How was Flat Earth created?

All us RE's pretty much know how our Earth was created and almost all of us agree this is how RE was formed: http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/earth/earth_timeline/earth_formed . I haven't really read much about how FE was formed and I am curious how a strange flat area with no gravity and a wall of ice was formed. And don't even start with the religious stuff, if you say God created the FE than you basically have stated that you have no real answer for the question. Btw the question is: How was FE formed?

And.......Is there any chronology as to how the earth formed ?
Sort of a "Which came first, the chicken or the egg ?"
For example, when was the Ice Ring formed ? (Unipolar Model)
Did the ocean freeze first to keep the waters in and when did this occur ? (Bipolar Model)
I think if the "Flat Earthers" expect any credence from "Round Earthers" they should at least have come up with some "theories" for these and other questions. The problem seems to be that the "Flat Earthers" don't believe in scientists and so they don't have any scientists to give answers.

But getting back to reality, of course we all know that the "Round Earthers" do have and do believe in scientists them and "Round Earthers"  scientists do at least have some theories on how the earth was formed.































 

It was created by that which is.

It was created by that which is.

Translation: I have no idea. Let me substitute some mysterious thing so everything makes sense!

It was created by that which is.

I can't tell if you are a FE being serious or a RE mocking what a FE would say.

The concave earth or flat to our perception is a created cell of cells, probably among similar cells outside of it.
To us, the earth is our mother cell that houses us as a mass of small cells and everything else inside of it ranging in size.
How it all came about will probably never be known by our primitive minds, as in simply appearing.
Just as the cells that make the sperm that swim through other cells to penetrate a cell containing cells that contain cells which produce an organism made up of all those cells.
We are just a growing egg and we as cells are dying to be replaced just like the cells of our own bodies do.

The concave earth or flat to our perception is a created cell of cells, probably among similar cells outside of it.
To us, the earth is our mother cell that houses us as a mass of small cells and everything else inside of it ranging in size.
How it all came about will probably never be known by our primitive minds, as in simply appearing.
Just as the cells that make the sperm that swim through other cells to penetrate a cell containing cells that contain cells which produce an organism made up of all those cells.
We are just a growing egg and we as cells are dying to be replaced just like the cells of our own bodies do.

Simplification by truncation:

... all came about will probably never be known...

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 06, 2014, 12:05:14 PM

The concave earth or flat to our perception is a created cell of cells, probably among similar cells outside of it.
To us, the earth is our mother cell that houses us as a mass of small cells and everything else inside of it ranging in size.
How it all came about will probably never be known by our primitive minds, as in simply appearing.
Just as the cells that make the sperm that swim through other cells to penetrate a cell containing cells that contain cells which produce an organism made up of all those cells.
We are just a growing egg and we as cells are dying to be replaced just like the cells of our own bodies do.

Simplification by truncation:

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 06, 2014, 12:05:14 PM

... all came about will probably never be known...

How long is a piece of string. Chicken and the egg, etc.

RET scientists with their endless resources can not even tell you how anything began.  They can only give you their best guess.  Yet, we are expected to know all of the answers.   

RET scientists with their endless resources can not even tell you how anything began.  They can only give you their best guess.  Yet, we are expected to know all of the answers.   

Yes you are correct they make there best possible guesses based on evidence agreed upon by almost the entire world of scientists. Now let me rephrase the question which I expect you to answer since you are probably one of the only FE "scientists" out there. Now, tell me your best guess on how was the Flat Earth was created based on actual tangible evidence   

My best guess is that it has always existed, since I have not seen definitive evidence to the contrary. 

My best guess is that it has always existed, since I have not seen definitive evidence to the contrary.

I think he means what the best THEORY is. Which needs proof. Hypotheses mean nothing.

My best guess is that it has always existed, since I have not seen definitive evidence to the contrary.

We have real proof that RE hasn't always existed (living anyways) through fossils. http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geology/oldest-fossil-ever-found.htm
Oldest rocks found: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
And again my question is: HOW was FE created? A giant pancake maker? Perhaps God accidentally sat on Earth?

Quote from: jroa on January 07, 2014, 03:40:19 PM

My best guess is that it has always existed, since I have not seen definitive evidence to the contrary.

We have real proof that RE hasn't always existed (living anyways) through fossils. http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geology/oldest-fossil-ever-found.htm
Oldest rocks found: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
And again my question is: HOW was FE created? A giant pancake maker? Perhaps God accidentally sat on Earth?

