1

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Just a few reasons on why I don't understand this Flat Earth suggestion...

« on: December 24, 2009, 07:46:09 AM »

4. Profit

Could you please elaborate? Who is profiting from this? How does this someone make a profit on convincing everyone that the earth is round?

2

Flat Earth General / Re: Subliminal Motive?

« on: December 07, 2009, 02:55:07 AM »

People generally go with the flow unless they have the motivation to go against that "flow."
Sometimes that motivation is silliness or attention or to satirize. This could be a mind game that you're all playing.
BUT sometimes it's because they want to represent the truth, or what they perceive as the truth.

So you might believe in a flat earth because it's fun or funny or strange, and you like that.
OR you might believe in a flat earth because you want to show that using logic seems to thwart logic itself.
OR... You might believe in a flat earth because you really, genuinely believe that it's the truth.
I'm sure there are other reasons, and right now I'm generalizing and oversimplifying this.

How is this NOT interesting?

3

Flat Earth General / Subliminal Motive?

« on: December 06, 2009, 06:19:52 AM »

Hello,

I am writing a research paper on the flat earth society. While I don't personally believe in the flat earth theory myself, I find it interesting that you defy the accepted belief of many scientific and governmental institutions for the "flat earth" belief.

But I have a question. Do you actually believe what you're arguing for? Is this a mental excercise, to prove something that you don't really believe, or do you actually believe it and are fighting for the truth? Is this a tongue-in-cheek debate, or are you serious? What's your motive?

4

Flat Earth Q&A / Einstein and Flat Earth theory

« on: January 11, 2007, 09:23:20 PM »

Religious people have a lot of lies they like to spread trying to discredit particular parts scientific theories that discredit religion.
....
[another post]Obviously when I talk about religion - I am generalising.  

Your generalization led me to believe you felt this way about Catholicism. I guess I jumped to conclusions. Religions are "generally" different, hence they're "different Religions."

Catholic belief certainly has been modified to accept the overwhelming evidence of science in some parts.

Really? Well... That's probably a good thing, then.  

5

Flat Earth Information Repository / The Flat-Earth Belief of Bible Writers

« on: January 11, 2007, 09:14:50 PM »

OK. I'm sorry. We'll move it to Personal Messages?
PM Sent. Alfonso is not the pope.

6

Flat Earth Q&A / Einstein and Flat Earth theory

« on: January 11, 2007, 09:10:10 PM »

Religious people have a lot of lies they like to spread trying to discredit particular parts scientific theories that discredit religion.

Another great one is this one:

"If you knew a woman who was pregnant, who had 8 kids already, three who were deaf, two who were blind, one mentally retarded, and she had syphilis, would you recommend that she have an abortion?"

And then you answer "yes" and it turns out you aborted Beethoven.  What a great way of demonstrating the evil of abortion.  Except, unsurprisingly, like the peppered moth story - it's actually another lie from religion.

Beethoven was actually the oldest of the children that survived infancy, and had 3 siblings - none of which were blind, deaf or mentally retarded and there no evidence that Beethoven's Mum had syphilis.

Actually, as a catholic we're supposed to say "no." :S Where did you get the "yes" from???
We are not the author of life. God is.

Gosh, I talk about religion alot, don't I?

Actually, I believe in evolution. There is nothing in doctrine that says we can't. Though there is a difference between the Theory and evolution itself.
Evolution, in my own terms, is something evolving from a simpler form to something more complex. Correct?
Evolutionism states that we all came from Primordial soup. While I do not say that this is not possible, we could have.... A "higher being" could have influenced it. And I believe God did.
In six days? No. This is just myth--Not to be taken literally, but a story going into the depths of marriage.
We could have evolved, but I believe GOd guided it.

Evolution does NOT discredit any catholic doctrine. Please tell, what is going through your mind when you say it is? Your assumption has me quite mystified.

7

Flat Earth Q&A / Einstein and Flat Earth theory

« on: January 11, 2007, 09:00:06 PM »

...Wow...
Perhaps I am wrong.


... It is at this point that I feel brainwashed. :S I don't know what to believe anymore...

