Prof GC - that response just makes you sound like you are easily lead.
I obviously have not been into space. I have never been to either pole.
I have been exposed to photographs, TV programs etc that educates people that the Earth is round
You cannot show any clear cut evidence to counter the Round Earth theory. So as a sensible human being I will be more prone to go with the evidence that has more back up. Just as happens in any court of law, debate etc.
The side that can produce the most evidence generally is the side I would believe
Prof GC - that response just makes you sound like you are easily lead.
I have been exposed to photographs, TV programs etc that educates people that the Earth is round. You say it is all a cover up yet you cannot give any reasons why except - and I will quote from your FAQ 'The motive is unknown although it is probably money'.
evidence that your an idiot.
Isn't that evidence of something in itself?
evidence that your an idiot.
evidence that your an idiot.
Isn't that evidence of something in itself?
Bampersand? ;)evidence that your an idiot.
Isn't that evidence of something in itself?
Enjoy your B&.
This book presents evidence that the surface of standing water cannot possibly be convex.
Way to totally misinterpret a sentence.This book presents evidence that the surface of standing water cannot possibly be convex.
So there is no such thing as a drop of water? Because that's essentially what the Earth's oceans are (according to RET): a gigantic drop of salt water surrounding the rocky crust of the Earth, with the exception of the continents. If you look at it from a more distant perspective like that, you will notice that the oceans are not actually standing water at all. Not only are they basically a drop of water, they have currents as well and are therefore in constant movement. So they defy every possible definition of "standing water". In addition, presuming that the author's argument is just an observation of water in a still container or on a flat surface, the reason for the flat surface would be gravity. Due to the nature of gravity, there is no actual up or down in space, only "in" towards concentrations of matter (read:objects). The water on Earth is only strongly affected by the gravitational pul of Earth itself, which pulls it evenly inward to form a roughly spherical shape. The only other object that has a major effect on the oceans but not the rest of the Earth is the Moon, which causes the tides.
Well, then. I've contradicted a whole lot of FET doctrine just now, haven't I?
This book presents evidence that the surface of standing water cannot possibly be convex.
So there is no such thing as a drop of water? Because that's essentially what the Earth's oceans are (according to RET): a gigantic drop of salt water surrounding the rocky crust of the Earth, with the exception of the continents. If you look at it from a more distant perspective like that, you will notice that the oceans are not actually standing water at all. Not only are they basically a drop of water, they have currents as well and are therefore in constant movement. So they defy every possible definition of "standing water". In addition, presuming that the author's argument is just an observation of water in a still container or on a flat surface, the reason for the flat surface would be gravity. Due to the nature of gravity, there is no actual up or down in space, only "in" towards concentrations of matter (read:objects). The water on Earth is only strongly affected by the gravitational pul of Earth itself, which pulls it evenly inward to form a roughly spherical shape. The only other object that has a major effect on the oceans but not the rest of the Earth is the Moon, which causes the tides.
Well, then. I've contradicted a whole lot of FET doctrine just now, haven't I?
To all FEer's
At one point in your life you would have been exposed to something that made you say 'Damn you are right, the world is flat!!'
What was that?
To all FEer's
At one point in your life you would have been exposed to something that made you say 'Damn you are right, the world is flat!!'
What was that?
The Bible and my parents both say it's flat and I feel in my heart it is flat and that God is there.I'm keen to read the quote in the bible that says the world is flat. Can you point that out to me, please.
The Bible and my parents both say it's flat and I feel in my heart it is flat and that God is there.I'm keen to read the quote in the bible that says the world is flat. Can you point that out to me, please.
The Bible and my parents both say it's flat and I feel in my heart it is flat and that God is there.I'm keen to read the quote in the bible that says the world is flat. Can you point that out to me, please.
Here you go: Source (http://www.answering-christianity.com/earth_flat.htm)
Daniel 4:11 - "The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth"Not only that but the earth has to be about a dozen square miles in size. And heaven has to be really close to the ground.
The only way you can have a tree that's tall enough to be seen all over the earth is for the earth to be flat.
Daniel 4:11 - "The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth"Not only that but the earth has to be about a dozen square miles in size. And heaven has to be really close to the ground.
The only way you can have a tree that's tall enough to be seen all over the earth is for the earth to be flat.
Adding to Steve's post, any bible texts that aren't obvious metaphors?
Also, thanks for noticing that the Bible says heaven has to be close to the ground, not tens of thousands of miles away. Bingo.It says the tree reached the heavens. How tall do you think they grew back then? And do you really think people could see thousands of miles then, but it's not possible now?
