Why did you come to this site? and other questions...

I have some questions for all of you, including both round earth theorists and flat earth theorists.  What made you seek out this site?  What propelled you to come here?  How did you even find out about it?  And what makes you keep coming back?  Since most round earth theorists are so convinced that the earth is round and that flat earth theorists have gone off the deep end, I think this is fair to ask.

From what I've gathered so far, round earth theorists believe in these fundamental truths:

1. Truth can only be found by consensus.  You cannot rely on yourself alone since you can be deceived.  What the majority constitutes as evidence is proof.  What the minority constitutes as evidence is an illusion.
2. Humans can create reliable devices which can come up with truths that humans alone cannot.
3. Truth is ever changing.  With more reliable formulas and computers, previous truths are discarded and replaced by new truths.

Now, since you guys picked apart what I considered my fundamental truths, I think it is only fair that I pick these apart.  (By the way, let me know if I got the above fundamentals wrong, according to your view.)

If I cannot rely on myself alone to determine the truth and have to rely on what the majority thinks, then what about this: Christianity is the one true religion.  Why?  Because there are more Christians in the world than any other religion.  Here is the breakdown:

1) Christians - 2,116,909,552 (which includes 1,117,759,185 Roman Catholics, 372,586,395 Protestants, 221,746,920 Orthodox, and 81,865,869 Anglicans)
2) Muslims - 1,282,780,149
3) Hindus - 856,690,863
4) Buddhists - 381,610,979
5) Sikhs - 25,139,912
6) Jews - 14,826,102

And...

a) Others - 814,146,396
b) Non-Religious - 801,898,746
c) Atheists - 152,128,701

http://geography.about.com/od/culturalgeography/a/popularreligion.htm

Now of course these numbers should be questioned, as this comes from a government source (the CIA!).  Not to mention we are not told how they came up with these numbers.  But let's for argument's sake assume that these numbers are correct.

So why doesn't science proclaim that Christianity is the one true religion?  After all, the majority believes in it.  Also, shouldn't Biblical truths then override truths that science comes up with?

Now about the second point... humans can create devices which are more truthful than they are.  What if one day we were able to create artificial intelligence to rival man, and this machine came to the conclusion that humans are a threat to the universe and should be wiped out?  Is it then justifiable for the computer to systematically destroy the human race?  And going back to the first point, if these computers were able to convince the majority of humans of the validity of their proofs, then doesn't this make it out to be true?

As for the last point... since truth is not fixed and rock solid, then how can you even argue about what is true and what is not?  Something might be discovered tomorrow that renders everything you know today to be false.  What's even the point?

Anyway, I would like you round earth theorists to answer these questions please, if you can without degenerating into calling me stupid or an imbecile or saying I shouldn't be born.  Let's keep it civil for once.

And let me say once more, I am not Tom.  But I guess going back to the last point, since truth is ever changing, if more people on here believe I am not Tom, then at that point I am no longer Tom. 

I have some questions for all of you, including both round earth theorists and flat earth theorists.  What made you seek out this site?  What propelled you to come here?  How did you even find out about it?  And what makes you keep coming back?  Since most round earth theorists are so convinced that the earth is round and that flat earth theorists have gone off the deep end, I think this is fair to ask.

I didn't seek out this site, someone told me about it. I joined here simply to try and get some people to join my forum but I gave up on that after about 5 minutes and 'got involved'. I keep coming back because this place is highly entertaining, plus when I read the debate threads I feel ever so slightly intelligent and sometimes I learn things.

As for the rest of your post, seems mostly pointless to me you saying all that, trying to explain scientific beliefs using an example of religious beliefs seems a bit silly to me.

But this bit

As for the last point... since truth is not fixed and rock solid, then how can you even argue about what is true and what is not?  Something might be discovered tomorrow that renders everything you know today to be false.  What's even the point?

I kinda agree with you there...

Quote from: TruthSeeker on April 27, 2007, 11:43:10 AM

I have some questions for all of you, including both round earth theorists and flat earth theorists.  What made you seek out this site?  What propelled you to come here?  How did you even find out about it?  And what makes you keep coming back?  Since most round earth theorists are so convinced that the earth is round and that flat earth theorists have gone off the deep end, I think this is fair to ask.

I didn't seek out this site, someone told me about it. I joined here simply to try and get some people to join my forum but I gave up on that after about 5 minutes and 'got involved'. I keep coming back because this place is highly entertaining, plus when I read the debate threads I feel ever so slightly intelligent and sometimes I learn things.

