The sun, the universe, and other logical phallacies with the FE.

  • 41 Replies
  • 3873 Views
?

antonindvorak

  • 29
  • All are bound to the laws of logic.
     Before I begin, I'd like you to note that I'm having a tremendous amount of fun reading the nutty claims you flat Earth believers make. I myself am no scientist, but it doesn't take a handful of brain cells to deduct that there is no possible way that our wonderful little planet is flat. However, I understand that not everyone was able to graduate from preschool, so I will try my best to argue with small words. Let's grab our sippy-cups and get started.

     FE supporters embrace the idea that gravity doesn't really exist, and the reason their frisbee shaped planet doesn't collapse into a spherical world is due to this belief. I beg the question, why do the sun, the moon, satellites, and other heavenly bodies orbit the Earth? If there is no gravity, and the reason we are kept on the surface is because Earth is ascending at an increasing rate, then there is absolutely no logical reason for anything to orbit anything else. Also, what keeps the sun held together? Gas (as anyone who has ever farted knows to be true) expands, and since the sun is so close to the Earth as you propose (even if gravity did apply and exist solely for the sun) its mass should be way too small to keep all that gas from staying together.

     These flaws are just the tips of the iceberg. Why can't I dig a hole through the ground that leads right into space? How do volcanoes operate? What about tectonic plate movement? Are some plates running over the side of the Earth, making it jagged and not round by any means? And - sorry if some adhoc argument has already been made for this - what's to stop me from taking a boat over the edge of the planet, or flying in an aircraft for that matter?

     Another problem I have with the FE notion is what it tells us about the beginning of the universe. The FEer certainly doesn't believe in the big bang, because environments for the two ideas are logically incompatible. And I can't name a single Creation scientist who accepts the FE model either. The only sane people today (aside from the nuts on this forum) who believe in a flat world are tribal peoples, secluded from the world and all the scientific advances it has made. And don't use the Roman Catholic church as an example. Not only has their doctrine evolved since the days of Issac Newton and Christopher Columbus, but they just aren't a steeple for reliable information. So what does a flat Earth believer... believe in?

     Take off your tin foil hat for a moment and use your brain. The FE model doesn't work. I fail to see how rational adults can come to the conclusion in 2015 A.D. that the world is flat.

     Try not to throw a temper tantrum, now.
The devolution of man's intelligence is proof that we are not evolving.

?

homo superior

  • 136
  • make way
Re: The sun, the universe, and other logical phallacies with the FE.
« Reply #1 on: June 19, 2015, 04:55:19 PM »
EJ is about to post in this thread. I recommend ignoring him. He is a disingenuous troll that has no interest in anything but causing drama. Do yourself a favor, skip his response, and respond to the next user after him.

?

antonindvorak

  • 29
  • All are bound to the laws of logic.
Re: The sun, the universe, and other logical phallacies with the FE.
« Reply #2 on: June 19, 2015, 04:59:24 PM »
EJ is about to post in this thread. He is a disingenuous troll that has no interest in anything but causing drama.
That's the case for most of the FET supporters though, isn't it? ;D
The devolution of man's intelligence is proof that we are not evolving.

*

Excelsior John

  • Ranters
  • 2020
  • Excelsior! Flat Earth FTW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Re: The sun, the universe, and other logical phallacies with the FE.
« Reply #3 on: June 19, 2015, 05:07:56 PM »
     Before I begin, I'd like you to note that I'm having a tremendous amount of fun reading the nutty claims you flat Earth believers make. I myself am no scientist, but it doesn't take a handful of brain cells to deduct that there is no possible way that our wonderful little planet is flat. However, I understand that not everyone was able to graduate from preschool, so I will try my best to argue with small words. Let's grab our sippy-cups and get started.
Greeting and Welcome to FES petey rounder mind!