Also, thanks for noticing that the Bible says heaven has to be close to the ground, not tens of thousands of miles away. Bingo.It says the tree reached the heavens. How tall do you think they grew back then? And do you really think people could see thousands of miles then, but it's not possible now?
Jesus told parables. Are they meant to be taken literally or were they story telling used to illustrate a point? I'm not using them to discredit his words, just to say that it doesn't mean the earth was literally flat.
It's God we're talking about dude. I'm sure that if God can make a quasar then a really tall tree isn't that hard to do. Obviously a NATURALLY growing tree wouldn't be sufficient, they wouldn't be talking about that 2000 years later, would they? It would have to be something so tall anyone on the planet would immediately recognize that only God could have created it.I'm sure God can make a big tree. You know what's easier that that? This is the verse before which you didn't include in your quote:
Why wouldn't people be able to see thousands of miles? How else could they see the tree? I mean, if they lived hundreds of years without MRI machines and antibiotics, they must have had fundamentally different bodies than we do now.
As to parables, I'm sure Jesus told many. This is from Daniel, which is Old Testament. Jesus wasn't around then.
The earth is flat =NonsenseIf you don't want to be a part of this conversation, than please stay out of it.
The bible=Nonsense
You can see what we are dealing with here!!
Gee.......this thread stayedon topic.
Uhm, who started this thread, idiot!Apparently you did. I'm sure your parents are very proud.
It's God we're talking about dude. I'm sure that if God can make a quasar then a really tall tree isn't that hard to do. Obviously a NATURALLY growing tree wouldn't be sufficient, they wouldn't be talking about that 2000 years later, would they? It would have to be something so tall anyone on the planet would immediately recognize that only God could have created it.I'm sure God can make a big tree. You know what's easier that that? This is the verse before which you didn't include in your quote:
Why wouldn't people be able to see thousands of miles? How else could they see the tree? I mean, if they lived hundreds of years without MRI machines and antibiotics, they must have had fundamentally different bodies than we do now.
As to parables, I'm sure Jesus told many. This is from Daniel, which is Old Testament. Jesus wasn't around then.
4:10 Thus were the visions of mine head in my bed; I saw, and behold a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof was great.
Easier than making a big tree is to make someone "dream/have a vision" of a big tree. That is not a bible quote which suggests the earth is flat. Do you have any more?
So you're saying God made this poor dude dream that the Earth was flat?What?
What kind of deceitful manipulative God are you worshipping? I feel sorry for you...
So you're saying God made this poor dude dream that the Earth was flat?What?
What kind of deceitful manipulative God are you worshipping? I feel sorry for you...
I'm quoting the source you quoted that said the earth was flat. I pointed out that the full quote showed it was vision in a persons head.
Gen 37:09 And he dreamed yet another dream, and told it his brethren, and said, Behold, I have dreamed a dream more; and, behold, the sun and the moon and the eleven stars made obeisance to me.
Does this mean Joseph was actually going to get the sun, moon and stars to obey him? No it was a dream with a meaning.
I still don't know what you are getting at in your last post.
To all FEer'sIt was probably because it would attract attention to the site. (They do say that the Round Earth Conspiracy is probably for money) ;)
At one point in your life you would have been exposed to something that made you say 'Damn you are right, the world is flat!!'
What was that?
I'm just saying that this was a vision inspired directly by God, so it was a "constructed dream". It would have been pointless for God to include the part about being able to see the tree from the whole Earth, when he could have just as easily tweaked the dream so that the tree was visible from "all of X" where X actually makes sense.Firstly how do you know it was inspired by God? Secondly, the specifics are that a man says he has a vision of a tree that reached into the heavens and could be seen by all the earth. What exactly do you think his vision was of? What was his frame of reference that allowed him to know all the earth could see the tree? Was he seeing this from space so he could see the entire earth? Was he atop the tree? How big do you think he thought the earth was?
Now Gen 37 is actually about a dream, but Daniel specifically mentions "vision", so you can't compare the two.
I move that any appeal to authority based on Biblical evidence is invalid based on the corruption of the collected works that contributed to the Bible's original text during the intervening translations and transliterations. Only the very broadest of messages can be relied upon, with the (lost/destroyed) original texts being required to allow any sort of reliable argument to be made.
Yet where the horribly shaky translation suits the purposes of the Christians, the Bible must be taken literally? "Almah" translates to a young girl who may or may not be a virgin, but that's unconditionally mistranslated to give us the idea of virgin birth.That's 'cause the "virgin birth" is wicked cool.
I move that any appeal to authority based on Biblical evidence is invalid based on the corruption of the collected works that contributed to the Bible's original text during the intervening translations and transliterations. Only the very broadest of messages can be relied upon, with the (lost/destroyed) original texts being required to allow any sort of reliable argument to be made.