As for the rest of your post, seems mostly pointless to me you saying all that, trying to explain scientific beliefs using an example of religious beliefs seems a bit silly to me.

But this bit

Quote

As for the last point... since truth is not fixed and rock solid, then how can you even argue about what is true and what is not?  Something might be discovered tomorrow that renders everything you know today to be false.  What's even the point?

I kinda agree with you there...

Okay, you think religious beliefs cannot be used to explain scientific beliefs.  But doesn't this make science indisputable then according to science?  Scientific methods are accepted without question.  Only scientific methods can be relied upon.  Any other method cannot be relied on.  I don't see much difference between this and what some fundamentalists believe, that you can only rely on the Bible.

Okay, you think religious beliefs cannot be used to explain scientific beliefs.  But doesn't this make science indisputable then according to science?  Scientific methods are accepted without question.  Only scientific methods can be relied upon.  Any other method cannot be relied on.  I don't see much difference between this and what some fundamentalists believe, that you can only rely on the Bible.

Didnt I tell you not to talk about science?

Okay, you think religious beliefs cannot be used to explain scientific beliefs.  But doesn't this make science indisputable then according to science?  Scientific methods are accepted without question.  Only scientific methods can be relied upon.  Any other method cannot be relied on.  I don't see much difference between this and what some fundamentalists believe, that you can only rely on the Bible.

But religion is more a matter of opinion than a matter of using methods and experiements to reach a conclusion...the two cannot be compared to each other.

Quote from: TruthSeeker on April 27, 2007, 11:55:01 AM

Okay, you think religious beliefs cannot be used to explain scientific beliefs.  But doesn't this make science indisputable then according to science?  Scientific methods are accepted without question.  Only scientific methods can be relied upon.  Any other method cannot be relied on.  I don't see much difference between this and what some fundamentalists believe, that you can only rely on the Bible.

Didnt I tell you not to talk about science?

See, this is the kind of stuff I'm talking about.  Since some people cannot answer my questions and they need to convince themselves that they know everything, they have to come back with a putdown.

Quote from: TruthSeeker on April 27, 2007, 11:55:01 AM

Okay, you think religious beliefs cannot be used to explain scientific beliefs.  But doesn't this make science indisputable then according to science?  Scientific methods are accepted without question.  Only scientific methods can be relied upon.  Any other method cannot be relied on.  I don't see much difference between this and what some fundamentalists believe, that you can only rely on the Bible.

But religion is more a matter of opinion than a matter of using methods and experiements to reach a conclusion...the two cannot be compared to each other.

Religion can claim that this is what God said.  Religious people can claim they used non scientific methods to get to the truth.  To them it is truth, just gotten by a different method.

I agree that you cannot really compare apples and oranges, so forget about that part.  But how do you prove that the scientific method is correct?  It seems to have assumptions built into its belief system.

Scientific method has its foundation in logic.  It tries to be objective, whereas zetetic method seems to be pretty subjective.  And when I say that I think it's important to trust the consensus, I'm talking about the consensus among people who know what they're talking about.  I don't believe the earth is round because everybody around me believes the earth is round.  That would be short-sighted.  I don't think, however, that it is short-sighted to believe the earth is round because that's the conclusion that thousands of people who understand these things a lot more than me have already come to.

Obviously truth can not only be found by consensus.  Truth is usually discovered by one man.  That truth will be unpopular until it has been tested and verified.  Hence scientific method, and hence its tendency to be (mostly) non-biased.  As I've pointed out in the past, Newton merely discovered gravity; it wasn't widely accepted until it had gone through rigorous experimentation and verification.  And herein lies the problem with trusting a fringe book like Earth Not a Globe.

Not long after the original experiments, one of Rowbotham's cornerstones, the Bedford Level Experiment, was disproved by Alfred Russel Wallace.  Wallace, in direct opposition to Rowbotham, was a qualified surveyor, so he knew what he was doing.  If Wallace had undergone the experiment and come to the same conclusion as Rowbotham, FET would probably be more widely accepted.  But he didn't.  One of the important things about scientific method is that the result must be repeated by others in the scientific community.  The Bedford Level Experiment failed in this respect.  FEers base their belief in a book with an already faulty premise.

And I still think you're Tom.

From what I've gathered so far, round earth theorists believe in these fundamental truths:

1. Truth can only be found by consensus.  You cannot rely on yourself alone since you can be deceived.  What the majority constitutes as evidence is proof.  What the minority constitutes as evidence is an illusion.

