interpretation and infallibility of the bible in opposition to scientific obsevations"
Though I do think that it wopuld be pretty hard to find a creationist who doesn't believe in the literal interpretation of the bible in opposition to scientific observations.
Depends in how you define 'creationist.' I do "believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of Heaven and Earth, of all things visible and invisible." I do not, however, interpret the book of Genesis literally and believe that the agency of that creation conforms to the sequence of events discovered after the fact using scientific observation.
Any story that is written down is necessarily incomplete and must function as much or more on a metaphoric level then on a physical recapitulation of EVERYTHING that happened in the time of that story.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-26-2016, 21:52
So christians don't believe in the bible then.
British 19th century flat earthers cited passages stretching from Genesis to Revelation to support their views.
Are you familiar with the word "raqia" and its place in biblical cosmology?
Christians are not idiots, and neither in-fact are Jews.
Also, the Koran clearly endorses the use of genocide during war against infidels. Genocide being defined as the expunging of a particular ethno-cultural groups through the combination of mass executions and forced assimilation.
Anyway, as you are the one making this claim you need to cite the passages that supposedly support your exegesis.
Then Sigurd and I can tear down you argument properly :)
Depends in how you define 'creationist.' I do "believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of Heaven and Earth, of all things visible and invisible." I do not, however, interpret the book of Genesis literally and believe that the agency of that creation conforms to the sequence of events discovered after the fact using scientific observation.
Any story that is written down is necessarily incomplete and must function as much or more on a metaphoric level then on a physical recapitulation of EVERYTHING that happened in the time of that story.
Which definition do you prefer
A person who believes that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account.
: the belief that God created all things out of nothing as described in the Bible and that therefore the theory of evolution is incorrect
Christians are not idiots, and neither in-fact are Jews.
Everyone is an idiot, its part of human nature.
Also, the Koran clearly endorses the use of genocide during war against infidels. Genocide being defined as the expunging of a particular ethno-cultural groups through the combination of mass executions and forced assimilation.
So does the bible, so did christian churches, your point being?
Anyway, as you are the one making this claim you need to cite the passages that supposedly support your exegesis.
Then Sigurd and I can tear down you argument properly
Start with the word I used, it is after all the word of god isn't it.
So what does the word mean?
Husar already gave a link which explains it, do you wish to argue against that link or would you like a theological one that says exactly the same but in more detail?
You may have missed the parts in my link where he explains why even a solid interpretation of raqia is not necessarily an issue unless one wants it to be:
This second issue creates a conflict where they need not be one. The raqia “debate” is not the result of new evidence that has come to light. Our understanding of ancient perceptions of the cosmos has not been overturned by more information. The debate exists because of the assumption made by some Christians that the ancient biblical description of the world must be compatible on a scientific level with what we know today.
Genesis and modern science are neither enemies nor friends, but two different ways of describing the worldaccording to the means available to the people living at these different times. To insist that the description of the sky in Genesis 1 must conform to contemporary scientific is a big theological problem. It is important to remember that God always speaks in ways that people can actually understand. In the ancient world, people held certain views about the world around them. Those views are also reflected in Genesis. If we keep this in mind, much of the conflict can subside.
[...]
It is unreasonable to suggest that Genesis 1 knowingly describes only what Israelites perceived, while holding back any commitment that what they saw was in fact reality. The meaning of raqia is likewise a description not only of what the Israelites saw but also of what they actually believed to be true. They were in good company, for their understanding of what was “up there” was in harmony with what ancient peoples believed in general. God spoke to the ancient Israelites in a way they would readily understand.
[...]
It is important to be clear on what we have a right to expect from Genesis. This is central to making progress in the conversation between science and faith. It is a false expectation of Genesis that contributes to some heated exchanges about things like the description of the cosmos in Genesis.
The debate over the nature of the raqia is not a central issue. It is a symptom of a deeper, more fundamental disagreement over what the Genesis is and what it means to read it well. This is level where the truly important discussion must take place.
- See more at: http://biologos.org/blogs/archive/the-firmament-of-genesis-1-is-solid-but-that%E2%80%99s-not-the-point#sthash.H0Bqi4GU.dpuf
Seems to agree pretty much with what Seamus said.
It also seems a bit strange to me to rate an entire religion based on the interpretation of one single word and all the assumptions that come with it.
You may have missed the parts in my link where he explains why even a solid interpretation of raqia is not necessarily an issue unless one wants it to be:
I missed nothing, including the Westminster paper the article you linked is based upon.
What you seem to miss is this part.The debate exists because of the assumption made by some Christians that the ancient biblical description of the world must be compatible on a scientific level with what we know today.
The debate exists because some christians reject science because it is incompatible with a literal interpretation of scripture.
