How was the Earth created according to FET believers?

As I hope to believe in the FET I have run across a question that needs to be answered. If Earth isn't round that means the whole concept of big bang and stars creating all the elements and exploding and making new starts and having planets forum around them theory is wrong.

Thus meaning that Earth wasn't created by a bunch of star dust coming together and forming a planet. Then having another planet crash into it and creating what we know as the Earth as well as the moon.

So tell me how do FET believe the Earth was created?

As a Scientologist I do not accept GOD as an answer. I need logical reasoning no religion.

As I hope to believe in the FET I have run across a question that needs to be answered. If Earth isn't round that means the whole concept of big bang and stars creating all the elements and exploding and making new starts and having planets forum around them theory is wrong.

Thus meaning that Earth wasn't created by a bunch of star dust coming together and forming a planet. Then having another planet crash into it and creating what we know as the Earth as well as the moon.

So tell me how do FET believe the Earth was created?

As a Scientologist I do not accept GOD as an answer. I need logical reasoning no religion.

You shouldn't refuse to accept God as an answer just because you're a Scientologist.  But anyway, make sure you know how to Earth was formed... accretion, heavy elements, cores, the moon impacting the Earth, etc. before you debate over this.

Accretion is impossible with a flat Earth, so I can't wait to see if anyone can up with another explanation.  However, like 50 people have viewed this, yet only I have replied... Silence indicated the FE'ers have nothing.

Hmm.  I notice a pattern.  As soon as we point out a major flaw with FET that is perfectly explained (or proven) in RET, we get...

...silence.  This thread should have much more attention than it does, as it poses a serious question to the FET.  How was the Earth created?  Truly, some phenomenon must've occured to make it the awkward disc-shape / infinite plane (?) that it apparantly is.  So, how about it?  Troll away. 

As a Scientologist I do not accept GOD as an answer. I need logical reasoning no religion.

Scientology is not compatible with logical reasoning as it uses made-up mythical elements with no evidence as the foundation for the rest of its reasoning. These ideas were made up by Science Fiction author Loony Ron Hubbard and have no basis in fact.

The infinite earth has always existed.

The infinite earth has always existed.

That's a worse explanation than god did it or its the conspiracy.

Accretion is impossible with a flat Earth, so I can't wait to see if anyone can up with another explanation.  However, like 50 people have viewed this, yet only I have replied... Silence indicated the FE'ers have nothing.

The reason no one answers, is because there is no definitive answer...so whats the point? You can't answer the same question about a round earth.  There is only faith, and theories on how the round earth was created.  So for us to come in here and try to pin down a creation mechanism is just asinine.

Quote from: John Davis on May 28, 2010, 01:28:53 PM

The infinite earth has always existed.

That's a worse explanation than god did it or its the conspiracy.

How so?

Quote from: Tech on May 28, 2010, 01:42:06 PM

Quote from: John Davis on May 28, 2010, 01:28:53 PM

The infinite earth has always existed.

That's a worse explanation than god did it or its the conspiracy.

How so?

Because it doesn't offer an explanation, you have no idea whether or not it always existed, you are just saying it did.

Quote from: John Davis on May 28, 2010, 02:13:07 PM

Quote from: Tech on May 28, 2010, 01:42:06 PM

Quote from: John Davis on May 28, 2010, 01:28:53 PM

The infinite earth has always existed.

That's a worse explanation than god did it or its the conspiracy.

How so?

Because it doesn't offer an explanation, you have no idea whether or not it always existed, you are just saying it did.

You have no idea whether or not it was created, you are just saying it did.  

There is plenty of evidence it existed forever.

And around and around we go.  See my above post.

Quote from: Tech on May 28, 2010, 02:28:28 PM

Quote from: John Davis on May 28, 2010, 02:13:07 PM

Quote from: Tech on May 28, 2010, 01:42:06 PM

Quote from: John Davis on May 28, 2010, 01:28:53 PM

The infinite earth has always existed.

That's a worse explanation than god did it or its the conspiracy.