That's a fallacy.  Science holds a majority opinion in no greater light than a minority opinion.  It's about observation and experimentation and being able to make accurate predictions through these observations and experiments.  Even when the majority said black holes were science fiction, the observations and experiments said they exist.  And since then, future observations and experiments support the theory black holes exist.

Scientific method has its foundation in logic.  It tries to be objective, whereas zetetic method seems to be pretty subjective.  And when I say that I think it's important to trust the consensus, I'm talking about the consensus among people who know what they're talking about.  I don't believe the earth is round because everybody around me believes the earth is round.  That would be short-sighted.  I don't think, however, that it is short-sighted to believe the earth is round because that's the conclusion that thousands of people who understand these things a lot more than me have already come to.

Obviously truth can not only be found by consensus.  Truth is usually discovered by one man.  That truth will be unpopular until it has been tested and verified.  Hence scientific method, and hence its tendency to be (mostly) non-biased.  As I've pointed out in the past, Newton merely discovered gravity; it wasn't widely accepted until it had gone through rigorous experimentation and verification.  And herein lies the problem with trusting a fringe book like Earth Not a Globe.

Not long after the original experiments, one of Rowbotham's cornerstones, the Bedford Level Experiment, was disproved by Alfred Russel Wallace.  Wallace, in direct opposition to Rowbotham, was a qualified surveyor, so he knew what he was doing.  If Wallace had undergone the experiment and come to the same conclusion as Rowbotham, FET would probably be more widely accepted.  But he didn't.  One of the important things about scientific method is that the result must be repeated by others in the scientific community.  The Bedford Level Experiment failed in this respect.  FEers base their belief in a book with an already faulty premise.

And I still think you're Tom.

Logic... and logic was created by human beings... True and false does not exist in nature.  So how do you then explain that different scientists come up with different sets of logic?  Can there only be one true logic and the rest are flawed?

Did you read the first sentence in my post and then just skip past the rest?  I ask because you seem to completely miss the point.

Quote from: TruthSeeker on April 27, 2007, 11:43:10 AM

From what I've gathered so far, round earth theorists believe in these fundamental truths:

1. Truth can only be found by consensus.  You cannot rely on yourself alone since you can be deceived.  What the majority constitutes as evidence is proof.  What the minority constitutes as evidence is an illusion.

That's a fallacy.  Science holds a majority opinion in no greater light than a minority opinion.  It's about observation and experimentation and being able to make accurate predictions through these observations and experiments.  Even when the majority said black holes were science fiction, the observations and experiments said they exist.  And since then, future observations and experiments support the theory black holes exist.

But see, I was told by round earth theorists that what I observe with my senses can be deceiving.  So just because you can confirm your formulas by experiments doesn't prove anything.  What you believe to be a confirmation could turn out to be false.

And there is something to be said about repetition.  But I can apply that to flat earth theory.  Every time I go to the beach, I see a flat horizon.  I have never felt the earth spin on its axis.  I have never felt the earth traveling through space.  I have never been able to measure Everest.

Did you read the first sentence in my post and then just skip past the rest?  I ask because you seem to completely miss the point.

No, I didn't.  Also, not one of you answered every question in my original post.  No one mentioned anything about the AI part.  I think you guys missed by original point.  You guys are so sure of your beliefs but I'm showing you that every belief is ultimately subjective.

What do you measure the horizon with?  Do you just look and say "looks flat to me", or do you actually break out some survey equipment or put any thought into it?  What proof do you have the horizon is flat?  See how I turned it around?

What do you measure the horizon with?  Do you just look and say "looks flat to me", or do you actually break out some survey equipment or put any thought into it?  What proof do you have the horizon is flat?  See how I turned it around?

Yes, I see that... but just because you turned it around doesn't make the scientific method valid.

At best, it seems like we are all clueless.  It really boils down to what is reality?  You guys are always busting on me for not taking physics class, but how many of you have taken philosophy?  These things are questioned and discussed all the time.

Not long after the original experiments, one of Rowbotham's cornerstones, the Bedford Level Experiment, was disproved by Alfred Russel Wallace.  Wallace, in direct opposition to Rowbotham, was a qualified surveyor, so he knew what he was doing.

We don't care about Wallace. He made a large wager with an FE proponent and when he lost he attempted to argue semantics about eye level this and eye level that, completely undermining the laws of perspective. Flat Earth proponents have successfully conducted Rowbotham's experiments hundreds of times. I myself have successfully reproduced Rowbotham's findings.