It is not something new. It goes back to the early years of the church, on through the inquisition periods, the reformation...and now today and over the past 2 centuries with the ongoing evolution "problem".
If you look at the first site you posted you will see Ken Hams muppets rejecting whole fields of scientific study to try and make reality fit their interpretation of scripture just because of their problems with evolution.
Seems to agree pretty much with what Seamus said.
Metaphoric? Allegorical?
That would be in tune with Theistic evolution, but not with literalists which are the ones who reject evolution and believe that science must be wrong because the bible must be true.
If they believe that science is proved wrong because the literal reading of the book then must accept the flat earth theory too because that is from the same book.
It also seems a bit strange to me to rate an entire religion based on the interpretation of one single word and all the assumptions that come with it
One single word? like evolution, thats one single word isn't it.
Does criticism of the literalists rate an entire religion? After all Christianity is a bloody big tent.
Come to think of it isn't that another word used, the tent that covers the (flat)earth.~;)
I missed nothing, including the Westminster paper the article you linked is based upon.
What you seem to miss is this part.The debate exists because of the assumption made by some Christians that the ancient biblical description of the world must be compatible on a scientific level with what we know today.
The debate exists because some christians reject science because it is incompatible with a literal interpretation of scripture.
It is not something new. It goes back to the early years of the church, on through the inquisition periods, the reformation...and now today and over the past 2 centuries with the ongoing evolution "problem".
If you look at the first site you posted you will see Ken Hams muppets rejecting whole fields of scientific study to try and make reality fit their interpretation of scripture just because of their problems with evolution.
Metaphoric? Allegorical?
That would be in tune with Theistic evolution, but not with literalists which are the ones who reject evolution and believe that science must be wrong because the bible must be true.
If they believe that science is proved wrong because the literal reading of the book then must accept the flat earth theory too because that is from the same book.
I didn't miss that part, it just doesn't disprove my point.
You said Christians don't believe in the bible if they don't think the earth is flat, let me quote you:
So christians don't believe in the bible then.
British 19th century flat earthers cited passages stretching from Genesis to Revelation to support their views.
I'm saying there are Christians who believe in the bible and don't believe the earth is flat, and theit view is not entirely schizophrenic just because there is one word in the bible that can be interpreted to support a flat earth world view. That is all.
One single word? like evolution, thats one single word isn't it.
Does criticism of the literalists rate an entire religion? After all Christianity is a bloody big tent.
Come to think of it isn't that another word used, the tent that covers the (flat)earth.~;)
Yes, one single word that was written some 4000 years ago or thereabouts, can be interpreted in different ways and can either be seen as strictly literal or more as a figure of speech like "the sun is rising". As the guy says, you don't have to treat genesis like a scientific book where every single word is carefully weighed and chosen. In fact, in that case these words would have to be defined somewhere with a proper scientific definition. The fact they are not is why we have to resort to interpretation, no?
If you just wanted to criticize literalist extremists, well, you threw me off by just calling them "christians", see the quote of yours above.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-27-2016, 13:43
Everyone is an idiot, its part of human nature.
No, they aren't.
Misanthropy is a bad way to start an argument.
So does the bible, so did christian churches, your point being?
You said there's no scriptural support for Muslims being eager to kill Infidels, but there clearly is because Gabriel extorted Mohammed to exactly that. That doesn't mean all Muslims are eager, or course, but it does mean you were incorrect to say there's no scriptural support. Scriptural support for genocide in the Koran is explicit, under certain circumstances, which scriptural support in the Jewish or Christian scripture for a Flat Earth is inferred.
Start with the word I used, it is after all the word of god isn't it.
So what does the word mean?
Husar already gave a link which explains it, do you wish to argue against that link or would you like a theological one that says exactly the same but in more detail?
I looked into this, all we know is that "Raqia" is the word used to describe the barrier between the water above and the water below. It's etymologically related to a verb related to the creation of a metal dish by "hammering out". However, that does not make it solid and it does not requite a Flat Earth.
There's one major problem with a solid dome over the Earth that wouldd have been obvious even thousands of years ago.
It rains.
No, they aren't.
Oh yes they are...christmas comes early this year, it's panto time already.
Take history as far back as you like, humans are idiots, its proved again and again.
Since its a bibical topic go right back to the begining, Adam, he only had one rule and was too much of an idiot to even follow that.
Misanthropy is a bad way to start an argument.
Is it misanthopy though?
You said there's no scriptural support for Muslims being eager to kill Infidels, but there clearly is because Gabriel extorted Mohammed to exactly that. That doesn't mean all Muslims are eager, or course, but it does mean you were incorrect to say there's no scriptural support.
Read what was written and what it responded to , then try again.