How so?

Because it doesn't offer an explanation, you have no idea whether or not it always existed, you are just saying it did.

You have no idea whether or not it was created, you are just saying it did.  

There is plenty of evidence it existed forever.

Elaborate on 'evidence'?

The earth has most definitely not always existed. Entropy is not maximum on earth.

The earth has most definitely not always existed. Entropy is not maximum on earth.

Correct.

This is why time travel backwards isn't possible: you can only go from low entropy to high entropy.

For the Earth to have always existed, it would need to
1) have maximum entropy
2) there would have to be no minimum entropy.

Since neither of these conditions is possible, the Earth couldn't have always existed just like the Universe isn't infinitely old.

Yet another thing FET can't explain, yet RET explains perfectly, as well as gives evidence/data in support of.

Quote from: jackofhearts on May 27, 2010, 12:52:25 PM

Accretion is impossible with a flat Earth, so I can't wait to see if anyone can up with another explanation.  However, like 50 people have viewed this, yet only I have replied... Silence indicated the FE'ers have nothing.

The reason no one answers, is because there is no definitive answer...so whats the point? You can't answer the same question about a round earth.  There is only faith, and theories on how the round earth was created.  So for us to come in here and try to pin down a creation mechanism is just asinine.

Theories based on obserervable and thoroughly tested evidence, belief in these theories is not faith as faith is belief without proof or evidence. Just in case you choose to argue this:

faith (fth)
n.
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

Definition from the free dictionary.
Also the question concerning a creation mechanism for a flat earth is not asinine. RET has a working model which explains to a high degree of observable accuracy how the world came to be formed. FET has nothing to explain this (or pretty much anything else from what I can see), which means FET is less plausible than RET in terms of evidence.

It might have been formed by matter being pulled out to multiple sources of gravity, to create a cylinder: that is, an almost-sphere havinga  source pulling it back, and a source pulling it forwards, while it stays together, creating a kind of cylinder. Hope that makes sense.

Oh wait, sorry, I forgot gravity doesn't exist in the FE model. my bad.

It might have been formed by matter being pulled out to multiple sources of gravity, to create a cylinder: that is, an almost-sphere havinga  source pulling it back, and a source pulling it forwards, while it stays together, creating a kind of cylinder. Hope that makes sense.

Oh wait, sorry, I forgot gravity doesn't exist in the FE model. my bad.

Even if there were multiple sources of gravity, it'd be physically impossible to form a flat planet. 

Quote from: BiJane on June 11, 2010, 07:30:19 AM

It might have been formed by matter being pulled out to multiple sources of gravity, to create a cylinder: that is, an almost-sphere havinga  source pulling it back, and a source pulling it forwards, while it stays together, creating a kind of cylinder. Hope that makes sense.

Oh wait, sorry, I forgot gravity doesn't exist in the FE model. my bad.

Even if there were multiple sources of gravity, it'd be physically impossible to form a flat planet. 

It's not technically flat. it's more of a huge dish (Ice wall/mountain range thing). Which is even more impossible (that doesn't make sense does it?).

Exactly, for a large mountain range to completely encircle the planet, there would have to be a huge concentration of mass at the edge of the disc, completely impossible for any massive system. The only solution is one FE'ers still hold faith in, that some mysterious force is canceling earth's gravitational force.

Exactly, for a large mountain range to completely encircle the planet, there would have to be a huge concentration of mass at the edge of the disc, completely impossible for any massive system. The only solution is one FE'ers still hold faith in, that some mysterious force is canceling earth's gravitational force.

I blame a giant turtle called Great A'Tuin.

Here's an idea; maybe one day a UA happened to be accelerating through the unknown universe and it gradually started picking up particles, rocks and small moons that stuck to it, forming a big accelerating disc. I'm not saying I believe this, but hey, it's an idea.. and therefor in this case the first and only one and it 'explains' meteor impacts.

-any FET followers?

You shouldn't refuse to accept God as an answer just because you're a Scientologist.