For your information I am in colege majoring in gealigey and unlike you I am an actuel Zetetic FE scintist so how abowt you humbel yourself before your aragince grows so big that gravitey rounds it up and makes it a planit! ;D
     FE supporters embrace the idea that gravity doesn't really exist, and the reason their frisbee shaped planet doesn't collapse into a spherical world is due to this belief.
Not all FErs raject gravitey. Your judging FET soleley on the atrotous FAQ. I myself actuely do beleive in gravitey, but I beleive the earth doesent round up becuz it is the ultamit gravitationel dent in the universe (spekeing in generel relativitey terms).
I beg the question, why do the sun, the moon, satellites, and other heavenly bodies orbit the Earth? If there is no gravity, and the reason we are kept on the surface is because Earth is ascending at an increasing rate, then there is absolutely no logical reason for anything to orbit anything else.
I agre with you on this. UA is an unprovin thoery unlike gravitey.
Also, what keeps the sun held together? Gas (as anyone who has ever farted knows to be true) expands, and since the sun is so close to the Earth as you propose (even if gravity did apply and exist solely for the sun) its mass should be way too small to keep all that gas from staying together.
The FAQ is also rong abowt the size and distence of the sun. I acep that the sun in 93 milion miles away and 865 thowsind miles in diamiter.
     These flaws are just the tips of the iceberg. Why can't I dig a hole through the ground that leads right into space? How do volcanoes operate? What about tectonic plate movement? Are some plates running over the side of the Earth, making it jagged and not round by any means? And - sorry if some adhoc argument has already been made for this - what's to stop me from taking a boat over the edge of the planet, or flying in an aircraft for that matter?
Look the flat Earth isent some flat plane randomely floting in the midel of space. It is the botom of the universe and is practicley "infinite" on all sides. Tectonic plates exist on a flat earth, whats the problim?! And you dont fall over the edge becuz the earth is "infinite" (ill explane later). It wuld also be imposibel becuz were being puled magneticley by the poles!
     Another problem I have with the FE notion is what it tells us about the beginning of the universe. The FEer certainly doesn't believe in the big bang, because environments for the two ideas are logically incompatible. And I can't name a single Creation scientist who accepts the FE model either. The only sane people today (aside from the nuts on this forum) who believe in a flat world are tribal peoples, secluded from the world and all the scientific advances it has made. And don't use the Roman Catholic church as an example. Not only has their doctrine evolved since the days of Issac Newton and Christopher Columbus, but they just aren't a steeple for reliable information. So what does a flat Earth believer... believe in?
Why are FET and the Big Bang uncompatibel?!! I hapen to beleive in both! And we beleive in FET becuz science shows that it is not becuz religon may be interpritid to say so!
     Take off your tin foil hat for a moment and use your brain. The FE model doesn't work. I fail to see how rational adults can come to the conclusion in 2015 A.D. that the world is flat.

     Try not to throw a temper tantrum, now.
I dident throw a temper tantrum. I raspindid calmley to your rude aragint post. Have a nice day rounder! Boom.
Quote from: sceptimatic
John is not your average bear is he. He's a daddy grizzly that grabs ridicule and intimidation , folds it up, wipes his bum on it and slings it right back, slap , bang into your face and it's frustrating isn't it?

*

Excelsior John

  • Ranters
  • 2020
  • Excelsior! Flat Earth FTW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Re: The sun, the universe, and other logical phallacies with the FE.
« Reply #4 on: June 19, 2015, 05:09:49 PM »
EJ is about to post in this thread. I recommend ignoring him. He is a disingenuous troll that has no interest in anything but causing drama. Do yourself a favor, skip his response, and respond to the next user after him.
I am not a troll I am a genuine FEr and Zetetic scintist!!!!! I recamend you stop your low content posting and get on with the dabate. Get raportid!
EJ is about to post in this thread. He is a disingenuous troll that has no interest in anything but causing drama.
That's the case for most of the FET supporters though, isn't it? ;D
Maybe but not for me!
Quote from: sceptimatic
John is not your average bear is he. He's a daddy grizzly that grabs ridicule and intimidation , folds it up, wipes his bum on it and slings it right back, slap , bang into your face and it's frustrating isn't it?

?

homo superior

  • 136
  • make way
Re: The sun, the universe, and other logical phallacies with the FE.
« Reply #5 on: June 19, 2015, 05:15:52 PM »
That's the case for most of the FET supporters though, isn't it? ;D

For the most part, yes. If you've browsed the wiki then you've seen how flimsy the Flat Earth model is. If you're posting here, then I suppose you've already given thought to the fact that you'll be arguing with trolls and "me too!"s, though.

While some people do bring up good points about the Round Earth model and how it's flawed... more specifically, how the Round Earth theory of the universe is flawed on a fundamental level,  that's about the extent of actual meaningful discourse you're going to get here.

By no means are you going to get anything meaningful from a conversation with the poster about me, however. Simply browse his post history. He is a cancer, and the only way to get rid of him if to ignore him (which people seem to have a hard time doing).

?

antonindvorak

  • 29
  • All are bound to the laws of logic.
Re: The sun, the universe, and other logical phallacies with the FE.
« Reply #6 on: June 19, 2015, 05:39:58 PM »
That's the case for most of the FET supporters though, isn't it? ;D

For the most part, yes. If you've browsed the wiki then you've seen how flimsy the Flat Earth model is. If you're posting here, then I suppose you've already given thought to the fact that you'll be arguing with trolls and "me too!"s, though.

While some people do bring up good points about the Round Earth model and how it's flawed... more specifically, how the Round Earth theory of the universe is flawed on a fundamental level,  that's about the extent of actual meaningful discourse you're going to get here.

By no means are you going to get anything meaningful from a conversation with the poster about me, however. Simply browse his post history. He is a cancer, and the only way to get rid of him if to ignore him (which people seem to have a hard time doing).

His trolling is much too obvious to the experienced internet browser. It's laughable really. Even if English isn't your native language, you should still be able to write your college major without too much error - "gealigey," are you kidding me?