Scriptural support for genocide in the Koran is explicit, under certain circumstances
Ah so you do get it, the same as in the bible then isn't it.
which scriptural support in the Jewish or Christian scripture for a Flat Earth is inferred.
not from a literalists perspective.
I looked into this, all we know is that "Raqia" is the word used to describe the barrier between the water above and the water below. It's etymologically related to a verb related to the creation of a metal dish by "hammering out". However, that does not make it solid and it does not requite a Flat Earth.
Can you describe a hammered out dish? Can you describe hammering a dish that isn't made of a solid?
Read Husars link, or even better read the full one it is taken from.
There's one major problem with a solid dome over the Earth that wouldd have been obvious even thousands of years ago.
If you read the full link you will see how widespread the view was not only with other middle eastern societies in bilical times, but also with completely different societies spread across the continents and oceans.
It rains
Well lets not say the bible isn't covering all angles there, remember I mentioned doors and windows to let in rain and snow...it's in the bible:book2:
Seamus Fermanagh
09-27-2016, 18:17
Which definition do you prefer
A person who believes that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account.
: the belief that God created all things out of nothing as described in the Bible and that therefore the theory of evolution is incorrect
I suppose either would be applicable to the flat earth crowd.
Yet I believe in a divine agent behind creation, even if I do not subscribe to the agency of creation described in the Bible.
In my case, I am a creationist (believe in some aspect of divine agency) but do not subscribe to any of the particulars you associate with the label.
I suppose either would be applicable to the flat earth crowd.
Yet I believe in a divine agent behind creation, even if I do not subscribe to the agency of creation described in the Bible.
In my case, I am a creationist (believe in some aspect of divine agency) but do not subscribe to any of the particulars you associate with the label.
We have long distinguished between creationism and Creationism, the difference being the capital C. Both groups believe in a creator. The difference is in the timespan and how the creation was done. I believe the last pope, a creationist, believed evolution was one of the methods of creation employed by his Lord.
The Capital Cs believe in the literal letter of Genesis: six 24 hour days for the whole creation - mind you, not only the earth – but the entire universe.
Gilrandir
09-28-2016, 13:23
The Capital Cs believe in the literal letter of Genesis: six 24 hour days for the whole creation - mind you, not only the earth – but the entire universe.
What makes you think that 24 hour days are meant?
We have long distinguished between creationism and Creationism, the difference being the capital C. Both groups believe in a creator. The difference is in the timespan and how the creation was done. I believe the last pope, a creationist, believed evolution was one of the methods of creation employed by his Lord.
The Capital Cs believe in the literal letter of Genesis: six 24 hour days for the whole creation - mind you, not only the earth – but the entire universe.
Not trying to be a prick, but I am pretty sure you know that, but do you have a particulary good reason to devide time in 24 hours.
Let's take that you have a perfectly fine Rolex. Instead of waiting for 6'aclock you dive straight to twelve and save some hours but that is just perception. Does anything change (except having to buy a new watch) or did you make a shortcut and really skipped 6 hours, or just your percetion of time
What makes you think that 24 hour days are meant?
Because that is what Capital Cs believe.
If in doubt go to the first link Husar posted and do the Creationist section on Genesis.
It explains all their beliefs, though "explains" might be the wrong word to use.
Because that is what Capital Cs believe.
If in doubt go to the first link Husar posted and do the Creationist section on Genesis.
It explains all their beliefs, though "explains" might be the wrong word to use.
Most christians know how to take it with a geain of salt, you are being unfair
Gilrandir
09-28-2016, 15:41
Because that is what Capital Cs believe.
If in doubt go to the first link Husar posted and do the Creationist section on Genesis.
It explains all their beliefs, though "explains" might be the wrong word to use.
The word "day" (as many others in Bible) may be considered to be used metaphorically denoting an epoch of an indefinite duration. For instance, when we say "In his day he was strikingly handsome" we don't mean he was handsome 24 hours. Or "in Shakespeare's day" doesn't mean that he lived 24 hours, or that a particular day of his life is meant. If Bible has an explicit indication that Genesis "day" contains 24 hours, I would like a quote.
The word "day" (as many others in Bible) may be considered to be used metaphorically denoting an epoch of an indefinite duration. For instance, when we say "In his day he was strikingly handsome" we don't mean he was handsome 24 hours. Or "in Shakespeare's day" doesn't mean that he lived 24 hours, or that a particular day of his life is meant. If Bible has an explicit indication that Genesis "day" contains 24 hours, I would like a quote.
That works only until you look at the days and compare with known physics:
http://bibleview.org/en/bible/genesis/7days/
Day 1: Day and night
Day 4: Stars, sun and moon
How can there be day and night when there is no sun?
That goes against all physical evidence and I just picked the most striking example for now.
Most christians know how to take it with a geain of salt, you are being unfair
Read post #79 as you appear to be completely lost.
