Any flat earthers here?

[viole]

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".

Not that I am aware of. But I saw some thinking that the earth is 6,000 years old and evolution is wrong.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Popcorn]

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".

Are you sure you don't believe the earth is flat? Perhaps you are merely wrapping the flatness around a sphere.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Maps are flat so the earth must be flat too.

 

[SilverOrb]

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.

I'm not sure why but that's almost scary.

 

[Smart_Guy]

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".

Um, I thought such belief died already!

 

[Ponder This]

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".

Hello.
First of all, let's get something out of the way: I am not a flat-Earther.

But look around you. Does the Earth appear to be flat or round? Be Honest.
The obvious answer is that the Earth appears to be flat.
People don't believe the Earth is round until they are told the Earth is round or shown the Earth is round.

Analogously, there is the difference between giving people fish and teaching people how to fish.
Believing the Earth is round is like being given a fish.
Being able to show that the Earth is round is like being able to fish.

So the fallacy of ball-Earthers isn't that they don't have fish; it's that they didn't learn how to fish.

People sometimes look back at people of the past who believed that the Earth was flat and make fun of them or say they were ignorant.
But this is a failure to realize that any casual observer would think the Earth is flat.
Understanding why the Earth is flat is a step ball-Earthers can take towards learning to see the world through other people's eyes rather than passing dogmatic judgement on them.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

Hello.
First of all, let's get something out of the way: I am not a flat-Earther.

But look around you. Does the Earth appear to be flat or round? Be Honest.
The obvious answer is that the Earth appears to be flat.
People don't believe the Earth is round until they are told the Earth is round or shown the Earth is round.

Analogously, there is the difference between giving people fish and teaching people how to fish.
Believing the Earth is round is like being given a fish.
Being able to show that the Earth is round is like being able to fish.

So the fallacy of ball-Earthers isn't that they don't have fish; it's that they didn't learn how to fish.

People sometimes look back at people of the past who believed that the Earth was flat and make fun of them or say they were ignorant.
But this is a failure to realize that any casual observer would think the Earth is flat.
Understanding why the Earth is flat is a step ball-Earthers can take towards learning to see the world through other people's eyes rather than passing dogmatic judgement on them.

You realize that, it seems like this question is posed to people, who TODAY, believe the earth is flat.. NOT people thousands of years ago.

 

[David M]

Modern science has shown that modern humans did indeed come from one man and one woman as a whole species.

No it hasn't. Science absolutely refutes the idea that here was ever that few humans alive.

But look around you. Does the Earth appear to be flat or round? Be Honest..

Been on a plane and on some mountains, no it does not look flat.

Been the other side of the world to someone and my day was their night which shows its not flat.

 

[David M]

If your drawing a picture of a planet, that's what you would use. Planets are ''circles''.

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

 

[David M]

Such is true. Words evolve as does everything. The only way would be to apply the word that means "circle, compass, CIRCUIT, to "describe" spheroid.

Why would they not use rwd which denotes a sphere in terms of shape (Isiah 22:18). There was a word that could have been used that far, far more accurately describes the shape of the earth but they went with one that meant circle.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Even ancient man were aware of spheres.

One would think the bible would reflect earth as a ball instead of circle in light of Isaiah 22:18.

 

[Windwalker]

No it hasn't. Science absolutely refutes the idea that here was ever that few humans alive.

It may behoove you to keep up with things. This is old news from back in the mid 1990's. It's scientifically accepted. Ever hear of Mitochondrial Eve? Mitochondrial Eve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mitochondrial Eve refers to the matrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA), in a direct, unbroken, maternal line, of all currently living humans, who is estimated to have lived approximately 100,000–200,000 years ago. This is the most recent woman from whom all living humans today descend, in an unbroken line, on their mother’s side, and through the mothers of those mothers, and so on, back until all lines converge on one person.​

And then there is Y-Chromosomal Adam Y-chromosomal Adam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In human genetics, Y-chromosomal most recent common ancestor (Y-MRCA; informally also known as Y-chromosomal Adam) refers to the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) from whom all currently living people are descended patrilineally. The term Y-MRCA reflects the fact that the Y chromosomes of all currently living males are directly derived from the Y chromosome of this remote ancestor. The analogous concept of the matrilineal most recent common ancestor is known as "Mitochondrial Eve" (mt-MRCA, named for the matrilineal transmission of mtDNA), the woman from whom all living humans are descended matrilineally​

Any questions?

 

[David M]

It may behoove you to keep up with things. This is old news from back in the mid 1990's. It's scientifically accepted. Ever hear of Mitochondrial Eve? Mitochondrial Eve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mitochondrial Eve refers to the matrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA), in a direct, unbroken, maternal line, of all currently living humans, who is estimated to have lived approximately 100,000–200,000 years ago. This is the most recent woman from whom all living humans today descend, in an unbroken line, on their mother’s side, and through the mothers of those mothers, and so on, back until all lines converge on one person.​

And then there is Y-Chromosomal Adam Y-chromosomal Adam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In human genetics, Y-chromosomal most recent common ancestor (Y-MRCA; informally also known as Y-chromosomal Adam) refers to the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) from whom all currently living people are descended patrilineally. The term Y-MRCA reflects the fact that the Y chromosomes of all currently living males are directly derived from the Y chromosome of this remote ancestor. The analogous concept of the matrilineal most recent common ancestor is known as "Mitochondrial Eve" (mt-MRCA, named for the matrilineal transmission of mtDNA), the woman from whom all living humans are descended matrilineally​

Any questions?

Firstly they did not exist at the same time.
Secondly there has always been a population of humans, never one female or one male. Go read those wiki entries and try to understand them.

So lets make it clear, most recent common ancestor in no way whatsoever means "only member of the species alive at the time". That is what is scientifically accepted.