Electrons, Neutrons and Compression.

RET scientists with their endless resources can not even tell you how anything began.  They can only give you their best guess.  Yet, we are expected to know all of the answers.   

Firstly, there are no such people as "round-earth scientists".  There are only scientists.  And no accredited scientist accepts the flat earth model, and there are currently in excess of 6 million scientist in the world.

I agree with you however that scientists can only make their best "guess" as to how the planet was formed.  Although I'd prefer to use the word hypothesize, as it's a bit more accurate than just a guess.  The FEs guess that the earth was created flat, and the REs guess that it was created round.

The difference is, as I see it, is that the FEs have not one piece of credible evidence to support their guess, whilst the REs have numerous bits of evidence to support their guess.  The most obvious is of course high-altitude photos, which scientists regard as totally legitimate, despite the FEs claiming they're bogus.  The other obvious proof is the "arrangement" of the rest of our visible solar system, by which I mean planetary bodies visible through optical telescopes.  Nobody—including FEs—can deny what their own eyes are telling them.

So... all the other planets are spherical.  So are all their moons (roughly). 

Mars:  Deimos and Phobos.
Jupiter:  Ganymede, Callisto, Io, Europa.
Saturn:  Titan, Rhea, Iapetus, Dione, Tethys, Enceladus.
Uranus:  Titania.
Neptune:  Triton.

And we can see those 14 moons orbiting their planets in a circular path, using an ordinary telescope, or even binoculars for Mars and Jupiter.

The obvious question for the FEs to address is why are there no other flat planets and/or moons in the solar system?  And why is our own moon spherical?  Is it logical that out of the hundreds of visible, spherical planetary bodies in our solar system that the only flat one is earth?

I'd regard it as virtually and totally improbable, given the evidence above.

RET scientists with their endless resources can not even tell you how anything began.  They can only give you their best guess.  Yet, we are expected to know all of the answers.   

If that was true then all the radioactive elements of the earth would of decayed and the Earth would be close to absolute zero in temperature.

I'm wondering why no FEs have yet answered my question from my previous post a few days ago?

"The obvious question for the FEs to address is why are there no other flat planets and/or moons in the solar system?  And why is our own moon spherical?  Is it logical that out of the hundreds of visible, spherical planetary bodies in our solar system that the only flat one is earth?"

Any takers?  Or is it unanswerable using any known science?

Quote from: jroa on January 07, 2014, 07:34:39 AM

RET scientists with their endless resources can not even tell you how anything began.  They can only give you their best guess.  Yet, we are expected to know all of the answers.   

Firstly, there are no such people as "round-earth scientists".  There are only scientists.  And no accredited scientist accepts the flat earth model, and there are currently in excess of 6 million scientist in the world.

I agree with you however that scientists can only make their best "guess" as to how the planet was formed.  Although I'd prefer to use the word hypothesize, as it's a bit more accurate than just a guess.  The FEs guess that the earth was created flat, and the REs guess that it was created round.

The difference is, as I see it, is that the FEs have not one piece of credible evidence to support their guess, whilst the REs have numerous bits of evidence to support their guess.  The most obvious is of course high-altitude photos, which scientists regard as totally legitimate, despite the FEs claiming they're bogus.  The other obvious proof is the "arrangement" of the rest of our visible solar system, by which I mean planetary bodies visible through optical telescopes.  Nobody—including FEs—can deny what their own eyes are telling them.

So... all the other planets are spherical.  So are all their moons (roughly). 

Mars:  Deimos and Phobos.
Jupiter:  Ganymede, Callisto, Io, Europa.
Saturn:  Titan, Rhea, Iapetus, Dione, Tethys, Enceladus.
Uranus:  Titania.
Neptune:  Triton.

And we can see those 14 moons orbiting their planets in a circular path, using an ordinary telescope, or even binoculars for Mars and Jupiter.

The obvious question for the FEs to address is why are there no other flat planets and/or moons in the solar system?  And why is our own moon spherical?  Is it logical that out of the hundreds of visible, spherical planetary bodies in our solar system that the only flat one is earth?

I'd regard it as virtually and totally improbable, given the evidence above.

They don't hypothesize. They theorize.

Proven hypotheses become theories.

A hypothesis comes first.  Always. 

I'm wondering why no FEs have yet answered my question from my previous post a few days ago?

"The obvious question for the FEs to address is why are there no other flat planets and/or moons in the solar system?  And why is our own moon spherical?  Is it logical that out of the hundreds of visible, spherical planetary bodies in our solar system that the only flat one is earth?"