8

Flat Earth Information Repository / The Flat-Earth Belief of Bible Writers

« on: January 11, 2007, 08:54:15 PM »

So you actually believe it is ok to go around Africa telling people that using condoms won't stop the spread of aids, but will in fact, make the disease spread faster - despite the direct scientific evidence that contradicts this statement?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0,7369,1059068,00.html

While I don't believe in the use of condoms, I think you should READ the article you posted.

A senior Vatican spokesman backs the claims about permeable condoms

Is that the pope? No. Not really. If it were, they would have said--It would give it more backing. But it isn't. And if it was, i would have heard about this before.

The church opposes any kind of contraception because it claims it breaks the link between sex and procreation - a position Pope John Paul II has fought to defend.

That, I believe. And notice that they use the NAME of Pope JPII. They don't say "a senior." If it was the pope who said what you claim, it would have said so.

9

Flat Earth Q&A / Einstein and Flat Earth theory

« on: January 11, 2007, 08:37:11 PM »

The Pepper Moth Theory states that during the industrial revolution, smoke and junk and pollutants killed the light lichens growing on the beach trees of England and soot accumulated on the bark. The trees darkened. At the time right before it, there were more light moths than dark because the dark moths stood out against the light bark and were more easily spotted to be eaten. As the bark grew darker, the light moths stood out against the bark, and the dark camoflauged better. Thus, there were more dark than light. As environmental efforts cleaned up the earth (I'm being vague here), the beach trees became light again, and the light:dark ratio again shifted. There were more lights than darks.
Correct?

....

This would all be well and good. It would show natural selection wonderfully.
EXCEPT we missed something ---
Pepper moths rest on the backs of tree leaves. Not bark. the color of the bark makes no difference to the moths, who rest on tree leaves.
The pictures of the Pepper moths on bark were taken by pinning/gluing the Dead moths to the bark. They did not rest there. They rest on leaves.
The video came from using Laboratory moths who were so sluggish that they had to be warmed up on a car radiator. ( I read this somewhere.)
The birds learned of the free meal and came to chow.

Actually, this leaves another small hole. How do birds find their prey? They sure don't do it on eyesite alone. Don't they use UV light or something? I don't quite remember... I could look it up if you wish.

The pepper moth theory is a fraud.
This does not mean that there is no natural selection-- It simply means that the pepper moth theory is inaccurate.
Perhaps if they had done this with a bark-dwelling animal....

10

Flat Earth Information Repository / The Flat-Earth Belief of Bible Writers

« on: January 11, 2007, 08:25:37 PM »

Not everything in the bible is to be taken literally.

How do we know what is to be taken literally and what isn't?  Is that just up to our judgement?  I don't think any of it is true, although some parts are obviously very loosely based on true events.

The bible is not concerned with Scientific Truth. The writers really didn't care how the earth was made so much as that GOD MADE IT.
Historical accuracy isn't perfect either, but they wanted to portray the Salvation truth. Most of the "historical" stories were written to prove that God Saves His People. I guess we could call that a "big theme?"

In my mind, it doesn't matter whether or not the stories are factual events. For me, they contain moral truth and understanding. And religious truth (doctorine) but the religious truth has to do with religion, and on a scientific debate, it isn't a good idea to refer to religion.

I guess it is up to your judgement. If you're atheist, that is that.
If catholic, as am I, you can refer to the Catechism.
I don't know how others differenciate. But I go by the pope. While the pope is human and not infallible, on religious matters he is protected from error. On doctrine, he's right. (The above is all IMO. I think I stated that well enough by the fact that "I go by ..." )

11

Flat Earth Q&A / Einstein and Flat Earth theory

« on: January 11, 2007, 07:45:02 PM »

Our Textbook talks of the Pepper moth theory, which was fraudulent.
(Just adding this as another example for textbook mistakes.)

12

Flat Earth Information Repository / The Flat-Earth Belief of Bible Writers

« on: January 11, 2007, 06:31:10 PM »

While I did not read the entire thread. ( :oops: ) I do wish to say something...

Not everything in the bible is to be taken literally.
Was adam and eve created twice? Then why don't we have clones running around? There are TWO stories of creation in Genesis.