Any flat earthers here?

[Awkward Fingers]

You realize that my explanation applies equally well to people today as did a thousand years ago.

But, the problem is, it doesn't.
I agree that the people that lived thousands of years ago, as well as anyone today with no access to modern education or technology, should completely be accepted in believing a flat earth.
But the people today that are "flat earthers" mentioned here, are people with access to modern technology, and education, and scientific learning.
People today that can't accept the most basic levels of knowledge about the world we live in,
I have no problems with ridicule towards them.
These people make decisions, and vote, and influence their children, and the schools.

A level of acceptance of misinformation that grand is something we should definitely NOT aspire to, and should try to fix at any opportunity.

As for "Understanding why the Earth is flat is a step ball-Earthers can take towards..(snip)" The problem is, the arguments they make are refuted solidly.
So if 'the reasons that the earth is flat' is something we need to understand, but those reasons are unsound, then they are not valid reasons.

 

[Windwalker]

I did read it carefully, and you are still wrong.

At no time was there fewer than thousands of living humans. Mitochondrial Eve is just the most recent common ancestor, go further back and there will be a long, long line of common ancestors but at no point in time was there just 1 human female alive.

Did I ever, once, anywhere, say otherwise? Of course I know this. I'm not a moron. What is with the assumptions you make? Do you even know what I actually think and believe?

Saying that "Modern science has shown that modern humans did indeed come from one man and one woman as a whole species" is just plain incorrect because the male line can easily have come from other female ancestors that were not in Eve's lineage.

Wrong. You need to read this science behind this. This is really nothing more than an exercise for me in trying to figure out why you cannot understand my words. I know it's not a problem with clarity on my part.

 

[Ponder This]

But, the problem is, it doesn't.
I agree that the people that lived thousands of years ago, as well as anyone today with no access to modern education or technology, should completely be accepted in believing a flat earth.
But the people today that are "flat earthers" mentioned here, are people with access to modern technology, and education, and scientific learning.
People today that can't accept the most basic levels of knowledge about the world we live in,
I have no problems with ridicule towards them.

It would appear that my post applies to you... today.

These people make decisions, and vote, and influence their children, and the schools.

A level of acceptance of misinformation that grand is something we should definitely NOT aspire to, and should try to fix at any opportunity.

As for "Understanding why the Earth is flat is a step ball-Earthers can take towards..(snip)" The problem is, the arguments they make are refuted solidly.
So if 'the reasons that the earth is flat' is something we need to understand, but those reasons are unsound, then they are not valid reasons.

Understanding how other people think won't make you more stupid even if they wrong. Rather, the opposite is likely to occur.

 

[Wu Wei]

For the record, the Greeks new the earth was spherical in the 3rd century BC.

 

[psychoslice]

For the record, the Greeks new the earth was spherical in the 3rd century BC.

And I'm sure the Egyptians also knew that, about 5,000 BC ago.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

It would appear that my post applies to you... today.

Well, explain then, if you would.

Understanding how other people think won't make you more stupid even if they wrong. Rather, the opposite is likely to occur.

Grand.. glad I never said it would.
Perhaps rereading my post, or asking for clarification would be a good idea.

 

[Twilight Hue]

For the record, the Greeks new the earth was spherical in the 3rd century BC.

True. Apparantly proponents came out with the flat earth theory notably after the ancient Greeks, which kind of surprised me.

I thought Flat earth was primarily a product of ignorance in ancient times, and the amazing thing is that flat earth supporters can't be entirely blamed for thinking the way they do as some of the science used in establishing a round earth can ironically support as well, a flat earth model of all things!

Pretty interesting vid here and not what I expected in comparison to other flat earth vids. Looks like someone actually researched and did some homework in explaining just how flat earth theory came about and why.


Is Earth Actually Flat?:

 

[Milton Platt]

Just wondering if there are any who hold to this idea (which is largely religiously based) who would like to teach a few of us the "truth" about the "fallacy" of us "ball earthers".

Well, I live in Houston and it is flat here. LOL

 

[Desert Snake]

The earth is flat as much as it is round. hence playing fields, lawns etc.

 

[outhouse]

For the record, the Greeks new the earth was spherical in the 3rd century BC.

True but it was not widespread knowledge at that point.

 

[Wu Wei]

True but it was not widespread knowledge at that point.

True

 

[Saint_of_Me]

Just wondering if there are any who hold to this idea (which is largely religiously based) who would like to teach a few of us the "truth" about the "fallacy" of us "ball earthers".

I would be very surprised if you get any bites here from true flat-earthers.

Because I doubt any body who could actually believe the Earth is flat has the necessary intellect to even turn-on a computer. Let alone get online a create a coherent post. LOL.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Just wondering if there are any who hold to this idea (which is largely religiously based) who would like to teach a few of us the "truth" about the "fallacy" of us "ball earthers".

Does flat-earth include spacetime "geometries" that are (at least non-locally) flat manifolds or Minkowski spacetime? I mean, technically if all of space is flat than the earth is (and in general relativity, geodesics can be considered "flat" and thus the Earth). Yay! I've proved the bible by obscure references to cosmology, astrophysics, and differential geometry. Clearly the Earth is flat, and of course what that really means is that one must interpret scripture and tradition anachronistically and "creatively" by reading modern insights discovered independently of any religious texts back into some text or texts (or tradition) and claim it was there all along.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Earth may not be flat, but the universe can be.