Any takers?  Or is it unanswerable using any known science?

Why would you expect the Earth to be like the planets?  Do any of the planets have life on them?  The Earth is not a planet.  Planets orbit above the Earth.

Why would you expect the Earth to be like the planets?  Do any of the planets have life on them?  The Earth is not a planet.  Planets orbit above the Earth.

Is there a specific reason why you believe that the earth is not like the other planets?  Evidence?

Yes; it's possible that some of the other planets do have life on them—even at a microbial level.  We don't know yet.

By definition, the earth is a planet:  "a celestial body moving in the sky, as distinguished from a fixed star".  [dictionary.com]

No planets orbit the earth.  The moon is not a planet.

The evidence is that there is no reason to assume that the Earth is the same shape as planets because planets are nothing like the Earth. 

And yes, fairies could exist too.   While it would be impossible to prove that fairies do not exist, we all accept as fact that they do not until it is proven otherwise.  There has never been a shred of evidence that there is life anywhere in the universe other than on Earth.  So, yes, the Earth is special and there is no reason to just assume that the Earth should be like a planet in any sense. 

The evidence is that there is no reason to assume that the Earth is the same shape as planets because planets are nothing like the Earth. 

"Reason" does not equate to empirical evidence.  Human reasoning is often wrong.  In fact, there's actually more reason to assume that the earth is the same shape as all the other planets in our solar system.  Scientific rationalism, and Occam's Razor would tend to confirm that belief too.

I'm also confused by the fact that you accept the tenets of science in claiming that the other planets are "nothing like earth" but yet you reject exactly the same science that asserts the earth is spherical.

How do you choose what science to accept, and what science to reject?

If you had made the statement, "A banana is like an automobile and therefore, both have the same shape," would reason not tell me that the statement is false without having to look for evidence? 

If you had made the statement, "A banana is like an automobile and therefore, both have the same shape," would reason not tell me that the statement is false without having to look for evidence?

Except that you didn't say a banana was like an automobile.

And the evidence for this is that one needs to observe both these objects.  Can you tell me if bladderwrack and karkalla are one and the same thing purely by using reasoning and/or common sense?  I thought not; reason alone can't tell you.

  Incidentally, you've probably seen this thing (or things) yourself.

Anyway, you said the earth was unlike the other planets.  Shifting the goal posts is a weak argument.

If you had made the statement, "A banana is like an automobile and therefore, both have the same shape," would reason not tell me that the statement is false without having to look for evidence?

A strawberry looks nothing like a banana yet they are both fruit are they not?
A square looks nothing like a circle yet they are both shapes are they not?

Proven hypotheses become theories.

A hypothesis comes first.  Always.

By saying they developed a hypothesis, FEers will go "SEE THEY ADMITTED IT It'S UNpROVen! LOLOLOLOL" and people will be extremely annoyed.

Except that you didn't say a banana was like an automobile.

And the evidence for this is that one needs to observe both these objects.  Can you tell me if bladderwrack and karkalla are one and the same thing purely by using reasoning and/or common sense?  I thought not; reason alone can't tell you.

  Incidentally, you've probably seen this thing (or things) yourself.

Anyway, you said the earth was unlike the other planets.  Shifting the goal posts is a weak argument.

You said the shape of the Earth should be the same as the shape of the planets.  I said the Earth is not like the planets, and therefore we should not assume that the shape should be the same.  How am I shifting the goal post?

A strawberry looks nothing like a banana yet they are both fruit are they not?
A square looks nothing like a circle yet they are both shapes are they not?

Yes, there are many things that are similar, but not the same.  How does this have anything to do with this conversation?

By saying they developed a hypothesis, FEers will go "SEE THEY ADMITTED IT It'S UNpROVen! LOLOLOLOL" and people will be extremely annoyed.

Could I remind you that this is a grown up forum?  The nonsense forums are downstairs. 

  How am I shifting the goal post?

Equating a banana and an automobile with the earth and other planets is shifting the goal posts.

You've specifically chosen two massively dissimilar objects to make your point about two other objects that are virtually the same, or at the least very similar.

Could I remind you that this is a grown up forum?  The nonsense forums are downstairs.

If you had read my post clearly, you would have realized that I was parodying FE behavior, and not actually saying the "nonsense" part. You could call me insulting, but please get your facts right. My post, was, in no way, nonsense.