Are there any Flat Earth believers here?

[leroy]

I do not think so. By that logic believers in the Ark myth should also be "trolling" sadly that is not the case. You will never go wrong underestimating the inability of some people to reason.

The ark myth (and most other crazy theories) is far more defensible than the flat earth myth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The ark myth (and most other crazy theories) is far more defensible than the flat earth myth.

How so? There is no scientific evidence for either. The Noah's Ark myth is almost identical to the Flat Earth myth in that both rely on a literal reading of the Bible and have to ignore all science and all evidence..

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, why can’t the answer be “I don’t know” we are still working for an answer? Maybe there is an unknown mechanism that is yet to be discovered that would explain such phenomena.

But there is at least one place on the Earth where the curvature of the Earth can be seen at the surface. It takes a telescopic lens to make it clear, but if you were at that location you should be able to see the same with your naked eyes:

 

[W3bcrowf3r]

How so? There is no scientific evidence for either. The Noah's Ark myth is almost identical to the Flat Earth myth in that both rely on a literal reading of the Bible and have to ignore all science and all evidence..

Ask the scientists who researched the flood. Else prepare for a long search on earth. There are scientists who researched the flood.

 

[leroy]

How so? There is no scientific evidence for either. The Noah's Ark myth is almost identical to the Flat Earth myth in that both rely on a literal reading of the Bible and have to ignore all science and all evidence..

In the case of the ark you cant really prove that there was no flood (you cant prove a negative), at most you can say that there is not enough evidence for a flood and the default answer should be “no flood until proven otherwise” in the case of the flat earth you can show that the earth is not flat, by showing that it is spherical.

 

[W3bcrowf3r]

Guys, how can i stop getting alerts of new replies from certain threads?

 

[leroy]

But there is at least one place on the Earth where the curvature of the Earth can be seen at the surface. It takes a telescopic lens to make it clear, but if you were at that location you should be able to see the same with your naked eyes:

The illusion of a curvature is due to an unknown mechanism that is yet to be understood.


If you can invent stuff like dark matter, dark energy, strings, inflatons, to explain your stuff, why cant I invent my stuff too?

 

[W3bcrowf3r]

The illusion of a curvature is due to an unknown mechanism that is yet to be understood.


If you can invent stuff like dark matter, dark energy, strings, inflatons, to explain your stuff, why cant I invent my stuff too?

Lol, denying stuff to be a globe while you see a curvature? The planets are round, the moon, sun etc. and yet you people deny all the proof these space agencies share with the world.

 

[Skwim]

Let me start off by saying:
the theory of evolution is nothing more than a theory.

Something like the color red is nothing more than red. What an utterly dense and useless remark.

1) The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show
a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high. Only NASA and other government “space agencies” show curvature in their fake CGI photos/videos.

Ah yes, the government fakes the curvature of the horizon because why? They have stuff hidden behind it?

2) The horizon always rises to the eye level of the observer as altitude is gained, so you never have to look down to see it. If Earth were in fact a globe, no matter how large, as you ascended the horizon would stay fixed and the observer / camera would have to tilt looking down further and further to see it.

As photos from space clearly show; no you don't.

3) The natural physics of water is to find and maintain its level. If Earth were a giant sphere tilted, wobbling and hurdling through infinite space then truly flat, consistently level surfaces would not exist here. But since Earth is in fact an extended flatplane, this fundamental physical property of fluids finding and remaining level is consistent with experience and common sense.

Have you absolutely no concept at all of how the gravity of a sphere works?

4) Rivers run down to sea-level finding the easiest course, North, South, East, West and all other intermediary directions over the Earth at the same time. If Earth were truly a spinning ball then many of these rivers would be impossibly flowing uphill, for example the Mississippi in its 3000 miles would have to ascend 11 miles before reaching the Gulf of Mexico.

Why would this necessarily be the case?

5) One portion of the Nile River flows for a thousand miles with a fall of only one foot. Parts of the West African Congo, according to the supposed inclination and movement of the ball-Earth, would be sometimes running uphill and sometimes down. This would also be the case for the Parana, Paraguay and other long rivers.

If you're not going to show your evidence why should anyone believe you?

6) If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference as NASA and modern astronomy claim, spherical trigonometry dictates the surface of all standing water must curve downward an easily measurable 8 inches per mile multiplied by the square of the distance. This means along a 6 mile channel of standing water, the Earth would dip 6 feet on either end from the central peak. Every time such experiments have been conducted, however, standing water has proven to be perfectly level.

Absolutely no understanding of solid geometry or basic physics. This is sooo sad.

7) Surveyors, engineers and architects are never required to factor the supposed curvature of the Earth into their projects. Canals, railways, bridges and tunnels for example are always cut and laid horizontally, often over hundreds of miles without any allowance for curvature.

That's a lie, or just plain ignorance.

Q. Structural Engineers: At what point does the curvature of the earth have to be factored in? As in, at what size does a project have to take account of the curvature of Earth

A. Geotechnical, not structural. But the answer is pretty big. It affects long span bridge construction somewhat since you want the main supports to be parallel to the direction of gravitational acceleration as opposed to parallel to each other. So your supports will be farther apart at the top than they are at the base by a little bit.