The Flat Earth Society wouldn't have persisted for over 150 years if Rowbotham's findings were fallacious.

Of course you don't care about Wallace.  Because he was actually qualified to make the kinds of experiments that were performed, and proved Rowbotham wrong.  Why would you want to acknowledge that?  It is a black mark on Flat Earth Theory.

The Flat Earth Society wouldn't have persisted for over 150 years if Rowbotham's findings were fallacious.

Then why would the Round Earth Society persist so long if his findings were accurate?

I myself have successfully reproduced Rowbotham's findings.

Are you a qualified surveyor, as Wallace was (and Rowbotham was not)?

Then why would the Round Earth Society persist so long if his findings were accurate?

For the same reason Christianity persists: Dogma and blind faith.

Are you a qualified surveyor, as Wallace was (and Rowbotham was not)?

Wallace was a spiritualist hack who wasn't even respected in scientific circles. He wasn't a surveyor.

Being a Geologist I am indeed a surveyor. It comes with the job.

Wallace was a spiritualist hack who wasn't even respected in scientific circles. He wasn't a surveyor.

Lie.  He was a spiritualist, but only later in life.  He was respected for having come up with the theory of natural selection independent of Darwin, and is often referred to as the "father of biogeography".  Sounds like some people in the scientific community respected him.  And according to this site: http://www.wku.edu/~smithch/wallace/S162-163.htm he was an experienced surveyor.  Read paragraph 1.  Now provide me a source that contradicts this.

And I forgot, you have said you're a geologist in the past.  I think this is a lie, Tom, to validate the results of your "experiments", but I guess you still got me there since I can't prove it.

Quote

Then why would the Round Earth Society persist so long if his findings were accurate?

For the same reason Christianity persists. Dogma and blind faith.

Quote

Are you a qualified surveyor, as Wallace was (and Rowbotham was not)?

Wallace was a spiritualist hack who wasn't even respected in scientific circles. He wasn't a surveyor.

Being a Geologist I am a surveyor, however. It comes with the job.

Exactly.  Just like Christianity has persisted, so has round earth theory.  We need to reclaim the truth from the globularists.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 27, 2007, 12:43:18 PM

Wallace was a spiritualist hack who wasn't even respected in scientific circles. He wasn't a surveyor.

Lie.  He was a spiritualist, but only later in life.  He was respected for having come up with the theory of natural selection independent of Darwin, and is often referred to as the "father of biogeography".  Sounds like some people in the scientific community respected him.  And according to this site: http://www.wku.edu/~smithch/wallace/S162-163.htm he was an experienced surveyor.  Read paragraph 1.  Now provide me a source that contradicts this.

And I forgot, you have said you're a geologist in the past.  I think this is a lie, Tom, to validate the results of your "experiments", but I guess you still got me there since I can't prove it.

You know who still wasn't an experienced surveyor?  Your boy Samuel Birley Rowbotham, the father of Flat Earth Theory.

Quote

Not long after the original experiments, one of Rowbotham's cornerstones, the Bedford Level Experiment, was disproved by Alfred Russel Wallace.  Wallace, in direct opposition to Rowbotham, was a qualified surveyor, so he knew what he was doing.

We don't care about Wallace. He made a large wager with an FE proponent and when he lost he attempted to argue semantics about eye level this and eye level that, completely undermining the laws of perspective. Flat Earth proponents have successfully conducted Rowbotham's experiments hundreds of times. I myself have successfully reproduced Rowbotham's findings.

The Flat Earth Society wouldn't have persisted for over 150 years if Rowbotham's findings were fallacious.

Actually, this makes no sense. Aristotle's theories sustained for over 2000 years but were utterly flawed. A point of view held by many people for a long time does not make it correct.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 27, 2007, 12:28:34 PM

Quote

Not long after the original experiments, one of Rowbotham's cornerstones, the Bedford Level Experiment, was disproved by Alfred Russel Wallace.  Wallace, in direct opposition to Rowbotham, was a qualified surveyor, so he knew what he was doing.

We don't care about Wallace. He made a large wager with an FE proponent and when he lost he attempted to argue semantics about eye level this and eye level that, completely undermining the laws of perspective. Flat Earth proponents have successfully conducted Rowbotham's experiments hundreds of times. I myself have successfully reproduced Rowbotham's findings.

The Flat Earth Society wouldn't have persisted for over 150 years if Rowbotham's findings were fallacious.

Actually, this makes no sense. Aristotle's theories sustained for over 2000 years but were utterly flawed. A point of view held by many people for a long time does not make it correct.