Gilrandir
09-28-2016, 17:27
That works only until you look at the days and compare with known physics:
http://bibleview.org/en/bible/genesis/7days/
Day 1: Day and night
Day 4: Stars, sun and moon
How can there be day and night when there is no sun?
That goes against all physical evidence and I just picked the most striking example for now.
Perhaps there were other sources of light:
And as they watched, upon the mound there came forth two slender shoots; and silence was over all the world in that hour, nor was there any other sound save the chanting of Yavanna. Under her song the saplings grew and became fair and tail, and came to flower; and thus there awoke in the world the Two Trees of Valinor. Of all things which Yavanna made they have most renown, and about their fate all the tales of the Elder Days are woven.
The one had leaves of dark green that beneath were as shining silver, and from each of his countless flowers a dew of silver light was ever falling, and the earth beneath was dappled with the shadow of his fluttering leaves. The other bore leaves of a young green like the new-opened beech; their edges were of glittering gold. Flowers swung upon her branches in clusters of yellow flame, formed each to a glowing horn that spilled a golden rain upon the ground; and from the blossom of that tree there came forth warmth and a great light. Telperion the one was called in Valinor, and Silpion, and Ninquelótё, and many other names; but Laurelin the other was, and Malinalda, and Culúrien, and many names in song beside.
In seven hours the glory of each tree waxed to full and waned again to naught; and each awoke once more to life an hour before the other ceased to shine. Thus in Valinor twice every day there came a gentle hour of softer light when both trees were faint and their gold and silver beams were mingled. Telperion was the elder of the trees and came first to full stature and to bloom; and that first hour in which he shone, the white glimmer of a silver dawn, the Valar reckoned not into the tale of hours, but named it the Opening Hour, and counted from it the ages of their reign in Valinor. Therefore at the sixth hour of the First Day, and of all the joyful days thereafter, until the Darkening of Valinor, Telperion ceased his time of flower; and at the twelfth hour Laurelin her blossoming. And each day of the Valar in Aman contained twelve hours, and ended with the second mingling of the lights, in which Laurelin was waning but Telperion was waxing. But the light that was spilled from the trees endured long, ere it was taken up into the airs or sank down into the earth; and the dews of Telperion and the rain that fell from Laurelin Varda hoarded in great vats like shining lakes, that were to all the land of the Valar as wells of water and of light. Thus began the Days of the Bliss of Valinor; and thus began also the Count of Time.
(Tolkien J. R. R. The Silmarillion. – Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1977. – 365 p.)
On a more serious note, the light referred to in Genesis might have been sourceless (just like when it it arleady light in the early morning but there's no dawn yet), and later it was embodied into a special container aka the Sun.
The word "day" (as many others in Bible) may be considered to be used metaphorically denoting an epoch of an indefinite duration. For instance, when we say "In his day he was strikingly handsome" we don't mean he was handsome 24 hours. Or "in Shakespeare's day" doesn't mean that he lived 24 hours, or that a particular day of his life is meant. If Bible has an explicit indication that Genesis "day" contains 24 hours, I would like a quote.
Explore the link in post #63. It has all the answers from the Capital C perspective you could possibly wish for.
The whole pont with those creationsts is that day can only mean a day, just like bowl can only mean a bowl.
That works only until you look at the days and compare with known physics:
http://bibleview.org/en/bible/genesis/7days/
Day 1: Day and night
Day 4: Stars, sun and moon
How can there be day and night when there is no sun?
That goes against all physical evidence and I just picked the most striking example for now.
How can it be time if that's different on another planet when it's dark or light because they can be further away or closer, and have their own rules that don't comply with our 24 hour system we call time. We already know that planets move at different speeds depending on their mass and distance, time is an earth-thingie that says abolutily nothing
How can it be time if that's different on another planet when it's dark or light because they can be further away or closer, and have their own rules that don't comply with our 24 hour system we call time. We already know that planets move at different speeds depending on their mass and distance, time is an earth-thingie that says abolutily nothing
What can you do? Creationists believe what they do - and nothing will change their mind. They are following an already throdden path and wont step off it. This is of course a brainchild of some religious leader(s) in the past.
Even if you throw Psalm 40:4 or 2 Peter 3:8 at them - someone on their path has already been there and answered that (http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=2191).
It is the same mindset the flat earhters employ.
Perhaps there were other sources of light:
[...]
On a more serious note, the light referred to in Genesis might have been sourceless (just like when it it arleady light in the early morning but there's no dawn yet), and later it was embodied into a special container aka the Sun.
That is an enormous stretch given that the sun is the light that defines what a day and a night are since humans invented the term. There is absolutely zero mention of another light/energy source and then you have the earth basically having been created before the star that it orbits, so there must have been a lot of changes and fine-tuning going on when it says for every day that "it was good" as in no further changes required.