The Bible is more like a sketch map than Google Earth - the landmarks are all there but don't expect to get the street names all right.
Yet where the horribly shaky translation suits the purposes of the Christians, the Bible must be taken literally? "Almah" translates to a young girl who may or may not be a virgin, but that's unconditionally mistranslated to give us the idea of virgin birth.That's 'cause the "virgin birth" is wicked cool.
And which side are you on?
Like most Christians, I don't believe 100% of the Bible. I don't believe the parts about the virgin birth, the resurrection, Jesus being sent by God, most of Revelation, and other things. I believe in the flat earth parts though.This just got a lot more interesting. Do you believe God created ... well, everything? Do you believe he has the power to make anything happen? Apart from the flat earth parts (and are there that many of those?) what other parts do you believe in?
Yet where the horribly shaky translation suits the purposes of the Christians, the Bible must be taken literally? "Almah" translates to a young girl who may or may not be a virgin, but that's unconditionally mistranslated to give us the idea of virgin birth.That's 'cause the "virgin birth" is wicked cool.
And which side are you on?
Like most Christians, I don't believe 100% of the Bible. I don't believe the parts about the virgin birth, the resurrection, Jesus being sent by God, most of Revelation, and other things. I believe in the flat earth parts though.
If the earth was flat the moon would be a new moon for about 15 days and 15 days it would be a full moon.
If the earth was flat the moon would be a new moon for about 15 days and 15 days it would be a full moon.
Rosebud.
To all FEer's
At one point in your life you would have been exposed to something that made you say 'Damn you are right, the world is flat!!'
What was that?
How far did it travel? (a lake dosent work, only a trans-oceanic vessel would dissapear)
You FE'ers are masters at deflecting questions, give me a straight answer to the question the OP posted.
What evidence made you believe the earth is flat?
Solid modern scientific evidence, unbiased by religeon or assumptions.
The FES has been toiling for many years to reveal a deep conspiracy at the heart of modern civilisation. I find these efforts admirable, so I paid attention. Their accumulated evidence is what convinced me that FES was something worth sticking with.
The FES has been toiling for many years to reveal a deep conspiracy at the heart of modern civilisation. I find these efforts admirable, so I paid attention. Their accumulated evidence is what convinced me that FES was something worth sticking with.
So in other words, your a fucking idiot?
dont tell me! he also believes in the matrix being real?!
All i need to say is, you think the world is flat, you lose/ fail at life!
dont tell me! he also believes in the matrix being real?!
All i need to say is, you think the world is flat, you lose/ fail at life!
Confine this sort of posting to Angry Ranting, please.
why dont you have a truth section? cos i think it would be fitting in there.
The FES has been toiling for many years to reveal a deep conspiracy at the heart of modern civilisation. I find these efforts admirable, so I paid attention. Their accumulated evidence is what convinced me that FES was something worth sticking with.
So in other words, your a fucking idiot?
dont tell me! he also believes in the matrix being real?!
PS - anyone whose only exposure to the word 'matrix' is the film trilogy should lrn2math before calling people fucking idiots.
Ok, so you made that name because, its a cool looking name? im sure the film made some kind of influence there.
Ok, so you made that name because, its a cool looking name? im sure the film made some kind of influence there.
A film was an influence, but it's way way waaaaay better than any of the Matrix trilogy. Extra brownie points if you can figure out which film. Hint: I've given a big clue in this thread already.
A Dr. Who reference perhaps?
To all FEer's
At one point in your life you would have been exposed to something that made you say 'Damn you are right, the world is flat!!'
What was that?
For most of these people, it was a hit on the head as a child.
A Dr. Who reference perhaps?
Denied
Honestly. Since this is my first time posting, I believe the sheer asshole-ishness of the heathen Copernicus and the blasphemous concept of heliocentrism was my turning point.
He had an image before, I guess he saw the stupidity in posting a failure-ridden tirade with a 800x600 "your shipment of failure has arrived" beneath itExactly. Yes, the sig is ironic. based simply on "it's a wonderful live" by digitalph33r.
He had an image before, I guess he saw the stupidity in posting a failure-ridden tirade with a 800x600 "your shipment of failure has arrived" beneath it
A film was an influence, but it's way way waaaaay better than any of the Matrix trilogy. Extra brownie points if you can figure out which film. Hint: I've given a big clue in this thread already.
A film was an influence, but it's way way waaaaay better than any of the Matrix trilogy. Extra brownie points if you can figure out which film. Hint: I've given a big clue in this thread already.
Commando!
It's still TBS in the states, unless we are talking about two different things.