Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - Canadark

Pages: [1]
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Proportional Representation
« on: May 11, 2010, 04:50:39 PM »
Can anybody explain to me why anybody would be opposed to pursuing this? I took an entire course on voting systems this last semester and I am at a loss as to why some people (who are very well educated, mind you) would stick by SMP.

Congratulations from across the pond to the Brits. You'll get your referendum; so don't screw it up (like we did...)!

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Ask a Christian anything.
« on: March 02, 2010, 10:47:59 PM »
This is going to be fun  ;D

Flat Earth Q&A / Reinventing the wheel?
« on: March 02, 2010, 08:51:42 PM »
Oh neat... This just got turned into its own topic.

@Roundy the Truthinessist

Regarding the production of an accurate map of the Earth: Do you believe that the size, placement, and shapes of the continents and oceans on a globe (read:RET) are accurate except that they actually exist on a flat plane/disc?

I have no idea.  Without a map I hesitate to even hazard a guess.

I'm just talking about your average, run-of-the-mill globe like the kind your eighth grade geography teacher had on her front desk. Most globes that are produced today are almost indistinguishable in how they portray the shapes, placement, and sizes of the continents. If you are unsure, I would refer to Google Earth.

Do you believe that the shapes, placement, and sizes of the continents and oceans are accurate in how they are portrayed in Google Earth, or a modern day globe (minus the fact that they actually exist on a flat surface)?

I just honestly don't know.  Sorry I can't do any better than that.  Actually as a zeteticist, the only way I'd truly be satisfied would be to map the distances myself, and I just don't see that happening.  All I can attest to is that in my region, in the western and northern hemiplanes, the distances appear to be accurate.

I don't agree that the Zetetic approach is scientific. I know this is irrelevant, but I just want to put it out there that it is utterly moronic. Scientists don't reinvent the wheel every time they walk into a lab. If they did, we would still be living in caves trying to understand how to make fire.

Flat Earth General / The initial premise of FET
« on: March 01, 2010, 08:52:31 PM »
This is only the second post I have ever made, but I will make it brief because this is a relatively simple issue that I think needs to be resolved.

Many of the Flat Earth proponents on this site reached the conclusion that the Earth is flat on the basis that it appears flat to the senses. All data therefore must point to the fact that the Earth is flat, or else be disregarded or discarded as part of the conspiracy. I don't mean to address this type of thinking in this post. Whether you agree with this train of thought is your own business and irrelevant to the topic at hand.

The issue I see is that the Earth appears to the senses precisely as one would expect it to if there Earth were indeed round. This has been acknowledged by FE'rs and RE'rs multiple times, and is reason why we have reached a consensus that not seeing a curvature in the horizon from an airplane does not disprove RET. An airplane simply does not go high enough for somebody living on a Round Earth to be able to see a curved horizon.

However, if the Earth actually appeared to be flat, you would be able to see the entire Earth from a suitable height (such as mount Everest). Likewise, when I walk from my apartment down to Lake Ontario, I should be able to see New York (And why can I only see the tops of those ships? Surely they aren't sinking as they move away from me, are they)?  I know that there are a host of different theories to explain why we cannot see the whole Earth (bendy light, atmosphere thickness etc.), but the issue here goes back to the initial premise of FET.

Flat Earthers believe the Earth is flat because it appears to be flat.

The only problem is... it doesn't.

Flat Earth General / Some thoughts on the scale of the conspiracy.
« on: December 14, 2009, 08:37:06 AM »
I have been browsing this website for the past few weeks and I must say that everything presented here is fascinating. The idea that in this day and age there are people who still hold to the belief that the Earth is flat just floored me, although I suppose if one looks hard enough it is possible to find people who believe just about anything.

I remember when I was in the tenth grade I had an earth science teacher who we all called Mr. Waz. He had a sort of folksy, absent minded professor way about him, which is perhaps why he was one of the most popular teachers in the entire school. He always encouraged us to think outside the box and approach science from a position of brilliance, leaving our egos and biases aside, in order to formulate the most intelligent ideas and present them the best way we possibly could. In his room he had a map of the world hanging on the wall that was "flipped upside down". When one student protested, he challenged her to prove that north is "up", which she of course could not do.

I remember one day in particular he stood in front of the class and confidently proclaimed that Niagra Falls does not exist. We were then split into groups and told to come up with a rebuttal that could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it does in fact exist. As we presented our ideas, we were suddenly overwhelmed by the difficulty of our task. Most students provided personal anecdotes about their experiences in Niagra Falls, which he said he refused to believe. One wise student printed a picture of Niagra Falls, which Mr Waz excused as being a photoshopped image. Others told him that he would need to go there himself and see it, which he refused to do on the grounds that it would be too difficult and expensive (sound familiar yet?). By the end of class, our efforts had been thoroughly frustrated and the point he was making was well established. Nothing can be proven to be true to individuals who close their minds to the reality of their surroundings, which begs the question "how do you prove to a person who is dead-set on believing the Earth is flat that it is actually round?"

Many, if not all of the challenges to FET on this website end up going in one of two directions: either the challengers begin to lose patience and start insulting the FE theorists for their unsubstantiated responses, or the FE theorists dismiss all evidence pointing to a round Earth as being part of a massive global conspiracy.

My point is simple. Even if you took Tom Bishop into a space ship and flew around the world, showing him Antarctica, the moon, and the stars in the heavens, he would find some reason to discredit the evidence presented before him (i.e. "we are clearly in a lab somewhere and this window shows nothing more than a computer projection"). To the flat earthers, conspiracies have no limit.

Now, I am not scientist, nor do I have any degree in a science field. I am, however, an undergraduate student of political science and history, so I am more interested in the societal implications of alternative ideas (lies). The flat earth model relies on an absurd amount of conspiring to discredit the dissenters, when little account is given to the fact that a conspiracy on the scale that these people are talking about would be impossible.

My question is this: of the thousands (perhaps millions) of modern airline pilots, astronauts, meteorologists, politicians, astronomers, Antarctic researchers, ham radio operators, satellite engineers, [added: neutrino physicists, GPS data calibrators], and people trained in celestial navigation, why have none come forward?

Pages: [1]