You see, it's the same mentality with these public shooters that keep popping up in the news. They crave attention and chaos, and the media gives them everything they want and more. If you really wanted these events to stop happening, you wouldn't show the criminal's face, you wouldn't go on about it for days, and you certainly wouldn't elevate it to a level of national (or even international) concern. Similarly, if everyone ignored trolls, they would eventually give up and move elsewhere.

To quote Joshua from War Games, "The only winning move is not to play."

Anyway, back on topic now.
The devolution of man's intelligence is proof that we are not evolving.

?

homo superior

  • 136
  • make way
Re: The sun, the universe, and other logical phallacies with the FE.
« Reply #7 on: June 19, 2015, 05:53:23 PM »
Very wise.

Anyway, back on topic now.

Sure. I've spotted some points of contention that FE'ers could bring up with your OP.

Firstly, FE'ers don't think that the Sun and Moon are spherical. They are also disc shaped, and they act like spotlights above the Earth, which rotate in whatever way that works for FE'ers at the time. Now, this brings up several problems of course. One of them being: sun sets, eclipses, etc.

Sun sets are hand-waved away by 'the laws of perspective', as if art school rules apply to real life now.

Eclipses are explained by an object simply called "the shadow object" or "the anti-moon". This is a mysteriously invisible (they don't know how it's invisible, it just is sometimes) disc shaped object that is the exact same size as the sun/moon/whatever that blots out the sun at set intervals (that adhere to RE predictions, of course). Some will claim that you can see this "shadow object" at night by looking for a circular spot in the sky where the stars appear blotted out, but I've never seen anything like that in my entire life of stargazing. Why you can't see the "shadow object" and how it has the ability to blot out the sun while remaining completely invisible at the same time is also left unexplained.

"Moonlight" is also explained by Moon Shrimp emitting light via bioluminescence. I don't know much about this theory. Since it is so ridiculous and unbelievable many FE'ers will tell you that it's a "joke theory", but really... it's all a joke theory, so it's just as valid in debates as any other point brought up by FE'ers.

I would go on, but I am a bit busy at the moment. Hope you found this entertaining.

?

antonindvorak

  • 29
  • All are bound to the laws of logic.
Re: The sun, the universe, and other logical phallacies with the FE.
« Reply #8 on: June 19, 2015, 06:18:06 PM »

Sure. I've spotted some points of contention that FE'ers could bring up with your OP.

I'll admit I'm not the most informed on the topic. My intentions with the OP were to inform the casual browser of a few impracticalities just a glance at the FET yields.


Firstly, FE'ers don't think that the Sun and Moon are spherical. They are also disc shaped, and they act like spotlights above the Earth, which rotate in whatever way that works for FE'ers at the time. Now, this brings up several problems of course. One of them being: sun sets, eclipses, etc.

I have heard of this. What baffles me is how anyone with a telescope, during most phases of the moon, can clearly tell by the shading of craters near the edges of it that there is no possible way a flat disc could assume this form.


Eclipses are explained by an object simply called "the shadow object" or "the anti-moon". This is a mysteriously invisible (they don't know how it's invisible, it just is sometimes) disc shaped object that is the exact same size as the sun/moon/whatever that blots out the sun at set intervals (that adhere to RE predictions, of course). Some will claim that you can see this "shadow object" at night by looking for a circular spot in the sky where the stars appear blotted out, but I've never seen anything like that in my entire life of stargazing. Why you can't see the "shadow object" and how it has the ability to blot out the sun while remaining completely invisible at the same time is also left unexplained.

Haven't heard of this one. Goodness, that's humorous.  ;D


"Moonlight" is also explained by Moon Shrimp emitting light via bioluminescence. I don't know much about this theory. Since it is so ridiculous and unbelievable many FE'ers will tell you that it's a "joke theory", but really... it's all a joke theory, so it's just as valid in debates as any other point brought up by FE'ers.

I would go on, but I am a bit busy at the moment. Hope you found this entertaining.

I did, thank you for explaining some of this to me.
The devolution of man's intelligence is proof that we are not evolving.

Re: The sun, the universe, and other logical phallacies with the FE.
« Reply #9 on: June 19, 2015, 06:19:20 PM »
Here's my thoughts on the matter.

I'm not a FE advocate per say, nor do I believe the earth is entirely what we are told it is. There are just too many absurdities to support the globe paradigm and too many futile FE arguments to support the generally accepted FE map.

There are lost of puzzling and off worldly concepts to wrap our tiny brains around with both theories, like us travelling at whatever the insane speed it is that we are supposed to be travelling at a galactic scale not to mention the mind blowing speed that we must be travelling at a universal scale. Our tiny atmosphere somehow seems to protect us from these otherwise fatal physics and this is just a cosmic accident :o

The OP above does a good job of questioning some of the FE problems, albeit a little flippant.

One of the FE arguments I see a lot is the aeroplane travelling with or against the earths rotation and the seemingly anomalous flight times. Because we occupy the same atmosphere as a aeroplane (relatively speaking) ergo the same physics apply, we can quite clearly see that a simple jump in the air does not cause us to land in a different location, so the whole air travel thing is just a convoluted and unnecessary way in which to demonstrate that either the earth is spinning along with its atmosphere or the earth is not spinning at all. Any closer to the truth? I don't think so. Misinformation? Phony bone of contention?

