creation myth for FEH?

Can anyone that supports the flat earth hypothesis tell me what the creation myth for the flat earth is?

RET scientists have model for how all celestial bodies (including the earth) are formed.  Does FEH agree with how "other" celestial bodies are formed?  Either way, how was the planar earth formed?

thanks.

http://britishfood.about.com/od/pancakeday/r/pancakes.htm

Watch the low-content posting.

The non-religious FEers don't believe in myths.  To fabricate some kind of fantastic story regarding the Earth's origin would be considered deeply unzetetic.

The religious FEers, of course, would point you to their holy book of choice for an answer.

Is Earth the only flat stellar object in FET? Are there any other ones?

Quote from: burt on August 23, 2012, 06:34:34 PM

http://britishfood.about.com/od/pancakeday/r/pancakes.htm

Watch the low-content posting.

The non-religious FEers don't believe in myths.  To fabricate some kind of fantastic story regarding the Earth's origin would be considered deeply unzetetic.

The religious FEers, of course, would point you to their holy book of choice for an answer.

Sorry roundy, I couldn't resist seen as this post clearly did not get a reply for ages.

Is Earth the only flat stellar object in FET? Are there any other ones?

It's the only flat object discovered so far.

Uhhhh no one "discovered" that the Earth is flat. So as of right now, no planet or star is considered flat.

All celestial bodies appear flat, while stars appear to be nothing more than points of light.

All celestial bodies appear flat, while stars appear to be nothing more than points of light.

Again on the ame line of defense: “it looks flat, therefore...”?
FET has nothing to gain from this kind of anti-scientifical argument.

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on August 25, 2012, 04:01:28 PM

All celestial bodies appear flat, while stars appear to be nothing more than points of light.

Again on the ame line of defense: “it looks flat, therefore...”?
FET has nothing to gain from this kind of anti-scientifical argument.

Have you been to the celestial bodies and gathered evidence to show that they are not what they appear to be?

Quote from: EmperorZhark on August 26, 2012, 03:53:58 AM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on August 25, 2012, 04:01:28 PM

All celestial bodies appear flat, while stars appear to be nothing more than points of light.

Again on the ame line of defense: “it looks flat, therefore...”?
FET has nothing to gain from this kind of anti-scientifical argument.

Have you been to the celestial bodies and gathered evidence to show that they are not what they appear to be?

There is such a thing as indirect evidence.

There is such a thing as indirect evidence.

No, there is not.

Quote from: burt on August 26, 2012, 01:25:00 PM

There is such a thing as indirect evidence.

 there is?

yes, rushy. You didn't know? you learn something new everyday.

Quote from: EmperorZhark on August 26, 2012, 03:53:58 AM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on August 25, 2012, 04:01:28 PM

All celestial bodies appear flat, while stars appear to be nothing more than points of light.

Again on the ame line of defense: “it looks flat, therefore...”?
FET has nothing to gain from this kind of anti-scientifical argument.

Have you been to the celestial bodies and gathered evidence to show that they are not what they appear to be?

Second lousiest line of defense: "have you been there?”.
Kindergarten science.

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on August 26, 2012, 01:13:41 PM

Have you been to the celestial bodies and gathered evidence to show that they are not what they appear to be?

Second lousiest line of defense: "have you been there?”.
Kindergarten science.

So, you haven't been there, noted. How, then, do you know they are more than what they appear to be?

Quote from: EmperorZhark on August 26, 2012, 02:49:45 PM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on August 26, 2012, 01:13:41 PM

Have you been to the celestial bodies and gathered evidence to show that they are not what they appear to be?

Second lousiest line of defense: "have you been there?”.
Kindergarten science.

So, you haven't been there, noted. How, then, do you know they are more than what they appear to be?

Space probes, to start with.

What's this childish way of saying: "So, you haven't been there, noted."? I've never been to Australia but it exists. Now you can say: "So, you haven't been there, noted." Does it imply anything on the nature of Australia?

Space probes, to start with.

What's this childish way of saying: "So, you haven't been there, noted."? I've never been to Australia but it exists. Now you can say: "So, you haven't been there, noted." Does it imply anything on the nature of Australia?

You could go to Australia if you wanted. All the desire in the world isn't going to plant you on a celestial object.

Quote from: EmperorZhark on August 26, 2012, 03:50:32 PM

Space probes, to start with.

What's this childish way of saying: "So, you haven't been there, noted."? I've never been to Australia but it exists. Now you can say: "So, you haven't been there, noted." Does it imply anything on the nature of Australia?

You could go to Australia if you wanted. All the desire in the world isn't going to plant you on a celestial object.

