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.

Messages - KristaGurl

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« on: November 15, 2011, 09:45:14 AM »
Oh, really? I guess that's that for string theory, geocentrism, wave-particle duality, gravitation, and many other scientific concepts that changed the understanding science as it had existed before.
In fact, I thought it's religion that's set in stone and unchanging, not science. Thank you for clarifying that.

Yeah but, what you're doing is taking a conclusion and changing science so that it fits.  It would be like saying "on a flat earth, round means flat.  So, we must live on a flat earth."  You know?  Like, "in a flat earth, my imagination is reality.  Thus, we live on a flat earth."  No, it doesn't work that way.  True, science is based on conclusions, but we base science on KNOWN conclusions that are obvious.  Like, we came up with the concept of gravity to explain WHY things fall.  Obviously, things fall.  Okay, why do things fall?  Now we have a question.  We run experiments to come up with results that we then fit into a theory to answer that question.  What flat earth does is say, "Hey, the earth is flat!  Now, let's find some fringe ridiculousness to prove it!"  Flat Earth is a conclusion with no science, no proof, no evidence... nothing.  There are no REAL astronomers that actually lend the theory ANY credence at all.  Everyone who has ever been in space and actually SEEN the Earth will tell you it's round.  You can take ANY conclusion and come up with a bunch of garbage to explain your conclusion... doesn't make it correct.

And btw, can you please get this guy a map?  I actually wanna see this too.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« on: November 15, 2011, 08:51:41 AM »
This is the most anti-climacticly named thread for some time. The ultimate challenge is to regurgitate the information we handed out in other threads a few weeks ago?
We are dining on scraps. :(

That's because we're debating about shit that already got settled 600 years ago.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« on: November 15, 2011, 08:50:38 AM »
Anyone can look at a picture of Earth and SEE that Africa is not that much bigger than Europe.
Indeed. With the scaling rules of FE in mind, you can see that on FE maps as well.

Ah, yes.  The scaling rules of FE.  So, you've changed math so that your theory works.  We don't do that in science.

Flat Earth General / Re: There are no real believers.
« on: November 15, 2011, 08:19:41 AM »
As I've said in many other threads the site is basically fake and all the people who defend the Flat Earth Society are people who don't even believe it. They do it for the fun of debate and the kicks. Not one person will post their identity, phone number and address and claim to support a flat earth.

Nice try though.

I think most of them do believe it.  The FES has been around since the 1800's, when a con-man named Samuel Rowbotham claimed that the Bible and common sense proves that the earth is flat.  He used skewed results of scientific studies and spread a bunch of misinformation, and people bought it.  Later in life, he claimed he could prolong human life and started selling fake medicine that he claimed could cure anything. 

I think these people subconsciously know better.  I don't think any reasoning human being with an IQ above 10 could look at a picture of the Earth and say, "yep, that's flat!"  But I do think... for the most part... they believe it.  I think with most people it's a religious thing.  They think if the world is round, it disproves God.  But, it doesn't really.  There are a whole lot of reasons why God doesn't exist... not just a flat earth.  God (or just the attention one gets for holding a fringe belief) has to be the only thing that convince people to ignore modern science in favor or millenia-aged theories that have long-since been disproven.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« on: November 15, 2011, 08:04:50 AM »
If they can't even produce a FE map, what about the rest of the theory.

It sucks!  I mean, even video game designers can make up maps for shit that doesn't really exist.  The only way a flat earth works is if it's spoked like a wagon wheel.  Maybe it is shaped like a wagon wheel.  And when you fly over australia, you just don't notice the gaps because you warp through them. in the Langoliers.  Maybe everyone just falls asleep.  But, no... that doesn't work because we can see the southern hemisphere and it's not spoked...

Oh, I got it!!!  Maybe the Earth is freaking ROUND!!!

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« on: November 15, 2011, 07:47:54 AM »
If a flat object can be observed, a map shouldn't be too difficult to draw.

I mean, even a ROUND earth can't be observed, but we have globes that are pretty freaking accurate.  Even flat maps of the Earth, they have to distort the land closer to the poles to make it fit on a flat map.  It's retarded.  Anyone can look at a picture of Earth and SEE that Africa is not that much bigger than Europe.

Flat Earth Debate / Spinning World causing Equal Motion
« on: November 15, 2011, 07:36:06 AM »
I have a question to those who believe that the Sun goes around in circles over what logical people call "the equator."

How come when we watch the world spinning, the top half doesn't spin slower than the bottom half?  It seems like, if the earth were flat and we were watching the lighted part as the sun spun in circles, we would see the southern half moving faster.  It's like, if you spin a disk, you'll notice that the outsides of the disk appear to move faster because there is more surface area.  Instead, what we actually see is the equator moving faster than the poles.  Which suggests to me that we're watching a spinning sphere rather than light moving around on a flat surface.

Read Earth Not a Globe by Parallax (Samuel Birley Rowbotham).

Yeah, I read that whole thing and... I'm not convinced he's right.  I don't wanna really get into why I think his theory is wrong, because that would take forever and it wouldn't really accomplish anything anyways.

I WILL bring up the fact that Rowbotham was proven to be a con-man and a charlitan.  He allegedly invented medicine that he claimed could cure anything, and they found out it was little more than a placebo.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: how is this flat?
« on: November 15, 2011, 07:14:18 AM »
It's enough for us to dismiss the video callously.

May I ask why you dismiss the video ?

Because if the video proved the earth was round, he would have to admit he was wrong.  He's not looking at the video objectively.  Far be it for me to question Mr. Bishop's motives, but I'm not 100% sure HE dismisses the video, either.  Judging by that video, clearly the earth is round, bulge or no bulge.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Tides?
« on: November 15, 2011, 07:09:04 AM »
Could someone explain me why in FET, the moon is pulling the water up, but the water isn't pulling the moon down ?