How can it be time if that's different on another planet when it's dark or light because they can be further away or closer, and have their own rules that don't comply with our 24 hour system we call time. We already know that planets move at different speeds depending on their mass and distance, time is an earth-thingie that says abolutily nothing
Sorry, but that is a non-argument, you are confusing the concept of time with our reference system for the measurement of time.
Of course there is time on other planets, the same time even. Unless you are talking about the minuscule differences in time measurement the closer one gets to the speed of light, in which case you might as well say time doesn't exit anywhere.
One of the basic foundations of astrophysics or physics in general is the idea that the physical rules we can observe are valid everywhere and at any point in time in the known universe. If a different planet had completely different physics then you'd have to prove that first, so far everything points to that not being the case. The reason we know other planets have different speeds and sizes is that we apply these universal rules to our observations.
If you seriously want to say other planets can have different physical rules and different rules of time, then we can't even know that extra-solar planets exist. :dizzy2:
Ir's really easy to descredit the idea of time and making it relative really. Take a straight line from the norrthpole to to the southpole without considering anything at all, are you travelling time if you do, l. The distance would be nearly a fraction. I don't like thsese idiots but it's fun.
Ir's really easy to descredit the idea of time and making it relative really. Take a straight line from the norrthpole to to the southpole without considering anything at all, are you travelling time if you do, l. The distance would be nearly a fraction. I don't like thsese idiots but it's fun.
What does a straight line between the planet's poles have to do with time anyway?
Also define travel in time, don't we travel forwards in time all the time? :dizzy2:
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-28-2016, 21:51
Oh yes they are...christmas comes early this year, it's panto time already.
Take history as far back as you like, humans are idiots, its proved again and again.
Since its a bibical topic go right back to the begining, Adam, he only had one rule and was too much of an idiot to even follow that.
Is it misanthopy though?
It clearly is - your whole point here is scorn.
Read what was written and what it responded to , then try again.
Ah so you do get it, the same as in the bible then isn't it.
I can point to the passage where Gabriel tells Mohammed "go out and kill them, take their women and children as slaves". I'd like chapter and verse where it says that the Earth is flat.
not from a literalists perspective.
It's still inferred, or interpreted. The Bible doesn't give the Earth an explicit shape, or a length or breadth. It does give a precise number of days for Creation - and the "Young Earth" Theory has it's origin in the practice of adding up the ages of the original Patriarchs up to Moses and coming up with about 6,000 years.
Can you describe a hammered out dish? Can you describe hammering a dish that isn't made of a solid?
Read Husars link, or even better read the full one it is taken from.
In Homer the Sky is actually described as a "brazen" (i.e. bronze) dome. However, as much as the sky appears to be solid it's also clearly permeable in certain circumstances. It also changes colour at night, going from apparently opaque to transparent, you see stars in the night sky and the night sky does not appear as a "solid" dome, it appears expansive as the blue daytime sky does not.
The Ancients were not stupid, they observed what we observe, which is that from any one point the sky appears to be a hemisphere, that the hemesphere is the same shape no matter where you stand and that it appears to be permeable.
The Fact that it's described using the word Raqia doesn't mean the Earth is flat though. Do you know how you make a sphere absent injection moulding? You make to hemispheres and stick them together. This is something else the ancients would have been aware of from working with bronze, or even working with cloth.
If you read the full link you will see how widespread the view was not only with other middle eastern societies in bilical times, but also with completely different societies spread across the continents and oceans.
I'm aware the view was quite widespread. The question is not how widespread the view was - the question is whether the Bible requires you to believe it. Thus far you've presented no convincing evidence to that effect.
Well lets not say the bible isn't covering all angles there, remember I mentioned doors and windows to let in rain and snow...it's in the bible:book2:
Please - chapter and verse.
What does a straight line between the planet's poles have to do with time anyway?
Also define travel in time, don't we travel forwards in time all the time? :dizzy2:
Simply because travelling between the northpole to the southpole in a straight line would get you ahead in our 24 hour system because the distance is shorter
Simply because travelling between the northpole to the southpole in a straight line would get you ahead in our 24 hour system because the distance is shorter
Lol, no.
It clearly is - your whole point here is scorn.
.
Do you even understand the words you use?
I can point to the passage where Gabriel tells Mohammed "go out and kill them, take their women and children as slaves".
Does he tell them that they can rape the women or sell them but not do both as that would be selling damaged goods?
Did he tell them to bash in the childrens skulls in front of their mothers eyes?
Or is that your book?
I'd like chapter and verse where it says that the Earth is flat.
Follow the link already posted.
It's still inferred, or interpreted.
Follow the link already posted.