 

[psychoslice]

Any flat earthers here, no they all fell off lol.

 

[Windwalker]

Firstly they did not exist at the same time.
Secondly there has always been a population of humans, never one female or one male. Go read those wiki entries and try to understand them.

So lets make it clear, most recent common ancestor in no way whatsoever means "only member of the species alive at the time". That is what is scientifically accepted.

Let's make something really clear. When you read someone's post, don't read one sentence of it and ignore everything else that follows within the same paragraph as your race off to race off to respond to what you assume that poster is saying. I'll repost that paragraph where you seized upon one sentence and put in bold which was really, really specific and clear that you appeared flown straight over in preparing your reply:

"Let's take Adam and Eve as a good example. Modern science has shown that modern humans did indeed come from one man and one woman as a whole species. Well, the Biblical literalist would say that was a special miracle that they got that right scientifically, proving the Bible is divinely inspired! Right? No, not right. First of all "Adam and Eve" that science has demonstrated through DNA mapping, lived approximately 100,000 years apart making having babies together a tad bit challenging physically. But even so, even if we are to try to force-fit this in the book of Genesis, what makes more sense rationally? That this was secretly encoded into the texts via the omniscient God who knew the future where one day science would confirm his word to be true, or that common sense observation extrapolated a male and female as primary parents based on the fact it sees children born of men and women every day?"
​

You still have a problem with what I posted now that you see you didn't read it carefully?

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Hello.
First of all, let's get something out of the way: I am not a flat-Earther.

But look around you. Does the Earth appear to be flat or round? Be Honest.
The obvious answer is that the Earth appears to be flat.
People don't believe the Earth is round until they are told the Earth is round or shown the Earth is round.

Analogously, there is the difference between giving people fish and teaching people how to fish.
Believing the Earth is round is like being given a fish.
Being able to show that the Earth is round is like being able to fish.

So the fallacy of ball-Earthers isn't that they don't have fish; it's that they didn't learn how to fish.

People sometimes look back at people of the past who believed that the Earth was flat and make fun of them or say they were ignorant.
But this is a failure to realize that any casual observer would think the Earth is flat.
Understanding why the Earth is flat is a step ball-Earthers can take towards learning to see the world through other people's eyes rather than passing dogmatic judgement on them.

It seems to me that you did not read beyond the first couple posts of this thread, where I specifically stated that if someone believed the earth were flat, I would not mock or judge them.

I believe that among flat earthers, many have been manipulated into believing the earth was flat, because when they came in contact with"flat earth" models, they were not appropriately armed with knowledge to defend themselves against this misinformation.

For a few examples: We often teach kids that "what comes up, must come down"; but this oversimplification does not provide a description of gravity that even begins to teach them how gravity is. It is important that we teach them, even finding a way to teach very small children, that mass attracts mass. We often teach them that the earth is spheroid, but fail to teach them that the earth is spheroid because we are on a planet, and planets must be spheroid due to the effects of gravity and the principle of hydrostatic equilibrium -- that in large enough masses will inevitably pull the large mass into a spherical shape. So I am definitely advocating that we "teach people how to fish"; but to understand that the world is spherical does not necessarily mean we have to launch them into orbit.

You impose judgment when there is none.

 

[Ponder This]

You realize that, it seems like this question is posed to people, who TODAY, believe the earth is flat.. NOT people thousands of years ago.

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

 

[Ponder This]

It seems to me that you did not read beyond the first couple posts of this thread, where I specifically stated that if someone believed the earth were flat, I would not mock or judge them.

I believe that among flat earthers, many have been manipulated into believing the earth was flat, because when they came in contact with"flat earth" models, they were not appropriately armed with knowledge to defend themselves against this misinformation.

For a few examples: We often teach kids that "what comes up, must come down"; but this oversimplification does not provide a description of gravity that even begins to teach them how gravity is. It is important that we teach them, even finding a way to teach very small children, that mass attracts mass. We often teach them that the earth is spheroid, but fail to teach them that the earth is spheroid because we are on a planet, and planets must be spheroid due to the effects of gravity and the principle of hydrostatic equilibrium -- that in large enough masses will inevitably pull the large mass into a spherical shape. So I am definitely advocating that we "teach people how to fish"; but to understand that the world is spherical does not necessarily mean we have to launch them into orbit.

You impose judgment when there is none.

I did not say that you specifically judged people or mocked people for thinking the Earth was flat. In fact, I explained why people shouldn't judge or mock them for thinking the Earth is flat.

 

[David M]

Let's make something really clear. When you read someone's post, don't read one sentence of it and ignore everything else that follows within the same paragraph as your race off to race off to respond to what you assume that poster is saying. I'll repost that paragraph where you seized upon one sentence and put in bold which was really, really specific and clear that you appeared flown straight over in preparing your reply:

"Let's take Adam and Eve as a good example. Modern science has shown that modern humans did indeed come from one man and one woman as a whole species. Well, the Biblical literalist would say that was a special miracle that they got that right scientifically, proving the Bible is divinely inspired! Right? No, not right. First of all "Adam and Eve" that science has demonstrated through DNA mapping, lived approximately 100,000 years apart making having babies together a tad bit challenging physically. But even so, even if we are to try to force-fit this in the book of Genesis, what makes more sense rationally? That this was secretly encoded into the texts via the omniscient God who knew the future where one day science would confirm his word to be true, or that common sense observation extrapolated a male and female as primary parents based on the fact it sees children born of men and women every day?"
​

You still have a problem with what I posted now that you see you didn't read it carefully?

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. 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.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

I did not say that you specifically judged people or mocked people for thinking the Earth was flat. In fact, I explained why people shouldn't judge or mock them for thinking the Earth is flat.

Accepted. My mistake.