There is so much deception on this planet by those who control it and purport to be the official purveyors of truth, that I question EVERYTHING they tell us and I try to bring logic and critical thinking along for the ride too. I will go where the evidence leads and not get duped by the rigid scientism paradigm that lots of the RE advocates are hell bent at repeating.

If you are interested in the subject of ancient technology, you soon learn that in some respects the ancient people were far more intelligent than us. We may have intellect but they possessed holistic intelligence (there is a world of difference between the two) and understood natural law both on a micro and macrocosmic level. They possessed seemingly inexplicable knowledge of the cosmos that up until the last few centuries we did not know. A lot of these civilisations also understood the earth to be flat.

Either way unless I go in to space and actually see the earth through my own eyes, I will never claim to support either theory.

?

antonindvorak

  • 29
  • All are bound to the laws of logic.
Re: The sun, the universe, and other logical phallacies with the FE.
« Reply #10 on: June 19, 2015, 07:14:23 PM »
Here's my thoughts on the matter.

I'm not a FE advocate per say, nor do I believe the earth is entirely what we are told it is. There are just too many absurdities to support the globe paradigm and too many futile FE arguments to support the generally accepted FE map.

There are lost of puzzling and off worldly concepts to wrap our tiny brains around with both theories, like us travelling at whatever the insane speed it is that we are supposed to be travelling at a galactic scale not to mention the mind blowing speed that we must be travelling at a universal scale. Our tiny atmosphere somehow seems to protect us from these otherwise fatal physics and this is just a cosmic accident :o

The OP above does a good job of questioning some of the FE problems, albeit a little flippant.

One of the FE arguments I see a lot is the aeroplane travelling with or against the earths rotation and the seemingly anomalous flight times. Because we occupy the same atmosphere as a aeroplane (relatively speaking) ergo the same physics apply, we can quite clearly see that a simple jump in the air does not cause us to land in a different location, so the whole air travel thing is just a convoluted and unnecessary way in which to demonstrate that either the earth is spinning along with its atmosphere or the earth is not spinning at all. Any closer to the truth? I don't think so. Misinformation? Phony bone of contention?

There is so much deception on this planet by those who control it and purport to be the official purveyors of truth, that I question EVERYTHING they tell us and I try to bring logic and critical thinking along for the ride too. I will go where the evidence leads and not get duped by the rigid scientism paradigm that lots of the RE advocates are hell bent at repeating.

If you are interested in the subject of ancient technology, you soon learn that in some respects the ancient people were far more intelligent than us. We may have intellect but they possessed holistic intelligence (there is a world of difference between the two) and understood natural law both on a micro and macrocosmic level. They possessed seemingly inexplicable knowledge of the cosmos that up until the last few centuries we did not know. A lot of these civilisations also understood the earth to be flat.

Either way unless I go in to space and actually see the earth through my own eyes, I will never claim to support either theory.

Interesting rebuttal.

I, personally, believe in a Creator God that made the perfect conditions for life to exist and flourish on the Earth, which deals with the "cosmic accident" issue. It it not widely accepted - but you question everything, yes? Even the ever growing theory of evolution? - but I believe that God exists outside of time, space, and the physical realm, and that He created all these concepts. He invented all these concepts, including mathematics, which appear to exist on a transcendental level. Numbers have laws, always consistent, and are universal; three properties that don't make sense in a chance universe. (If you want more on the brilliance of God and infinity, look up the Mandelbrot set.)

I agree with you that man's intellect is not what it was when he was created. (See my signature.  ;) ) The fact is the average IQ is dropping and continues to drop, about 14 points since the last century. This is not consistent with the model of evolution by any means. Since you are informed on the topic, you may know that many engineers today are baffled by the pyramids, as well as the similar structures found around the world (specifically Central America.) How did ancient man construct such towers? Creationists have a great explanation. (Look up Ron Wyatt for more; I don't always trust his opinions but in the case of the pyramids, his discoveries are magnificent.)

In the end, I fail to see how the shape of the Earth really affects our day to day lives.
The devolution of man's intelligence is proof that we are not evolving.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8507
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: The sun, the universe, and other logical phallacies with the FE.
« Reply #11 on: June 19, 2015, 07:42:54 PM »
     FE supporters embrace the idea that gravity doesn't really exist, and the reason their frisbee shaped planet doesn't collapse into a spherical world is due to this belief.
This isn't necessarily true. First, gravity is highly out of vogue even among globularists.
Further, the Davis Model, for example, has no issue with gravitation. Nor do I particular have issue with gravitation. Assuming something very much like GR is true, the earth must exhibit some gravitation. 


Quote
I beg the question, why do the sun, the moon, satellites, and other heavenly bodies orbit the Earth?
I don't know of any contemporary flat earth models which feature the celestial bodies orbiting the earth.