The Bible doesn't give the Earth an explicit shape, or a length or breadth.
Follow the link already posted.
It does give a precise number of days for Creation - and the "Young Earth" Theory has it's origin in the practice of adding up the ages of the original Patriarchs up to Moses and coming up with about 6,000 years.
Was Bede accused of heresey for using that date?
In Homer the Sky is actually described as a "brazen" (i.e. bronze) dome. However, as much as the sky appears to be solid it's also clearly permeable in certain circumstances. It also changes colour at night, going from apparently opaque to transparent, you see stars in the night sky and the night sky does not appear as a "solid" dome, it appears expansive as the blue daytime sky does not.
If the sun and stars are fixed to the dome how can it be more expansive?
The Ancients were not stupid, they observed what we observe, which is that from any one point the sky appears to be a hemisphere, that the hemesphere is the same shape no matter where you stand
Naive is the word you want.
and that it appears to be permeable.
Would that be explained by the doors and windows to let the rain in?
The Fact that it's described using the word Raqia doesn't mean the Earth is flat though. Do you know how you make a sphere absent injection moulding? You make to hemispheres and stick them together. This is something else the ancients would have been aware of from working with bronze, or even working with cloth.
Does injection moulding or cloth require hammeing a solid object into a bowl shape?
Does the bible say two bowls stuck together?
I'm aware the view was quite widespread.
Widespread? would that include the people who wrote your creation story?
If so what are you trying to defend?
The question is not how widespread the view was - the question is whether the Bible requires you to believe it. Thus far you've presented no convincing evidence to that effect.
How does a book require you to believe anything?
Someone posted Tolkien earlier, if people want to believe that its fine, the problem would be if they wanted to teach middle earthism as science like the Capital Cs do
Please - chapter and verse
Follow the link posted earlier.
Or you can follow the one Sigurd posted, which is funny as you earlier said you and he would tear down what I hasd written . By his comments about Capital Cs and his attitude to that Creationist site he doesn't seem to be much at odds with what I have written.
Simply because travelling between the northpole to the southpole in a straight line would get you ahead in our 24 hour system because the distance is shorter
I am not sure what you are saying - but it is shorter between the poles if you go straight through the earth - about 12 000 km while a straight line on the surface (doesn't really matter which longitude you choose) is about 20k (18.5k).
The earth is also not completely spherical, so it is shorter to circumnavigate from pole to pole than from east to west (37k vs 40k km). So we shall give the flat earth at least this point. The earth is slightly flatter than a perfect sphere. :sneaky:
I am not sure what you are saying - but it is shorter between the poles if you go straight through the earth - about 12 000 km while a straight line on the surface (doesn't really matter which longitude you choose) is about 20k (18.5k).
The earth is also not completely spherical, so it is shorter to circumnavigate from pole to pole than from east to west (37k vs 40k km). So we shall give the flat earth at least this point. The earth is slightly flatter than a perfect sphere. :sneaky:
Only because it's fun. Take your pencil and just forget that the earth is actually round. Draw a circle. Try to you can proof it. A direct line is going to make it very difficult as you must aplply it to a sphere
Or you can follow the one Sigurd posted, which is funny as you earlier said you and he would tear down what I has written . By his comments about Capital Cs and his attitude to that Creationist site he doesn't seem to be much at odds with what I have written.
Oh me and Philip see eye to eye on many things but I am not as confrontational as he is. And I have a slight issue with evangelists (except Rhy - I think he is okay). I will rarely take their position.
I know we have discussed this recently... oh wait (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?148827-Does-anyone-even-listen-to-creationists-these-days&p=2053630218&viewfull=1#post2053630218)
This was not the thread I was looking for though....
Once I showed that the Bible actually teaches (see what I did there?) today's theory on how our solar system was made and here it is: Arguments for an against Creationism... (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?110810-Arguments-for-and-against-Creationism-in-American-schools&p=2102661&viewfull=1#post2102661) (I think I misused the c vs C words in there somewhere).
Gems found when searching: Evolution and the soul (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?142567-Evolution-and-the-soul&p=2053490065&viewfull=1#post2053490065).
Only because it's fun. Take your pencil and just forget that the earth is actually round. Draw a circle. Try to you can proof it. A direct line is going to make it very difficult as you must aplply it to a sphere
Yes, basic math.
If a circle is 1 in diameter (a line through the circle) the circumference is Pi : 3,14... half the circumference would be from pole to pole (where the diameter line is drawn) Pi/2 or Pi rad.
