1

Flat Earth Debate / Re: REAL questitons about the flat earth

« on: April 05, 2007, 11:55:15 AM »

(Sorry, GnR)  I get what you're saying Akira, the big problem I have is that the whole premise of your argument for a God is that we are too complex for our existence to just be a coincidence ("This is too perfect for a coincidence. If just one vital part of our requirements aren't fulfilled (especially oxygen), will we even get to this stage (year 2007)?").  My understanding of most people's understanding of God is that he Himself is rather complex; I've even heard him referred to as perfect.  So if you are going to argue that life and humanity are too complex to not have been created, then you have to argue that the Creator himself was too complex to not have been created, but since you can't go on forever like that, it's a completely contradictory argument.  "First Cause" has no place in rational discussion of the existence of God.

Although this is probably more at home in the religion and philosophy section, I'd like to respond anyway. Although it is true that God created man in his own image (hence likely involving skeletal structure, organs, etc...) his divine powers means that there is no need for a creator of God. God exists outside the universe and outside the boundaries of time. Whilst humans are forced to think of things in terms of beginning and ends, his all powerful nature render the need for a creator of himself obsolete. This isn't true with humans. Evidently, we do not possess these powers nor have the ability to think outside our universe, existence and time. Infinity stretching from a boundless past to an eternal future is the plain of God.

2

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Here is a quote from "Earth: Not A Globe"

« on: April 05, 2007, 09:38:30 AM »

Just like you FE'ers blindly accept the book and its teachings?

Whoa, just like Christians...

Yes, because of course Christians have no individual thoughts and can be generalised en masse as a group of people who slavishly take every teaching in the Bible literally and apply it to life in all their walks of life.

3

Flat Earth Debate / Re: REAL questitons about the flat earth

« on: April 05, 2007, 02:23:01 AM »

How would ice ships be a good idea? Sounds completely retarded. Please explain how a engine would not manage to melt an ice ship, they get extremely hot.

The Brainiac team used a flamethrower on a large block of it. They also shot flame at an identically sized block of ice. The ice melted pretty quickly whilst the ice/wood pulp mix charred a bit but did not melt. The ships design probably would have included some sort of heat insulation.

our knowledge and brain is too limited to know what created God himself. but I'm just saying, it makes more sense believing that something created this whole universe, rather than believing the chance of it built on its own.

Seconded. Just my personal opinion.

4

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trinity of FE Proof

« on: April 04, 2007, 03:03:05 PM »

I agree, but like you said, it is moot so I didnt respond.

Oh, I see! Sorry! Thanks for clearing that up.

5

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trinity of FE Proof

« on: April 04, 2007, 02:50:46 PM »

narcberry, you couldn't take a second look at my mathematical take on your second proof on the second page (3 seconds!) could you? It kind of got swamped in a sea of quotes.

6

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Further FE evidence

« on: April 04, 2007, 02:16:15 PM »

If you wish to beat us on our own grounds, I must insist you use our own map.

Again, I wish to stress that I wasn't trying to 'beat' either theory. I just said that seeing the opposite continent is not a theory exclusive occurance. (By the way, narcberry, I used the search function to try and find a map and all I got was a load of references to this thread. Could you possibly give me a link? I know there's one on here; sort of a pinkish purplish colour if I remember correctly.)

The coast argument is definately different! It seems from the top of a mountain in Gibraltar. you can see the opposite coast. This was taken at the Straits of Gibraltar:



(I fancy a holiday there now!) The thing is, the distance between Africa and Europe at its closest point is 13km. That's not much of a stretch. Heck, the English Channel is 34km wide and you can see across that on a good day:



How far is the distance on a Flat-Earth map?

7

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Further FE evidence

« on: April 04, 2007, 01:57:13 PM »

Please, if you wish to prove me wrong, do so with an accurate flat earth map.