Quote
If there is no gravity, and the reason we are kept on the surface is because Earth is ascending at an increasing rate, then there is absolutely no logical reason for anything to orbit anything else.

Does not follow.

Quote
     These flaws are just the tips of the iceberg. Why can't I dig a hole through the ground that leads right into space?

Why can't you dig to China?

Quote
How do volcanoes operate? What about tectonic plate movement?
Assuming tectonic plates theories are true, is there a reason you believe they could not operate in the same manner they would on a globular earth?  ???

Quote
what's to stop me from taking a boat over the edge of the planet, or flying in an aircraft for that matter?
Distance?

Quote
     Another problem I have with the FE notion is what it tells us about the beginning of the universe. The FEer certainly doesn't believe in the big bang, because environments for the two ideas are logically incompatible.
In what manner?

Quote
And I can't name a single Creation scientist who accepts the FE model either.
You've not met all our members then.

"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

?

antonindvorak

  • 29
  • All are bound to the laws of logic.
Re: The sun, the universe, and other logical phallacies with the FE.
« Reply #12 on: June 19, 2015, 08:28:04 PM »
     FE supporters embrace the idea that gravity doesn't really exist, and the reason their frisbee shaped planet doesn't collapse into a spherical world is due to this belief.
This isn't necessarily true. First, gravity is highly out of vogue even among globularists.
Further, the Davis Model, for example, has no issue with gravitation. Nor do I particular have issue with gravitation. Assuming something very much like GR is true, the earth must exhibit some gravitation. 

Fair enough - for now.

I beg the question, why do the sun, the moon, satellites, and other heavenly bodies orbit the Earth?
I don't know of any contemporary flat earth models which feature the celestial bodies orbiting the earth.

So answer me this, why, as the earth continues to ascend, do the sun and the moon continue to affect as at all? If Earth is not orbiting the sun and the sun is not orbiting the Earth and the Earth is gradually moving upwards then why for Pete's sake don't we eventually pass the sun and the moon?

If there is no gravity, and the reason we are kept on the surface is because Earth is ascending at an increasing rate, then there is absolutely no logical reason for anything to orbit anything else.

Does not follow.

All right, so you believe  in some gravity. Now answer me this: is this gravitational pull enough to leave you with no need for an ascending, accelerating planet, and if so, then back to my first statement, why doesn't the earth just turn into a ball anyway? Or is there some balance of ascension as well as gravity? In which case, my second point still stands.

     These flaws are just the tips of the iceberg. Why can't I dig a hole through the ground that leads right into space?

Why can't you dig to China?

I can't dig to China because I would burn up as I approached the Earth's core. Not to mention, even if the heat weren't a problem, I would get stuck in the middle of a theoretical tunnel because the gravitational pull would be equal on all sides of me. That or I would fall down at one end, reach the other, and be shot back down the other side. In your model, I'm not sure if you have a core, where it would be, or if gravity would be as big of a deal as it would be on a spherical world. These questions I wait for you to answer.

How do volcanoes operate? What about tectonic plate movement?
Assuming tectonic plates theories are true, is there a reason you believe they could not operate in the same manner they would on a globular earth?  ???


I may have a poor argument for this one, but I fail to understand why a FE would remain perfectly circular, and why it isn't some other abstract shape.

what's to stop me from taking a boat over the edge of the planet, or flying in an aircraft for that matter?
Distance?


Gesundheit?

     Another problem I have with the FE notion is what it tells us about the beginning of the universe. The FEer certainly doesn't believe in the big bang, because environments for the two ideas are logically incompatible.
In what manner?


For starters, please explain to me how a massive cylindrical heavenly body was formed and perpetuated after the supposed big bang.

And I can't name a single Creation scientist who accepts the FE model either.
You've not met all our members then.


This I can not argue; I have not in fact met all of the members of this forum. However, I'm going to assume that they base their belief for a flat earth off of Job 26:7 or Isaiah 40:22. Dr. Jason Lisle agrees that these verses don't inherently imply that the Earth is circular, but they apply for a spherical Earth just as well.

Also, I said creation scientist, specifically, meaning having a degree of some sort.
The devolution of man's intelligence is proof that we are not evolving.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8507
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: The sun, the universe, and other logical phallacies with the FE.
« Reply #13 on: June 19, 2015, 08:49:33 PM »
So answer me this, why, as the earth continues to ascend, do the sun and the moon continue to affect as at all? If Earth is not orbiting the sun and the sun is not orbiting the Earth and the Earth is gradually moving upwards then why for Pete's sake don't we eventually pass the sun and the moon?
Why wouldn't the sun and moon continue to affect us?  :-\
Why would we expect to pass them if both we and the sun/moon/observable universe are being accelerated at similar rates by similar force(s)?

Quote
All right, so you believe  in some gravity. Now answer me this: is this gravitational pull enough to leave you with no need for an ascending, accelerating planet
Not in my opinion, though the Davis Model features a stationary infinite plane.


Quote
I can't dig to China because I would burn up as I approached the Earth's core.
Same issue.


