Ships over the horizon

Quote from: Doctor Roundbottom on October 26, 2008, 11:44:36 AM

I've seen lots of speculation that this is the case, but Rowbotham's own words suggest otherwise.  Do you have any proof that he was intentionally trying to prove the earth was flat in accordance with his interpretation of the Bible?

Yes.

Quote from: Christine Garwood- Flat Earth

By teaching that the earth was flat, and emphasising the scriptual basis of the idea, he could confirm that the Bible was the ultimate authority on the earth and its creation, a critical and controversial point.

Interesting conjecture from Ms Garwood.  What's her source?

Proof that liberals hate America more than Islamic terrorists:

Even Islamic terrorists don't hate America like liberals do. They don't have the energy. If they had that much energy, they'd have indoor plumbing by now.

Quote from: Doctor Roundbottom on October 26, 2008, 10:53:02 AM

Quote from: goldstein on October 26, 2008, 10:49:06 AM

Quote from: Doctor Roundbottom on October 25, 2008, 09:52:24 PM

Air is not transparent.  The horizon is nothing more than the furthest your eyes can see through the atmosphere.  The disappearing effect may be due to some kind of atmospheric refraction, causing objects to appear to disappear over the horizon.  I think they're actually closer than they appear.

Ah the mysterious fog bank. Combined with implicit bendy light. Genius.

It's irrefutable!

The dictionary defines irrefutable as : -adjective - that cannot be refuted or disproved.

So in other words, it is not irrefutable.

Of course it's irrefutable.  A theory needs to make at least some sense in order to be refuted.

Quote from: Doctor Roundbottom on October 26, 2008, 11:58:53 AM

Interesting conjecture from Ms Garwood.  What's her source?

Rowbotham himself. If you're on a crusade to prove a literal interpretation of the bible then you don't keep quiet.

Quote from: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/index.htm

Zetetic cosmology is 'faith-based', based, that is, on a literal interpretation of selected Biblical quotes. Hell is exactly as advertised, directly below us. Heaven is not a state of mind, it is a real place, somewhere above us. He uses Ussherian Biblical chronology to mock the concept that stars could be millions of light years away. He attacks the concept of a plurality of worlds because no other world than this one is mentioned in the Bible.

I'm sorry, where's the quote from Rowbotham confirming that zeteticism is anything but an honest appraisal of observation?  Or did he refer to himself in the third person? 

This topic makes good reading. All arguments seem to be pretty valid on both sides. But i have a few questions of my own. Firstly, if the world IS flat, and the round earth theory IS just a conspiracy, then what would really be the point of any conspiracy at all? How can money even be involved?

Secondly, it's a little known fact that the first man to circumnavigate the earth was a slaveknown as henry the black, who died in 1521. So does this mean that the conspiracy has been going on for that long? And why?

Thirdly, your explanation of the horizon, dr roundbottom, can't be valid, because if the air is not invisible, then why is it only visible at such a long distance? Any ideas?

I'm not the kind of person who knocks other peoples beliefs, and that's not what i'm here to do. But this does seem a little bit far-fetched to me.

Quote from: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za66.htm

...therefore, the Scriptures, which negative these notions, and teach expressly the reverse, must in their astronomical philosophy at least be literally true. In practical science, therefore, atheism and denial of Scriptural teaching and authority have no foundation. If human theories are cast aside, rejected as entirely worthless, and the facts of nature and legitimate reasoning alone relied on, it will be seen that religion and true science are not antagonistic, but are strictly parts of one and the same great system of sacred philosophy.

Be grateful I didn't go all Tom Bishop on you and post the entire chapter.

Just that he took his findings as proof of Biblical Scripture does not mean that the experiments were carried out with that end in mind.  Rowbotham was a zeteticist which by definition means he had no prior preference for any specific result.  Maybe the experiments simply affirmed his faith, or perhaps he was trying to convince the religious majority of the legitimacy of scientific inquiry (a noble goal, I believe).  I think the wording is too ambiguous to be certain but I see nothing in that passage implying that the results he got were anticipated based on Scripture.

Really?  To me he is implying that the scriptures are true, and anything that denies what the scriptures teach is false.  I will cut out some of the wordiness:

"therefore, the Scriptures ..........must in their astronomical philosophy be literally true......In practical science, therefore, atheism and denial of Scriptural teaching and authority have no foundation."

He is suggesting that any science that denies the authority of the scriptures is false.

Really?  To me he is implying that the scriptures are true, and anything that denies what the scriptures teach is false.  I will cut out some of the wordiness:

"therefore, the Scriptures ..........must in their astronomical philosophy be literally true......In practical science, therefore, atheism and denial of Scriptural teaching and authority have no foundation."

He is suggesting that any science that denies the authority of the scriptures is false.

No, he's suggesting that he's proven that any science that denies the authority of the Scriptures is false.  Surely if he had had such faith in the Bible's veracity beforehand he wouldn't have felt the need to go through with the experiments.

Quote from: ragnarr on October 28, 2008, 02:21:39 PM

Really?  To me he is implying that the scriptures are true, and anything that denies what the scriptures teach is false.  I will cut out some of the wordiness:

"therefore, the Scriptures ..........must in their astronomical philosophy be literally true......In practical science, therefore, atheism and denial of Scriptural teaching and authority have no foundation."

He is suggesting that any science that denies the authority of the scriptures is false.