If the moon is flat, too, maybe it's stuck to the dome above the earth like one of those glow-in-the-dark stars you put on your kids' ceiling.  :P

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Spooky stuff
« on: November 15, 2011, 07:04:39 AM »
The question is why would one (you) believe the earth to be  pyramid shaped?  There have been experiments demonstrating the earth to be a plane, where are the results alluding to a pyramid shaped earth?  There is much more than your elementary analysis  of FE advocates and their ideas.  You have simply viewed  a few replies from alleged FE advocates and attributed them to everyone  who might subsequently suggest the earth is flat.  That is rather  mainstream media of you kristagurl.

That's my point.  Why would one believe the earth to be flat?  There have been experiments demonstrating the earth to be a sphere!  Like... pictures! 

I mean, you can't generalize a group of people under ANY umbrella, so we make assumptions of the parts based on the aspects of the majority.  It's human nature.  I'm sorry if I misjudged your beliefs or whatever, rather than simply judging them as wrong.  I know there's more to the FE theory, including a lot of convenient, HIGHLY unlikely haphazard explanations like... we only see one side of the sphere because the rest of it is too dark.  FEers and REers alike disagree on aspects of their theory within their own group. 

I guess... to me... I don't have a problem living on a flat earth if that's what it is.  There's no motivation for me to keep people thinking the world is round.  So, if there's evidence that the world is flat (that doesn't include dismissing the proof of RE as a cover-up) and that the world CAN'T be round, then I'll go with the flat earth.  I beleive that if there was a motivation behind proving the world is a pyramid, you COULD find scientists who could pull some kind of fringe logic out of their asses to prove it.  I guess that's what my point was.  RE came from taking science and forming an unbiased conclusion.  It seems (to me at least) that FE is mainly taking a debunked, outdated conclusion and trying to scrounge for unlikely evidence to support it... like people who try to use the grand canyon to prove the validity of the story of Noah.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Tides?
« on: November 15, 2011, 06:02:14 AM »
Then propose something better!

But, that's not how religion is done!  Don't you know that???  If science doesn't explain how the universe works without question or discrepency, it all must have come from God and the world must be flat!  I mean, because stars on the outskirts of galaxies move abnormally fast, that must mean that the Earth is flat and there's a "sub-moon" that nobody has ever seen or has proof of, and NASA is perpetrating a huge cover-up to convince us all that the world is round for some strange reason!  :P

It's so ridiculous that there's actually a serious debate on this subject post-19th century that doesn't involve retarded people.  The most reliable scientific account that supports flat-earth... the Flat-Earth Manifesto, if you will, was written in the 1800's by a guy named Parallax, who was a con-man who also used to convince people that he could cure any disease with a medicine he invented that was proven to be nothing greater than a placebo. 

This whole flat-Earth thing is based on religion.  It's based on the Bible, which was written by PEOPLE... trying to explain the world... at a time when they didn't really know what they were talking about.  And, because people have invested so much mental effort and pride into this religious garbage, they can't be proven wrong.  Their entire "spiritual" foundation is on the line here, so they can't be objective.  In their minds, you either have to believe the science is totally wrong, or you go to hell.  How can you trust a WORD anyone says when their beliefs are motivated by a fear that comes from a 2,500 year old LIE and based on a lot of pre-modern junk-science and guesses? 

Even so, there are actually a lot of religious people who argue that the Bible doesn't even SAY that the world is flat!  If I were trying to reconcile religion and truth (which is what realists do when they're religious... the religion doesn't match the science, so you have to change one in order for both to make sense) I would be trying to convince myself that the Bible was mistranslated or something like that, rather than trying to convince myself that the world is [snicker] FLAT, and that all the proof of round-Earth theory was forged in some kind of pointless elaborate cover-up. 

Think about it... when NASA first started going into space and walking on the moon and shit, wouldn't it have been the ultimate nail in the communist coffin to PROVE that the world is flat and that God really exists???  If the government wanted to forge a bunch of evidence to convince us of some bullshit, why the hell... in THAT day in age... did they go the atheist route???

Besides... why would NASA go through the trouble of doctoring up all this evidence to show a round earth, but then tell us about the stars on the outskirts of galaxies and all this other irrelevant information?  It's like 9-11 truthers.  If Bush brought down the towers with bombs, why even bother with the airplanes?  Why not just bomb the buildings and blame it on Al Qaeda?

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Spooky stuff
« on: November 14, 2011, 11:59:53 AM »
i realized that i cant prove that it is round

I can, look:

The problem is, they can't prove it's flat, nor can they prove it isn't round beyond saying, "NASA is lying and it's all a cover-up!"  As if, there's really some huge advantage to lying about the shape of the Earth.

You know, I mean... when you assume that the REAL experts in the field are a part of a conspiracy to spread misinformation, well, that leaves you subject to believe anything.  Can the FES prove it isn't a pyramid?

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: how is this flat?
« on: November 14, 2011, 11:49:43 AM »
Yeah, i kinda noticed the bulge too, but it's really only in one or two shots.  It could be a problem with the lense.  But, there is a lot more proof of rotundity in that video than proof of a flat Earth.

First... and, I know that distances farther away appear to be smaller... but, they decrease in height more than they decrease in width.  Which tells me that the Earth is getting shorter at the ends than it is getting more narrow.  Which, to me... suggest that it's curving downward as it goes. 

Second, when the stars breach the horizon, they breach AT the horizon.  If the rotundity was an illusion that came from a "reverse solar eclipse," the stars would be breaching above the real, darkened horizon of the flat earth.  So, there would be a dark (and a fairly large one) margin between where the horizon appears to be and where the stars are coming up. 

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]