In general though with buildings, it doesn't really matter all that much if you follow the curvature of the earth. Even if you were building something really big, any load bearing vertical elements aren't likely to be spaced out so much that it is an issue like it would be with a long span bridge.

If you were building something like a linear accelerator that has to be very long and very straight, than you would have to do some extra math because you wouldn't be able to hold to one plan elevation and still get a building with no curvature. But that is about it.
source​

8) The Suez Canal connecting the Mediterranean with the Red Sea is 100 miles long without any locks making the water an uninterrupted continuation of the two seas. When constructed, the Earth’s supposed curvature was not taken into account, it was dug along a horizontal datum line 26 feet below sea-level, passing through several lakes from one sea to the other, with the datum line and water’s surface running perfectly parallel over the 100 miles.

So just what are the altitudes of the water at the Mediterranean end and the Red Sea end? FYI, both are zero. What does that tell you?

9) Engineer, W. Winckler was published in the EarthReview regarding the Earth’s supposed curvature, stating, “As an engineer of many years standing, I saw that this absurd allowance is only permitted in school books. No engineer would dream of allowing anything of the kind. I have projected many miles of railways and many more of canals and the allowance has not even been thought of, much less allowed for. This allowance for curvature means this – that it is 8” for the first mile of a canal, and increasing at the ratio by the square of the distance in miles; thus a small navigable canal for boats, say 30 miles long, will have, by the above rule an allowance for curvature of 600 feet. Think of that and then please credit engineers as not being quite such fools. Nothing of the sort is allowed. We no more think of allowing 600 feet for a line of 30 miles of railway or canal, than of wasting our time trying to square the circle.”

Simply stupid beyond belief.

10) The London and Northwestern Railway forms a straight line 180 miles long between London and Liverpool. The railroad’s highest point, midway at Birmingham station, is only 240 feet above sea-level. If the world were actually a globe, however, curving 8 inches per mile squared, the 180 mile stretch of rail would form an arc with the center point at Birmingham raising over a mile, a full 5,400 feet above London and Liverpool.

11) A surveyor and engineer of thirty years published in the Birmingham Weekly Mercury stated, “I am thoroughly acquainted with the theory and practice of civil engineering. However bigoted some of our professors may be in the theory of surveying according to the prescribed rules, yet it is well known amongst us that such theoretical measurements are INCAPABLE OF ANY PRACTICAL ILLUSTRATION. All our locomotives are designed to run on what may be regarded as TRUE LEVELS or FLATS. There are, of course, partial inclines or gradients here and there, but they are always accurately defined and must be carefully traversed. But anything approaching to eight inches in the mile, increasing as the square of the distance, COULD NOT BE WORKED BY ANY ENGINE THAT WAS EVER YET CONSTRUCTED. Taking one station with another all over England and Scotland, it may be stated that all the platforms are ON THE SAME RELATIVE LEVEL. The distance between Eastern and Western coasts of England may be set down as 300 miles. If the prescribed curvature was indeed as represented, the central stations at Rugby or Warwick ought to be close upon three miles higher than a chord drawn from the two extremities. If such was the case there is not a driver or stoker within the Kingdom that would be found to take charge of the train. We can only laugh at those of your readers who seriously give us credit for such venturesome exploits, as running trains round spherical curves. Horizontal curves on levels are dangerous enough, vertical curves would be a thousand times worse, and with our rolling stock constructed as at present physically impossible.”

12) The Manchester Ship Canal Company published in the Earth Review stated, “It is customary in Railway and Canal constructions for all levels to be referred to a datum which is nominally horizontal and is so shown on all sections. It is not the practice in laying out Public Works to make allowances for the curvature of the earth.

13) In a 19th century French experiment by M. M. Biot and Arago a powerful lamp with good reflectors was placed on the summit of Desierto las Palmas in Spain and able to be seen all the way from Camprey on the Island of Iviza. Since the elevation of the two points were identical and the distance between covered nearly 100 miles, if Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, the light should have been more than 6600 feet, a mile and a quarter, below the line of sight!

14) The Lieutenant-Colonel Portlock experiment used oxy-hydrogen Drummond’s lights and heliostats to reflect the sun’s rays across stations set up across 108 miles of St. George’s Channel. If the Earth were actually a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, Portlock’s light should have remained hidden under a mile and a half of curvature.

15) If the Earth were truly a sphere 25,000 miles in circumference, airplane pilots would have to constantly correct their altitudes downwards so as to not fly straight off into “outer space;” a pilot wishing to simply maintain their altitude at a typical cruising speed of 500 mph, would have to constantly dip their nose downwards and descend 2,777 feet (over half a mile) every minute... Otherwise, without compensation, in one hour’s time the pilot would find themselves 31.5 miles higher than expected.

Please note that plagiarism is against RF rules.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In the case of the ark you cant really prove that there was no flood (you cant prove a negative), at most you can say that there is not enough evidence for a flood and the default answer should be “no flood until proven otherwise” in the case of the flat earth you can show that the earth is not flat, by showing that it is spherical.