Quote
I may have a poor argument for this one, but I fail to understand why a FE would remain perfectly circular, and why it isn't some other abstract shape.

I certainly can't say that it is circular and not an abstract shape. Only that the known regions of the earth are loosely circular in extent. That is the nature of zeteticism.


Quote
For starters, please explain to me how a massive cylindrical heavenly body was formed and perpetuated after the supposed big bang.
Do we know that it was necessarily formed as a massive cylindrical body? Further, why could it not be perpetuated if static forces are stronger than exhibited gravitation. My pencil exhibits gravitation, but does not collapse into a sphere.


Quote
Also, I said creation scientist, specifically, meaning having a degree of some sort.
Anaximander will be devastated
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

?

antonindvorak

  • 29
  • All are bound to the laws of logic.
Re: The sun, the universe, and other logical phallacies with the FE.
« Reply #14 on: June 19, 2015, 08:59:23 PM »
So answer me this, why, as the earth continues to ascend, do the sun and the moon continue to affect as at all? If Earth is not orbiting the sun and the sun is not orbiting the Earth and the Earth is gradually moving upwards then why for Pete's sake don't we eventually pass the sun and the moon?
Why wouldn't the sun and moon continue to affect us?  :-\
Why would we expect to pass them if both we and the sun/moon/observable universe are being accelerated at similar rates by similar force(s)?

Quote
All right, so you believe  in some gravity. Now answer me this: is this gravitational pull enough to leave you with no need for an ascending, accelerating planet
Not in my opinion, though the Davis Model features a stationary infinite plane.


Quote
I can't dig to China because I would burn up as I approached the Earth's core.
Same issue.


Quote
I may have a poor argument for this one, but I fail to understand why a FE would remain perfectly circular, and why it isn't some other abstract shape.

I certainly can't say that it is circular and not an abstract shape. Only that the known regions of the earth are loosely circular in extent. That is the nature of zeteticism.


Quote
For starters, please explain to me how a massive cylindrical heavenly body was formed and perpetuated after the supposed big bang.
Do we know that it was necessarily formed as a massive cylindrical body? Further, why could it not be perpetuated if static forces are stronger than exhibited gravitation. My pencil exhibits gravitation, but does not collapse into a sphere.


Quote
Also, I said creation scientist, specifically, meaning having a degree of some sort.
Anaximander will be devastated

I will respond to this tomorrow. It is late where I live and I am going to bed now.

Before I do, I would like to apologize if I came off a bit rude. You've been very polite in your posts and I respect that. Although I disagree with almost everything you've said, there's no reason for anyone to get upset. I beg your pardon.
The devolution of man's intelligence is proof that we are not evolving.

*

Excelsior John

  • Ranters
  • 2020
  • Excelsior! Flat Earth FTW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Re: The sun, the universe, and other logical phallacies with the FE.
« Reply #15 on: June 20, 2015, 08:13:38 AM »
That's the case for most of the FET supporters though, isn't it? ;D

For the most part, yes. If you've browsed the wiki then you've seen how flimsy the Flat Earth model is. If you're posting here, then I suppose you've already given thought to the fact that you'll be arguing with trolls and "me too!"s, though.

While some people do bring up good points about the Round Earth model and how it's flawed... more specifically, how the Round Earth theory of the universe is flawed on a fundamental level,  that's about the extent of actual meaningful discourse you're going to get here.

By no means are you going to get anything meaningful from a conversation with the poster about me, however. Simply browse his post history. He is a cancer, and the only way to get rid of him if to ignore him (which people seem to have a hard time doing).

His trolling is much too obvious to the experienced internet browser. It's laughable really. Even if English isn't your native language, you should still be able to write your college major without too much error - "gealigey," are you kidding me?

You see, it's the same mentality with these public shooters that keep popping up in the news. They crave attention and chaos, and the media gives them everything they want and more. If you really wanted these events to stop happening, you wouldn't show the criminal's face, you wouldn't go on about it for days, and you certainly wouldn't elevate it to a level of national (or even international) concern. Similarly, if everyone ignored trolls, they would eventually give up and move elsewhere.

To quote Joshua from War Games, "The only winning move is not to play."

Anyway, back on topic now.
Oh I see. You cant dafeet the points I brot up so you ignore me and acuse me of being a troll. Real clasey! ::)
Quote from: sceptimatic
John is not your average bear is he. He's a daddy grizzly that grabs ridicule and intimidation , folds it up, wipes his bum on it and slings it right back, slap , bang into your face and it's frustrating isn't it?

?

homo superior

  • 136
  • make way
Re: The sun, the universe, and other logical phallacies with the FE.
« Reply #16 on: June 20, 2015, 09:41:23 AM »
I have heard of this. What baffles me is how anyone with a telescope, during most phases of the moon, can clearly tell by the shading of craters near the edges of it that there is no possible way a flat disc could assume this form.

I've never thought of this before. Would you mind elaborating on the crater point? It seems like pretty good evidence against FET if it can't easily be hand-waved away.