Problem though - the flat earthers doesn't have a south pole. Their Antarctica circumnavigates the earth, so from their point of view the distance from the North Pole to the south pole is one radiusian. Using our model from above the distance between pole to "pole" is 0,5 ... so you can measure this in real life by travelling from our pole (North of Spitsbergen) and go directly south over Europe, Africa and end up at the ice cap of the south. This distance should be multiplied by 2 and then you plant a flag and start walking along the ice cap and for reference you should be able to walk a distance which is approximately 2Pi rad where rad would be the distance from the Arctic to the ice cap of Antarctica.
Say the distance measured was around 10 000 km. To account for the whole circumference you need this formula 2Pi x 10 000 km = 62 831,85 km
So you shouldn't encounter your planted flag until you have walked (traveled) 62k+ km. certainly not only after about 18k km
Gilrandir
09-29-2016, 14:13
Explore the link in post #63. It has all the answers from the Capital C perspective you could possibly wish for.
The whole pont with those creationsts is that day can only mean a day, just like bowl can only mean a bowl.
"All the answers" are given by modern interpretationists. They have as much authority to make conclusions about the texts written eons ago as you and me.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-29-2016, 14:31
Do you even understand the words you use?
I hope so, or the Senate that conferred my degrees will have egg on their faces.
Also - congratulations, you moved from attacking the entire human race to just me. Now that we have focused your anger let's talk about what really makes you angry. I doubt it's the Bible or flat-Earthers.
Does he tell them that they can rape the women or sell them but not do both as that would be selling damaged goods?
Did he tell them to bash in the childrens skulls in front of their mothers eyes?
Or is that your book?
Why don't you just skip ahead to talking about how God abandoned Saul because he offered some of his enemies' livestock and women up to God instead of killing everyone and everything, as instructed. We are not discussing the moral lessons of the Bible, or the Koran. We are discussing whether the Bible requires you to believe in a Flat Earth.
Follow the link already posted.
Follow the link already posted.
Follow the link already posted.
No - give me book, chapter and verse that you believe supports your point. I will copy the chapter out and perform a line by line exegesis. That way I don't have to slog through someone else's less learned or more partisan exegesis and have you try to refute them instead of refuting me.
You are making a claim about the message of the Bible, it is incumbent upon you to cite the passages that support your point. I can then examine those passages in context and determine whether or not I believe you are correct that the Bible requires one to believe in a Flat Earth. Don't refer me to someone on the Internet who tries to fashion an argument out of a line from one book and three words from another. That's how you construct an argument that Jesus was in favour of the Right to Bear Arms.
Was Bede accused of heresey for using that date?
You mean Heresy? It's a bit hard to be accused of Heterodoxy when the Church can't even decide Orthodoxy in that period. More pregnantly, Bede's interpretation of the Bible, given the evidence he had, is not at issue because he did not write what you described as "the word of God".
If the sun and stars are fixed to the dome how can it be more expansive?
Naive is the word you want.
Would that be explained by the doors and windows to let the rain in?
Again, you need to demonstrate this is scripture.
Does injection moulding or cloth require hammeing a solid object into a bowl shape?
It does not, that is not the point. The point is that the people recording Genesis during the late Bronze Age would have had an idea how a hollow sphere might be constructed.
Ever heard of a bronze bowl with hatches in?
Does the bible say two bowls stuck together?
Does it not?
Widespread? would that include the people who wrote your creation story?
If so what are you trying to defend?
The fact that the view was widespread does not mean it was held by the person who wrote the Creation story, nor does it mean it was written into the Creation story. Saying, "Greeks and the Chinese believe in a solid hemispherical sky" does not mean the Bible describes the Sky in exactly those terms.
How does a book require you to believe anything?
Someone posted Tolkien earlier, if people want to believe that its fine, the problem would be if they wanted to teach middle earthism as science like the Capital Cs do
The Bible requires the belief in One God - that's quite explicit. You've been saying it also requires a belief in a Flat Earth.
Follow the link posted earlier.
Or you can follow the one Sigurd posted, which is funny as you earlier said you and he would tear down what I hasd written . By his comments about Capital Cs and his attitude to that Creationist site he doesn't seem to be much at odds with what I have written.
Post your scriptural citations for exegesis or concede you're just parroting other people's arguments without understanding them.
Gilrandir
09-29-2016, 14:55
There is absolutely zero mention of another light/energy source and then you have the earth basically having been created before the star that it orbits, so there must have been a lot of changes and fine-tuning going on when it says for every day that "it was good" as in no further changes required.
When there is no mentioning of something (other sources of light of fine-tuning of the initial model) it doesn't mean there weren't any. Just like there is no mentioning in the Bible that the newly created earth circuted the sun or that the day-and-night cycle was 24 hours, but it doesn't mean it was otherwise.
As for calling something good and then modding it::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: Look at Playstation or iphone or even the game that brought you here (MTW).
When there is no mentioning of something (other sources of light of fine-tuning of the initial model) it doesn't mean there weren't any. Just like there is no mentioning in the Bible that the newly created earth circuted the sun or that the day-and-night cycle was 24 hours, but it doesn't mean it was otherwise.