"The actual value for critical density value is measured as

. From these values, it seems that within experimental error, the universe seems to be flat." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe#Curvature_of_Universe

 

[Desert Snake]

But if you are writing a description you use "oblate spheroid".

Who does? Traditionally the earth is described as everything from 'spheres', 'globe', what have you. ''Oblate spheroid' if anything is uncommon,, and if it has to be used in order for a text to be accurate, in your opinion, then most descriptions of earth would be ''wrong''. The point of the 'circle', is that it actually can describe a spheroid, just in a different way. /perspective/

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

The really good ones can actually make rather sound arguments which are difficult to dispute on an individual basis. When you put all the ideas together they're stupid. But individual arguments are pretty solid.

I'm not even kidding.

Only if you don't understand that light bends when it hits atmosphere. All of their arguments seem to boil down to that little tidbit.

 

[viole]

It drives me batty when people try to make the Bible speak in scientific terms 2000 plus years before modern science, trying to make it a book of magical insight into science. It is nothing other than modern reinterpretations of texts, trying to read into them similar words. Why on earth is it necessary to make these ancient prophets have the insights of modern scientists? Did that matter back then? Did anyone back then interpret them they way the modern is trying to make it say now today so it doesn't contradict science, as though that matters? No, you don't find instances anywhere of people reading the Bible or the Koran, or the Torah, and what have you and postulating from scripture any understanding that reflects modern science. Show me a theologian quoting scripture in antiquity to postulate anything that resembles modern science. If it's true God put these in there magically, then why? For whose benefit? To convince those weak in faith in the 21st century to believe?

As far as flat-earthers go, I know of one who was connected to my own family history, though I do not believe my relative believed this leader of his community of Zion, Illinois. The man's name was Wilbur Glenn Voliva, who using the Bible as a book of science, denied a spherical earth. He offered monetary rewards to those who could actually prove it was. Here's a brief except that pertains to this idea of using the Bible as a book of science:

Irving Wallace interviewed Voliva in 1932. Voliva declared that the Bible was his entire scientific library. Astronomers were 'ignorant fools'. The sun, he said, was only three thousand miles away, and only thirty-two miles in diameter. When asked why he thought the sun so near the earth, he said, "God made the sun to light the earth, and therefore must have placed it close to the task it was designed to do. What would you think of a man who built a house in Zion and put a lamp to light it in Kenosha, Wisconsin?"

from here
​

Kenosha is 8 miles from Zion, to complete his reference. He too read the Bible to tell us the facts of science, to correct science, or validate it when it suited him.

It does not need to be a scientific book. Science is a tool that God might not need, I suppose, since He should know what He created. He would just need to say a few facts.

So, also considering His omniscience, and the knowledge of what happens when things are not clear, why not saying it? Why not saying: guys, behold, the earth is a spheroid, and it rotates around its axis and this gives you day and night, and circles around the sun, slighty tilted, and that gives you the seasons. Well, at least away from the equator in my beloved land. Don't go around burning people for saying exacly that. For I know what I did. Probably.

I am sure, well almost sure, that people at that time would have understood that concept. No equations needed.

So, why did He not inspire anyone to write those obvious and simple facts? i think the answer to that is painfully obvious.

Ciao

- viole

 

[idav]

It does not need to be a scientific book. Science is a tool that God might not need, I suppose, since He should know what He created. He would just need to say a few facts.

So, also considering His omniscience, and the knowledge of what happens when things are not clear, why not saying it? Why not saying: guys, behold, the earth is a spheroid, and it rotates around its axis and this gives you day and night, and circles around the sun, slighty tilted, and that gives you the seasons. Well, at least away from the equator in my beloved land. Don't go around burning people for saying exacly that. For I know what I did. Probably.

I am sure, well almost sure, that people at that time would have understood that concept. No equations needed.

So, why did He not inspire anyone to write those obvious and simple facts? i think the answer to that is painfully obvious.

Ciao

- viole

Its like trying to explain complicated things to a child. I wonder what would be the best way to explain and convince an ant of three dimensions or four dimensions even.

 

[viole]

Its like trying to explain complicated things to a child. I wonder what would be the best way to explain and convince an ant of three dimensions or four dimensions even.

Really? I think you underestimate the intelligence of people in the past. For sure, I think they were capable of having an intuition of a sphere. everybody has a head that looks a bit like a sphere This is basic stuff. And once you have that, it is a small step to imaging it rotating and orbiting around another ball.

No. The only logical conclusion we can draw from scriptures is that whomever wrote that book had no clue about the system earth/sun, not even a basic clue and just made up a theory. And since we can expect that the creator of the earth and sun knows what He did, we can only infer that no creator ispired that book.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I am a 'round earther' myself. But there is a point I want to make here about the 'flat earther' mindset. I am a believer in many things spiritual and paranormal that have been studied in the last 150 years. Many here have a atheist-materialist worldview and deny the validity of anything that doesn't fit in their worldview. It might be too early to say this now, but I predict in a few centuries today's atheist-materialist will look like the 'flat earthers' of a few centuries back. What I'm saying is that even though the subject matter may change, there are always those that hold to a view whose time has past.

Hey, there's some nonsense that you don't believe?

There's hope yet!