The fact is I don't need to go to Australia to prove its existence.

The fact is I don't need to go to Australia to prove its existence.

Of course not, there are plenty of people that have been to Australia that you can talk to. I doubt you know a great deal that have been to Jupiter, however.

Quote from: EmperorZhark on August 26, 2012, 04:20:16 PM

The fact is I don't need to go to Australia to prove its existence.

Of course not, there are plenty of people that have been to Australia that you can talk to. I doubt you know a great deal that have been to Jupiter, however.

Probes?

Probes?

Have you talked to any probes recently? I certainly hope not.

Quote from: EmperorZhark on August 26, 2012, 04:24:10 PM

Probes?

Have you talked to any probes recently? I certainly hope not.

No FEer ever gave me a reason to doubt data collected by telescopes, probes and space exploration.

No FEer ever gave me a reason to doubt data collected by telescopes, probes and space exploration.

Modern technology has trouble transporting a few packets of data over a few hundred miles without it decaying. What makes you think data can remain intact of millions of miles and still give viable information? Furthermore, do you have evidence to show that the probes actually existed? I don't recall any of them coming back.

Quote from: EmperorZhark on August 26, 2012, 04:27:11 PM

No FEer ever gave me a reason to doubt data collected by telescopes, probes and space exploration.

Modern technology has trouble transporting a few packets of data over a few hundred miles without it decaying. What makes you think data can remain intact of millions of miles and still give viable information? Furthermore, do you have evidence to show that the probes actually existed? I don't recall any of them coming back.

You should be more aware of what modern technology is capable of doing.
And even if the data is corrupted, it doesn't mean it's unusable.
No FEer gave me ever evidence that the probes don' exist. Oh, they never came back? It must be an absolute proof of their non existence.
One day you won't be on this website any more and it will prove that you never existed (and you data were so corrupted  that they weren't viable information).

You should be more aware of what modern technology is capable of doing.
And even if the data is corrupted, it doesn't mean it's unusable.
No FEer gave me ever evidence that the probes don' exist. Oh, they never came back? It must be an absolute proof of their non existence.
One day you won't be on this website any more and it will prove that you never existed (and you data were so corrupted  that they weren't viable information).

If data is corruptible then the whole should be scrapped, as you don't know the actual amount that is corrupted. Yes, if I left this site and all my posts were corrupted then there would be no evidence I ever existed. I'm not sure why you thought that was relevant, though. Also,

No FEer gave me ever evidence that the probes don' exist.

It is like when someone says "prove mermaids don't exist!" We're done here, you're not even trying anymore.

Quote from: EmperorZhark on August 26, 2012, 04:39:47 PM

No FEer gave me ever evidence that the probes don' exist.

It is like when someone says "prove mermaids don't exist!" We're done here, you're not even trying anymore.

Whenever someone makes a claim, even a negative claim, that person bears the burden to support that claim.

I don't get why collecting light from Jupiter with a telescope is qualitatively different than collecting light from Australia with my eyes.

I don't get why collecting light from Jupiter with a telescope is qualitatively different than collecting light from Australia with my eyes.

It is not. Why do you think that it is?

Quote from: EmperorZhark on August 26, 2012, 04:39:47 PM

You should be more aware of what modern technology is capable of doing.
And even if the data is corrupted, it doesn't mean it's unusable.
No FEer gave me ever evidence that the probes don' exist. Oh, they never came back? It must be an absolute proof of their non existence.
One day you won't be on this website any more and it will prove that you never existed (and you data were so corrupted  that they weren't viable information).

If data is corruptible then the whole should be scrapped, as you don't know the actual amount that is corrupted. Yes, if I left this site and all my posts were corrupted then there would be no evidence I ever existed. I'm not sure why you thought that was relevant, though. Also,

Quote from: EmperorZhark on August 26, 2012, 04:39:47 PM

No FEer gave me ever evidence that the probes don' exist.

It is like when someone says "prove mermaids don't exist!" We're done here, you're not even trying anymore.

1. You don't know what you're talking about, so why are you speculating and saing we should note use the debate.
2. Probes exist, We have millions of informations to prove it. Mars Rover, right now. And disproving the existence of something real isn't the same as disproving the existence of something which doesn't exist.
3. I like your way of thinking: the probes aren't real and furthermore their data is corrupted. I'm sure you have a latin term for this.

Quote from: garygreen on August 26, 2012, 07:39:07 PM

I don't get why collecting light from Jupiter with a telescope is qualitatively different than collecting light from Australia with my eyes.

It is not. Why do you think that it is?

stop trying to shift the burden.

why are you implying it is?