As for calling something good and then modding it::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: Look at Playstation or iphone or even the game that brought you here (MTW).
These are all created by humans, not a perfect god.
I've always been taught that these stories are there, and indeed the point of a Christian's life is, to serve the glory of God.
Now you come and tell me he was tweaking it for ages because he couldn't get it right the first time even though he, all-knowing and omnipotent, called it good when he finished it for the first time?
Gilrandir
09-29-2016, 15:53
These are all created by humans, not a perfect god.
If God created something, it doesn't mean it is/was perfect.
I've always been taught that these stories are there, and indeed the point of a Christian's life is, to serve the glory of God.
It would be indeed a selfish God if all he needs humans for is to prove something (to who?) or serve somebody.
Now you come and tell me he was tweaking it for ages because he couldn't get it right the first time even though he, all-knowing and omnipotent, called it good when he finished it for the first time?
All-knowing and omnipotent as he ostensibly was, he couldn't prevent the Fall of man nor subsequent calamities. So it is quite possible he was the First Modder ever.
I hope so, or the Senate that conferred my degrees will have egg on their faces.
Looks like egg is the flavour of the day then.
Also - congratulations, you moved from attacking the entire human race to just me. Now that we have focused your anger let's talk about what really makes you angry. I doubt it's the Bible or flat-Earthers.
Definately egg.
Why don't you just skip ahead to talking about how God abandoned Saul because he offered some of his enemies' livestock and women up to God instead of killing everyone and everything, as instructed. We are not discussing the moral lessons of the Bible, or the Koran.
If its raised in the topic its raised in the topic.
Who raised it?
Who attempted to defend it?
Who doesn't want to play that tune anymore since their moralising backfired?
We are discussing whether the Bible requires you to believe in a Flat Earth.
Are we?
I have the distinct impression that you don't know what you are discussing and don't understand the words you use.
I also get the impression that you are a very angry young man.
No - give me book, chapter and verse that you believe supports your point. I will copy the chapter out and perform a line by line exegesis. That way I don't have to slog through someone else's less learned or more partisan exegesis and have you try to refute them instead of refuting me.
Read the bloody link.
How can you perform an exegisis when you are having such difficulty with words and scripture?
You are making a claim about the message of the Bible, it is incumbent upon you to cite the passages that support your point.
Read the bloody link :dizzy2:
I can then examine those passages in context and determine whether or not I believe you are correct that the Bible requires one to believe in a Flat Earth. Don't refer me to someone on the Internet who tries to fashion an argument out of a line from one book and three words from another. That's how you construct an argument that Jesus was in favour of the Right to Bear Arms.
Yeah right:laugh4:
You mean Heresy? It's a bit hard to be accused of Heterodoxy when the Church can't even decide Orthodoxy in that period. More pregnantly, Bede's interpretation of the Bible, given the evidence he had, is not at issue because he did not write what you described as "the word of God".
More words you don't understand.
All he had to do was come up with a date that was at odds with an earlier date that had been accepted.
The fact that they kept changing their minds about the dates is irrelevant, whichever was the last accepted one was what he was against.
It does not, that is not the point.
No, that is the point.
The point is that the people recording Genesis during the late Bronze Age would have had an idea how a hollow sphere might be constructed
So they would have written hollow sphere not bowl if they meant hollow sphere not bowl.
Not very good at this are you.
Again, you need to demonstrate this is scripture.
Read the link, its got all the verses you need.
Ever heard of a bronze bowl with hatches in?
Would that be like an adjustable sieve?
Does it not?
I know of no verse that says two bowls stuck together to make a sphere.
Do you know of any?Or are you just waffling.
The fact that the view was widespread does not mean it was held by the person who wrote the Creation story, nor does it mean it was written into the Creation story. Saying, "Greeks and the Chinese believe in a solid hemispherical sky" does not mean the Bible describes the Sky in exactly those terms.
Unless you can provide any scripture that is contrary to the biblical solid dome then you are clearly on a losing streak.
If the solid dome wasn't written into the creation story then why is it in the bible?
The Bible requires the belief in One God - that's quite explicit. You've been saying it also requires a belief in a Flat Earth.
Reading problems again?
Post your scriptural citations for exegesis or concede you're just parroting other people's arguments without understanding them
Come back when you have read the link, or when you learn what words mean.
After all it took you long enough to learn what a bowl was called , but I am patient so I will give you plenty of time.
Going by present progress I can see it taking you about a week or maybe a month to come up with some level of decent arguement. And by the way thats a young earth week or month not an old earth one.
Hooahguy
09-30-2016, 23:09
Well this topic has gotten out of hand.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.