Assuming that God can't lie I can prove there was no flood. The absence of evidence can be evidence against if an event would definitely leave clear evidence. My favorite example is that your best friend in the world calls you and swears up and down that a herd of a thousand buffalo just stampeded through his kitchen. You rush over to his house and the kitchen is pristine. Does that prove that a herd of a thousand buffalo did not stampede through? The damage that such a herd would do would be so obvious that it would take a major reconstruction to remove that evidence. Its lack tells you there was no stampeded. But if God can lie then all bets are off, but why believe any of the Bible in that case? You are quite wrong about not being able to prove a negative. It is more difficult but not impossible.

 

[W3bcrowf3r]

Assuming that God can't lie I can prove there was no flood. The absence of evidence can be evidence against if an event would definitely leave clear evidence. My favorite example is that your best friend in the world calls you and swears up and down that a herd of a thousand buffalo just stampeded through his kitchen. You rush over to his house and the kitchen is pristine. Does that prove that a herd of a thousand buffalo did not stampede through? The damage that such a herd would do would be so obvious that it would take a major reconstruction to remove that evidence. Its lack tells you there was no stampeded. But if God can lie then all bets are off, but why believe any of the Bible in that case? You are quite wrong about not being able to prove a negative. It is more difficult but not impossible.

I agree with your logic. Can you really disprove the flood?

There are scientists who have evidence for the flood. Have you spoke with them, maybe they can convince you?

 

[Jainarayan]

Well, why can’t the answer be “I don’t know” we are still working for an answer? Maybe there is an unknown mechanism that is yet to be discovered that would explain such phenomena.

There is such a mechanism. It’s called curvature of the Earth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The illusion of a curvature is due to an unknown mechanism that is yet to be understood.


If you can invent stuff like dark matter, dark energy, strings, inflatons, to explain your stuff, why cant I invent my stuff too?

And once someone uses that argument they lose. That is an argument from ignorance, a logical fallacy. They can no longer claim that there is no evidence for a spherical Earth and be honest.

You do not seem to understand that dark matter was not "invented" in that sense. There is clear evidence for it. "Dark matter" only means that there is some observed matter out there that is not conventional matter. The same applies to dark energy. There is energy that has been observed but it is not normal energy. The word "dark" only means "unknown". If you want to invent stuff in the same sense you need to make enough observations to construct a testable hypothesis and then find evidence that supports that hypothesis. You are only waving your hands. I can see that when you do not understand the science at all it may seem to you that scientists are making things up too, but they clearly are not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I agree with your logic. Can you really disprove the flood?

There are scientists who have evidence for the flood. Have you spoke with them, maybe they can convince you?

No, there are not any scientists that have evidence for the flood. At least none that I have ever seen. If they do not have a testable hypothesis by definition they do not have evidence for a flood. If they form a hypothesis and it is shown to be wrong then it is a failed hypothesis and they do not have evidence for that flood.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Ask the scientists who researched the flood. Else prepare for a long search on earth. There are scientists who researched the flood.

Not really. There were *people* who "researched* the flood-- but they didn't use science.

 

[W3bcrowf3r]

No, there are not any scientists that have evidence for the flood. At least none that I have ever seen. If they do not have a testable hypothesis by definition they do not have evidence for a flood. If they form a hypothesis and it is shown to be wrong then it is a failed hypothesis and they do not have evidence for that flood.

[
What about these points? Is there evidence that the flood was global? | Bibleinfo.com

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

In the case of the ark you cant really prove that there was no flood (you cant prove a negative), at most you can say that there is not enough evidence for a flood and the default answer should be “no flood until proven otherwise” in the case of the flat earth you can show that the earth is not flat, by showing that it is spherical.

yes-- you can prove a negative. If sufficient resources are spent in search of something concrete, such as a rock-layer that is universal across the planet, which indicates a universal flood? And you find no such layer? That's evidence there never was a universal flood.

There are lots of other methodologies that can (and have been) used.

The flood never happened as written.

 

[W3bcrowf3r]

Not really. There were *people* who "researched* the flood-- but they didn't use science.

I saw your text:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
~ Epicurius (341-270 BC)

He gave us free will, else we would be just robots. He wants us to learn that Hes Guidance is Wiser.
~ Random internet dude (1993 - 20** AD)

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I agree with your logic. Can you really disprove the flood?.

Yes. Easily. The most simple proof is in DNA of all life on the planet.

A flood? Approximately 4000 years back? Isn't that many generations, for the majority of life. We would easily see a genetic bottleneck among *all* species.

Is that the case? Nope. Not even one species dates to the correct time-frame....

That's 100% proof right there -- unless your god LIED?

There are scientists who have evidence for the flood. Have you spoke with them, maybe they can convince you?

No. I can definitively state that is simply not true.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

[
What about these points? Is there evidence that the flood was global? | Bibleinfo.com

"bibleinfo . com" is not a valid source. It does not rely on any sort of science or even plain old logic.

Right there on the "about" page, they admit they don't and they refuse to even recognize science in the first place.

So, no. Rejected out of hand, as not science and not scientists.