I wasn't using that round earth map as evidence for either theory. I was pointing out that the fact you can see the African continent from the South of Europe is not exclusive to a flat earth map. Either theory allows one to look accross the Mediterranean and see the other continent, so the use of this argument in either theory is moot.

8

Flat Earth Debate / Re: REAL questitons about the flat earth

« on: April 04, 2007, 11:19:47 AM »

what is the source behing the ice/saw dust navy ships?

That one is definitely real. They mentioned it on the UK TV series 'Brainiac' and it has all the properties narcberry says it does.

9

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Further FE evidence

« on: April 04, 2007, 08:55:47 AM »

You can see the different land masses when looking across the straits of Gibraltar. I'm guessing it works equally well in a Flath Earth map as in a Round Earth map.



2,400 miles is still quite a long stretch of land.

10

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Further FE evidence

« on: April 04, 2007, 08:34:28 AM »

Be more specific? How many Africa's and Europes are there?

The coastlines to each of these landmasses is quite substantial and differ in their relative position from each other.

11

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trinity of FE Proof

« on: April 03, 2007, 03:10:36 PM »

A surface is flat irregardless of the viewers angle.

But if you take flat as a relative term the proof falls down. Consider if one person was standing on each of the flat segments that make up the world. They could all say that they were standing flat on the ground but you can see how they're not. It is true to say that 'The earth's curve is the sum of its parts.' but that does not take the mathematical principles into account. If you found a completely flat piece of ground you could call its value of angle 0. If you take one step to the left you could be on a 5 degree fall relative to 0, so lets call that -5. Similarly, if you took a step to the right and found yourself standing on a 5 degree rise relative to 0, you could call that 5.

Applying this to the concept of a round world you'll eventually come up with a very low negative number around -360. If you apply this to a flat earth the eventual outcome would have to be 0 as all the hills and dips balance each other out to produce a level ground, and hence a flat earth.

This sadly means the topic is still moot. You'd need someone to go do that to prove it either way.

12

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trinity of FE Proof

« on: April 03, 2007, 02:49:48 PM »

narcberry, I sent a PM re. the women debate. However, I've noticed a flaw in your argument. Surely the term flat is a relative one, not a constant one? If I were to place a video camera on a piece of perfectly flat ground that would appear to a viewer as flat. If I placed it on a hill at a 10 degree angle it would still appear flat. To be the one observing the location of the video camera you could be on a piece of ground that was a further 5 degree ascent away from it and it would not appear to be flat. Hence the proof is false, as it works from the view of the video camera and not of true life.

13

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trinity of FE Proof

« on: April 03, 2007, 02:08:08 PM »

I'm still unswayed by either argument, although I do think your stated disregard of female opinions is out of line. I don't want to make a big deal of it as that'd detract from the topic's purpose but that's quite a sexist comment. Yes, I am a man, at last check anyway! Women have equally valid opinions to men and shouldn't be treated any other way.

A woman's opinion is only as good as the man that gave it to her.

If that's meant to be a light-hearted comment, then I apologise. But that is blatent sexism! Women are not told what to think by men, they are perfectly capable of deciding on their own opinions.

14

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trinity of FE Proof

« on: April 03, 2007, 01:43:16 PM »

I'm still unswayed by either argument, although I do think your stated disregard of female opinions is out of line. I don't want to make a big deal of it as that'd detract from the topic's purpose but that's quite a sexist comment. Yes, I am a man, at last check anyway! Women have equally valid opinions to men and shouldn't be treated any other way.

15

Flat Earth Debate / Ice Wall

« on: April 03, 2007, 10:26:41 AM »

Hello there.

I've read through the theory and I admire the way you've applied science to this principle. However, I have one concern which prevents me from accepting this theory as the truth; namely the ice wall. If it exists, is it possible to travel to it? Could someone climb up it? This would lead the to principle that there is an underside to the Earth. What is it made of? Is it magma which is then tapped by volcanoes?

I'd appreciate any explanation; I don't want to be narrow minded. Also, sorry if this information is in a FAQ somewhere which I haven't found.