?

antonindvorak

  • 29
  • All are bound to the laws of logic.
Re: The sun, the universe, and other logical phallacies with the FE.
« Reply #17 on: June 20, 2015, 11:00:37 AM »
I have heard of this. What baffles me is how anyone with a telescope, during most phases of the moon, can clearly tell by the shading of craters near the edges of it that there is no possible way a flat disc could assume this form.

I've never thought of this before. Would you mind elaborating on the crater point? It seems like pretty good evidence against FET if it can't easily be hand-waved away.

Certainly.

Let's have a look at the moon during the waning gibbous phase: (Please pardon the sloppy handwriting, had to use a mouse. Also, the images are a bit large because I wanted to show the detail. You'll have to scroll over to see the whole shabam.)

Edit: I would recommend right clicking and opening them in a new tab.



Beautiful, isn't it? Although a quick glance seems to indicate that the moon is a ball by the overall shape it has during this phase, our FE supporters are a bit slow, so let's give them a little more evidence.

In the image below, I've pointed out that the craters facing us all appear round, and as we approach the edge of the moon, they gradually become more distorted, turning into more of an oval shape. (Which can only be explained by a spherical moon.)



In the final image, I prove that the moon is round, because where the light is hitting the craters directly, we see little to no shading, while as we move further away from the light, they become darker and darker until you can't see the moon anymore, because (surprise, surprise!) the moon is not a disk.



I can provide links to a few videos that explain this as well if you'd like.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2015, 11:06:36 AM by antonindvorak »
The devolution of man's intelligence is proof that we are not evolving.

*

kman

  • 990
  • Pastafarian
Re: The sun, the universe, and other logical phallacies with the FE.
« Reply #18 on: June 20, 2015, 11:56:24 AM »

I agree with you that man's intellect is not what it was when he was created. (See my signature.  ;) )

Your signature demonstrates a misunderstanding of evolution. Too many people foolishly think that evolution is some kind of linear slope towards perfection. Evolution is just change. Just like "de-acceleration" is not a word, because acceleration is just a change in speed, up or down, devolution is not a word. When things evolve, the don't get "better", they just change to fit their environment. Your signature doesn't refute evolution, in fact it shows that you don't understand it

Creationists have a great explanation. (Look up Ron Wyatt for more; I don't always trust his opinions but in the case of the pyramids, his discoveries are magnificent.)

Creationists have an explanation for why the pyramids were built, but don't have an explanation for why Egyptian civilization continued to exist right through the flood.

You must understand that creationism is as absurd to most scientists as flat earth is to astronauts.
Quote from: Excelsior John
[USA TODAY and NPR] are probaley just a bunch of flippin wite sapremist websites you RASCIST
Quote from: modestman
i don't understand what you are saying=therfore you are liar

?

homo superior

  • 136
  • make way
Re: The sun, the universe, and other logical phallacies with the FE.
« Reply #19 on: June 20, 2015, 11:59:51 AM »
As far as I'm concerned, that proves that the moon is not a disc but a spherical celestial body  therefore debunking the current FET model. Case closed.

You may want to make a separate thread about this evidence in the Debate section. I'd like to see some of the rebuttals these FE'ers come up with.

I know you're going to get a few "Those photos are faked" responses, but those are easily ignorable due to the fact that the moon can be viewed from a telescope and looks identical to photos you presented.

You must understand that creationism is as absurd to most scientists as flat earth is to astronauts.

There are a number of legitimate scientists who adhere to some form of creationism. It is usually a sidenote and completely unrelated to their research. The fact of the matter is: You don't know if this universe was made by an intelligent being or not, as it's unprovable. Ultimately whether Antonin believes a creator made everything or not is irrelevant.

Accept the fact that you'll never know. Accept the fact that it doesn't impact most research. Or continue to show your aggressive bias whenever the word "creator" is mentioned. People are entitled to their beliefs, and a good scientists know when to separate beliefs from hard facts.

*edit: it is worth noting, however, that intelligence doesn't have anything to do with evolution for the most part. Evolution is random. So, using that as a point against evolution (like Antonin does in his sig) is somewhat absurd.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2015, 12:10:29 PM by homo superior »

Re: The sun, the universe, and other logical phallacies with the FE.
« Reply #20 on: June 20, 2015, 12:05:22 PM »
It doesn't seem to be shadows just darker spots.

*

kman

  • 990
  • Pastafarian
Re: The sun, the universe, and other logical phallacies with the FE.
« Reply #21 on: June 20, 2015, 12:09:01 PM »

There are a number of legitimate scientists who are adhere to some form of creationism. It is usually a sidenote and completely unrelated to their research. The fact of the matter is: You don't know if this universe was made by an intelligent being or not, as it's unprovable. Ultimately whether Antonin believes a creator made everything or not is irrelevant.

You're conflating intelligent design with young earth creationism. Antonin is clearly a young earth creationist as he doesn't accept evolution.
The percent of scientists that don't believe in evolution is about 2%, so my point still stands. The number of problems with young earth creationism is absurd.