I agree with that.  It should be looked at seriously, but it is not proof itself of its correctness.

Much the same way, just because you believed the earth was round all your life doesn't mean it was correct.  Check out my thread entitled: Flat Earth Brainwashing.

Much the same way, just because you believed the earth was round all your life doesn't mean it was correct.  Check out my thread entitled: Flat Earth Brainwashing.

Check out to your nearest hospital.  And stop with your RE insulting threads, it's getting quite annoying.  You act as if having an opinion that is the same as 6~ billion other people makes you stupid.  Great theory, but I think you're alone with it.

Quote from: TruthSeeker on April 27, 2007, 01:15:51 PM

Much the same way, just because you believed the earth was round all your life doesn't mean it was correct.  Check out my thread entitled: Flat Earth Brainwashing.

Check out to your nearest hospital.  And stop with your RE insulting threads, it's getting quite annoying.  You act as if having an opinion that is the same as 6~ billion other people makes you stupid.  Great theory, but I think you're alone with it.

You're just saying that because you can't answer my questions...

Oh, here's another question for you... do you really believe in "black holes" (ha!).  So a star stops shining occasionally and that's proof there is this huge vacuum cleaner in space sucking up everything?  So isn't it just a matter time before these interstellar vacuum cleaners suck up the entire universe?  What happens then?  Is there a proof for that?

Quote from: EIRD on April 27, 2007, 01:27:40 PM

Quote from: TruthSeeker on April 27, 2007, 01:15:51 PM

Much the same way, just because you believed the earth was round all your life doesn't mean it was correct.  Check out my thread entitled: Flat Earth Brainwashing.

Check out to your nearest hospital.  And stop with your RE insulting threads, it's getting quite annoying.  You act as if having an opinion that is the same as 6~ billion other people makes you stupid.  Great theory, but I think you're alone with it.

You're just saying that because you can't answer my questions...

Oh, here's another question for you... do you really believe in "black holes" (ha!).  So a star stops shining occasionally and that's proof there is this huge vacuum cleaner in space sucking up everything?  So isn't it just a matter time before these interstellar vacuum cleaners suck up the entire universe?  What happens then?  Is there a proof for that?

Did you miss the part in your OP when you insulted people who believe the earth is round?  Anyway, do a search.  Stop nagging about complete BS when you know you can easily use that stupid little search function on Wiki and find almost all your answers.

Quote from: TruthSeeker on April 27, 2007, 01:30:50 PM

Quote from: EIRD on April 27, 2007, 01:27:40 PM

Quote from: TruthSeeker on April 27, 2007, 01:15:51 PM

Much the same way, just because you believed the earth was round all your life doesn't mean it was correct.  Check out my thread entitled: Flat Earth Brainwashing.

Check out to your nearest hospital.  And stop with your RE insulting threads, it's getting quite annoying.  You act as if having an opinion that is the same as 6~ billion other people makes you stupid.  Great theory, but I think you're alone with it.

You're just saying that because you can't answer my questions...

Oh, here's another question for you... do you really believe in "black holes" (ha!).  So a star stops shining occasionally and that's proof there is this huge vacuum cleaner in space sucking up everything?  So isn't it just a matter time before these interstellar vacuum cleaners suck up the entire universe?  What happens then?  Is there a proof for that?

Did you miss the part in your OP when you insulted people who believe the earth is round?  Anyway, do a search.  Stop nagging about complete BS when you know you can easily use that stupid little search function on Wiki and find almost all your answers.

And did you round earth theorists miss all those posts where you ridicule and make fun of us?  And did you forget that this site is called theflatearthsociety.org?  And did you forget to read up on the FAQ about flat earth theory?  Why do people have to keep pestering Tom all the time?  Poor man.  It's amazing how much patience he has, finding the time to answer all your questions.  But do any of you ever thank him for taking the time?  No, you just hurl more abuses at him.

Also, if you round earth theorists just want to be around people who agree with you all the time, why don't you create a site called theroundearthsociety.org?

Yarr!

t did be of concern to me when I did find this site. Me second man, Pablito Arvatrodge, did approach me one day before we did set out to the Arghctic Ocean to catch some glitterin' sea crabs, only to protest that the Flat Earth Society do be spewing blasphemous conspiracy theories that me Sea no do connect to the other side of the world as it do be flat! I do protest, for I do have seen many shadows inthe night, but let it be known! Don Carnage do no believe in ghosts or shadow objects taking his immaculate crew to the other side of the ocean! FIE ON IT ALL! FIE!