That's right, you should refuse to accept God as an answer because of its damning lack of proof, inability to hold up to testing, and overall insanity.

I wasn't implying that God was a good reason for anything; I was just saying that throwing out a possibility because of your beliefs is extremely illogical.

Here's an idea; maybe one day a UA happened to be accelerating through the unknown universe and it gradually started picking up particles, rocks and small moons that stuck to it, forming a big accelerating disc. I'm not saying I believe this, but hey, it's an idea.. and therefor in this case the first and only one and it 'explains' meteor impacts.

-any FET followers?

If universal acceleration exists throughout the universe (hence the term universal acceleration), all particles in the universe would accelerate at the same rate, and would never clump together to form a rocky plane.  Now, if gravity existed in this model, the particles would clump together to form spheres, which would begin colliding into and orbiting around each other, while some became so heavy that they ignited fusion reactions within... wait, this is sounding a lot like round earth theory!

Quote from: Misterkami on June 12, 2010, 01:46:57 AM

Here's an idea; maybe one day a UA happened to be accelerating through the unknown universe and it gradually started picking up particles, rocks and small moons that stuck to it, forming a big accelerating disc. I'm not saying I believe this, but hey, it's an idea.. and therefor in this case the first and only one and it 'explains' meteor impacts.

-any FET followers?

If universal acceleration exists throughout the universe (hence the term universal acceleration), all particles in the universe would accelerate at the same rate, and would never clump together to form a rocky plane.  Now, if gravity existed in this model, the particles would clump together to form spheres, which would begin colliding into and orbiting around each other, while some became so heavy that they ignited fusion reactions within... wait, this is sounding a lot like round earth theory!

Yop.. thanks. Conclusion: neither of us believes in that theory.

Any FET people have a theory other than: it was always there, or we don't know..? (Of course we don't know. RET doesn't know for sure either, but at least there's thories, based on research)

It is a shameful globular chauvanism to assume that the Big Bang was spherical. In truth, the Big Bang was monodirectional, it exploded upwards only. This is the reason for the constant acceleration of the Earth.

It is a shameful globular chauvanism to assume that the Big Bang was spherical. In truth, the Big Bang was monodirectional, it exploded upwards only. This is the reason for the constant acceleration of the Earth.

How does the earth itself form after the Big Bang? Was it shot out of the Big Bang like a bullet?
The assumption that the big bang being spherical is because all explosions have an initial spherical pattern.  Do you suggest that the Big Bang was not an explosion?

Quote from: James on June 13, 2010, 07:40:33 AM

It is a shameful globular chauvanism to assume that the Big Bang was spherical. In truth, the Big Bang was monodirectional, it exploded upwards only. This is the reason for the constant acceleration of the Earth.

How does the earth itself form after the Big Bang? Was it shot out of the Big Bang like a bullet?
The assumption that the big bang being spherical is because all explosions have an initial spherical pattern.  Do you suggest that the Big Bang was not an explosion?

What Earthly reason have we to suspect that the Big Bang was anything like a terrestrial explosion? The Earth itself appears to be a thick layer of silicates and metals which were presumably expelled from the Big Bang.

Quote from: Nolhekh on June 13, 2010, 07:46:00 AM

Quote from: James on June 13, 2010, 07:40:33 AM

It is a shameful globular chauvanism to assume that the Big Bang was spherical. In truth, the Big Bang was monodirectional, it exploded upwards only. This is the reason for the constant acceleration of the Earth.

How does the earth itself form after the Big Bang? Was it shot out of the Big Bang like a bullet?
The assumption that the big bang being spherical is because all explosions have an initial spherical pattern.  Do you suggest that the Big Bang was not an explosion?

What Earthly reason have we to suspect that the Big Bang was anything like a terrestrial explosion? The Earth itself appears to be a thick layer of silicates and metals which were presumably expelled from the Big Bang.

Then you do not know much of Big Bang theory. Every element heavier than hydrogen was created through the process of fusion, usually in the core of a star. The earth and this solar system were not formed until at least 7 billion years after the big bang.