Accept the fact that you'll never know. Accept the fact that it doesn't impact most research. Or continue to show your aggressive bias whenever the word "creator" is mentioned. People are entitled to their believes, and a good scientists know when to separate beliefs from hard facts.

Again, you're confusing intelligent design with YEC.
Evolution is a hard fact. Whether a God created the universe is indeed something that we can never know, but evolution is much proven fact, while Noah's Ark is an impossibility.

« Last Edit: June 20, 2015, 12:12:30 PM by kman »
Quote from: Excelsior John
[USA TODAY and NPR] are probaley just a bunch of flippin wite sapremist websites you RASCIST
Quote from: modestman
i don't understand what you are saying=therfore you are liar

?

homo superior

  • 136
  • make way
Re: The sun, the universe, and other logical phallacies with the FE.
« Reply #22 on: June 20, 2015, 12:17:50 PM »
You're right. I am conflating the two things. Young Earth creationism is absurd, and I have to admit that I did skip through most of Antonin's post once he mentioned the word God. My edit indicates that I do agree with your points about evolution though.

A perceived decrease in intelligence has nothing to do with evolution "not working".

*

kman

  • 990
  • Pastafarian
Re: The sun, the universe, and other logical phallacies with the FE.
« Reply #23 on: June 20, 2015, 12:19:39 PM »
You're right. I am conflating the two things. Young Earth creationism is absurd, and I have to admit that I did skip through most of Antonin's post once he mentioned the word God.

Lol, I can definitely relate.

You're right. I am conflating the two things. Young Earth creationism is absurd, and I have to admit that I did skip through most of Antonin's post once he mentioned the word God. My edit indicates that I do agree with your points about evolution though.

A perceived decrease in intelligence has nothing to do with evolution "not working".

Well I'm glad to see we agree.
Quote from: Excelsior John
[USA TODAY and NPR] are probaley just a bunch of flippin wite sapremist websites you RASCIST
Quote from: modestman
i don't understand what you are saying=therfore you are liar

Re: The sun, the universe, and other logical phallacies with the FE.
« Reply #24 on: June 20, 2015, 03:03:17 PM »
Are you guys talking about evolution within a specific species or evolution from say an ape to a man?

If the latter I can honestly call you people raving mad as there is exactly ZERO evidence of cross species evolution, it's like a dog evolving in to a cat!

*

kman

  • 990
  • Pastafarian
Re: The sun, the universe, and other logical phallacies with the FE.
« Reply #25 on: June 20, 2015, 03:56:02 PM »
Are you guys talking about evolution within a specific species or evolution from say an ape to a man?

Both are the same process, the only distinction is scale.

If the latter I can honestly call you people raving mad

Do you call 98% of the scientific community raving mad?

there is exactly ZERO evidence of cross species evolution

That is completely untrue. There is tons of evidence, you just choose to ignore it.

it's like a dog evolving in to a cat!

You don't really understand evolution, do you?
Quote from: Excelsior John
[USA TODAY and NPR] are probaley just a bunch of flippin wite sapremist websites you RASCIST
Quote from: modestman
i don't understand what you are saying=therfore you are liar

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8507
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: The sun, the universe, and other logical phallacies with the FE.
« Reply #26 on: June 20, 2015, 05:00:55 PM »
James is the only current planist I know of who proposes the sun and moon are discs. It's hardly representative of the movement.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

*

kman

  • 990
  • Pastafarian
Re: The sun, the universe, and other logical phallacies with the FE.
« Reply #27 on: June 20, 2015, 05:04:03 PM »
James is the only current planist I know of who proposes the sun and moon are discs. It's hardly representative of the movement.

I'm not sure where you've been, but a lot of users seem to advocate for that position.
Quote from: Excelsior John
[USA TODAY and NPR] are probaley just a bunch of flippin wite sapremist websites you RASCIST
Quote from: modestman
i don't understand what you are saying=therfore you are liar

?

homo superior

  • 136
  • make way
Re: The sun, the universe, and other logical phallacies with the FE.
« Reply #28 on: June 20, 2015, 05:10:59 PM »
James is the only current planist I know of who proposes the sun and moon are discs. It's hardly representative of the movement.

You might want to change the wiki then, because it clearly seems to imply that that's the widely held model. Many FE'ers on the forum seem to agree as well.

What model do you adhere to, Mr. Ski?

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8507
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: The sun, the universe, and other logical phallacies with the FE.
« Reply #29 on: June 20, 2015, 06:12:27 PM »
James is the only current planist I know of who proposes the sun and moon are discs. It's hardly representative of the movement.

You might want to change the wiki then, because it clearly seems to imply that that's the widely held model. Many FE'ers on the forum seem to agree as well.

What model do you adhere to, Mr. Ski?

I don't have control of the wiki, nor do I know who is espousing currently as I visit only infrequently these days. I only know that of the members of good standing that I am aware of, James is the only one that holds the sun and moon to be discs.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."