No, he's suggesting that he's proven that any science that denies the authority of the Scriptures is false.  Surely if he had had such faith in the Bible's veracity beforehand he wouldn't have felt the need to go through with the experiments.

Exactly. If he believed in the Bible so much (before his experiments, I mean) why would he even go through with the experiments?

Seems to me he conducted these experiments with an agenda to prove the scriptures correct.

Really?  To me he is implying that the scriptures are true, and anything that denies what the scriptures teach is false.  I will cut out some of the wordiness:

If you read Christine Garwood's book 'Flat Earth: History of an infamous idea" you'd find that Samuel Birley Rowbotham conducted a two prong approach to Flat Earth Theory; a simultaneous scientific and theologic attack on Globularism. The vast majority of the book deciminates the globe theory on a practical scientific level geared towards learned people of the day, while Rowbotham reserves a section of the ending chapter to a theological attack against Joe and Jane average who scoff at his beliefs while blindly believing in the word of the bible which describes the earth as a disk.

At the time of writing nearly the entirety of Europe was composed of Catholics. In his lectures across the isles of Britain Sameul Birley Rowbotam would attack the beliefs of the local community and townspeople at the end of his speech, pointing out the contradiction in the incompatibility of their blind faith in the word of the bible and their blind faith in a globe earth.

Samuel Birley Rowbotham encourages one to think for himself and never take any one theory or hypothesis for granted.

No, he's suggesting that he's proven that any science that denies the authority of the Scriptures is false.  Surely if he had had such faith in the Bible's veracity beforehand he wouldn't have felt the need to go through with the experiments.

"Any science" is the key phrase.  His book only sets to prove a flat earth, then in his conclusion he suggests that "any" science that contradicts the scriptures as they are literally written is wrong.

So in his mind he proves a flat earth, and that somehow also disproves evolution, since the bible states that the earth and all the creatures on it were created in 7 days, including man.  Which goes against all the geological evidence we have found, which shows that the earth was around billions of years before man.

Disagree with me if you want, but when Rowbatham starts preaching in his conclusion, stating that due to his experiments, he has proven the bible is infallible, my eyebrow raises.  To me that was his motive all along, and when I read his whole conclusion, it is even more apparent.

From ENAG:

They are all in motion over the earth, which is alone immovable; and, therefore, they cannot be anything more than secondary and subservient structures continually ministering to this fixed world and its inhabitants. This is a plain, simple, and in every respect demonstrable philosophy, agreeing with the evidence of our senses, borne out by every fairly instituted experiment, and never requiring a violation of those principles of investigation which the human mind has ever recognised and depended upon in its every-day life. The modern or Newtonian astronomy has none of these characteristics. The whole system taken together constitutes a most monstrous absurdity. It is false in its foundation; irregular, unfair, and illogical, in its details; and, in its conclusions, inconsistent and contradictory. Worse than all, it is a prolific source of irreligion and of atheism, of which its advocates are practically supporters. By defending a system which is directly opposed to that which is taught in connection with the Jewish and Christian religion they lead the more critical and daring intellects to question and deride the cosmogony and general philosophy contained in the sacred books. Because the Newtonian theory is held to be true they are led to reject the Scriptures altogether, to ignore the worship, and doubt and deny the existence of a Creator and Supreme Ruler of the world. Many of the primest minds are thus irreparably injured, robbed of those present pleasures, and that cheering hope of the future which the earnest Christian devotee holds as of far greater value than ail earthly wealth and grandeur; or than the mastery of

p. 355

all the philosophical complications which the human mind ever invented. To the religious mind this matter is most important--it is, indeed, no less than a sacred question, but to the dogged atheist, whose "mind is made up" not to enter into any further investigation, and not to admit of possible error in his past conclusions, it is of little more account than it is to the lowest animal in. creation. He may see nothing higher, more noble, more intelligent, or beautiful than himself; and in this his pride, conceit, and vanity, find an incarnation. To such a creature there is no God; for he is himself, in his own estimation, an equal with, and equal to, the highest being he has ever recognised, or the evidence of which he has seen the possibility. Such atheism exists to an alarming extent among the philosophers and deep thinkers of Europe and America; and it has been mainly created and fostered by the astronomical and geological theories of the day. Besides which, in consequence of the differences between the language of Scripture and the teachings of modern astronomy, there is to be found in the very hearts of Christian and Jewish congregations a sort of "smouldering scepticism," a kind of "faint suspicion," which causes great numbers to manifest a cold and morbid indifference to religious requirements. They frigidly believe, and are not wanting in formalities and outward signs arid professions, but in their deepest thoughts a speculative, hypercritical, doubting, and chilling irreverence prevails. It .is this confusion and want of certainty as to the absolute truths of religious teachings which creates a love of display and outward manifestation of religion, instead of that "cheerful solemnity" and quiet,

p. 356

unobtrusive good-will and devotion which solid convictions of the truthfulness of Christianity never fail to produce. It is this, too, which has led thousands to openly desert the cause of earnest, practical, active devotion, to seek consistency and satisfaction in scepticism, which has led many of them gradually onwards to utter hopelessness and atheism; and great numbers of those who still remain in the ranks of religion try to console themselves with the declaration "that the Scriptures were not intended to teach correctly other than moral and spiritual doctrines; that the references so often made to the physical world, and to natural phenomena generally, are given in language not pretending to be true, but to suit the prevailing notions and the ignorance of the people."

That is only part of it, it goes on and on.