The Firmament that the Bible Describes is Real

[Flat Earth Kyle]

I don't see that the Bible specifically teaches the earth is flat, it only makes vague references that it is a circle. And of course it is the Tanakh, a text that were compiled some 2500 years ago. Even Jews today don't interpret it literally as some Christians do.

Do you agree that circles are flat 2-D shapes?

 

[Soandso]

That is an appeal to incredulity fallacy. "I don't understand how it would work, therefore it must be a contradiction."
View attachment 79833
How star trails work is an excellent topic I would love to get into with you, but like the firmament I've got a lot to cover on that topic.
Let's save that topic for another thread and stick to the OP subject here.

So because I have a hard time accepting something that violates logic, I'm relying on personal credulity. Cool story

I am open to hearing how both Polaris and the Southern Cross rotate on an axis without the possibility of a round earth, though. Seems very unlikely without employing serious mental gymnastics

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Here is more.

So your argument for a Biblical firmament is... you refuse to believe gravity is strong enough to hold our atmosphere in place?

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

So your argument for a Biblical firmament is... you refuse to believe gravity is strong enough to hold our atmosphere in place?

You can't have air pressure next to a vacuum without a container. That is one argument, not my only argument.
The pressure of the claimed "vacuum of space" is supposedly WAY stronger than the weak force of gravity.
That is if you even believe gravity is a force. Please keep in mind Einstein called it a fictitious force.
We can get into what he meant by that if you want.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

So because I have a hard time accepting something that violates logic, I'm relying on personal credulity. Cool story

I am open to hearing how both Polaris and the Southern Cross rotate on an axis without the possibility of a round earth, though. Seems very unlikely without employing serious mental gymnastics, though

I've got 3 threads going now lets wait a little bit and then we can open a 4th and talk about astronomy.

 

[F1fan]

Do you agree that circles are flat 2-D shapes?

Yes. And the wording from the ancient text is wrong in regards to our planet.

Most of my evidence has been presented before and I don't like to repeat myself.

This is irrelevant. Note that puppet shows are presented too, that doesn't mean puppets are real beings. I pointed out your sources are not reputable, and you offer no defense for how poor quality they are. You offer no experts, just fringe characters getting science wrong. Whether you post poor quality sources one or ten times, it remains poor quality. Flat earthers have no good quality evidence, and that's because we live on a planet.

That statement makes it sound like you are a flat earther.

You ignored the rest of my comment that says I doubt icebergs have ever been a problem for ships. Did the joke really go over your head? I guess the way you read texts only works when you cut select bits and ignore the context of surrounding texts. No wonder you think the Bible teaches a flat earth, you aren't reading the whole thing in context of the era, and as a modern human. Even the Greeks 2500 years ago knew we lived on a planet, but you don't want to accept that fact?

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

Yes. And the wording from the ancient text is wrong in regards to our planet.

I'm glad we now agree that the Bible describes the earth as being flat.

 

[F1fan]

You can't have air pressure next to a vacuum without a container. That is one argument, not my only argument.
The pressure of the claimed "vacuum of space" is supposedly WAY stronger than the weak force of gravity.
That is if you even believe gravity is a force. Please keep in mind Einstein called it a fictitious force.
We can get into what he meant by that if you want.
View attachment 79850

Too bad Einstein didn't believe we live on a disc, but a planet. In fact his tests of relativity depended on there being gravity. Do you even understand relativity, and what it does? Why didn't you do research on Einstein?

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

Even the Greeks 2500 years ago knew we lived on a planet, but you don't want to accept that fact?

If you want to argue about the Greeks, my thread for Eratosthenes is right here.

ERATOSTHENES DID NOT PROVE THE EARTH IS A GLOBE!

The Eratosthenes experiment works on a flat earth with a small local light source. The Eratosthenes experiment depended on all the light from the sun being parallel, but even the globe model claims it is not!

www.religiousforums.com

 

[Soandso]

@Flat Earth Kyle Just curious, but what are your thoughts on scientific consensus and peer review?

 

[ChristineM]

The pressure of the claimed "vacuum of space" is supposedly WAY stronger than the weak force of gravity.

Yes, gravity is a weak force. However there is a whole planet of mass accumulating that weak force to the strength that can hold things to the planet. Things like air and people.

Here is how you can defy gravity... Throw yourself at the ground and miss.

 

[Soandso]

Here is how you can defy gravity... Throw yourself at the ground and miss.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

Too bad Einstein didn't believe we live on a disc, but a planet. In fact his tests of relativity depended on there being gravity. Do you even understand relativity, and what it does? Why didn't you do research on Einstein?

I did my research on Einstein [staff edit].
The earth isn't perpetually exploding!

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

@Flat Earth Kyle Just curious, but what are your thoughts on scientific consensus and peer review?

Unfortunately the scientific consensus appears to claim it doesn't have any proof of anything.

This Peer-reviewed journal article I have from the Journal of College Science Teaching http://www2.lv.psu.edu/jxm57/pdf/POV-Sept06.pdf
even goes so far as to say this.

I find that greatly disturbing.
These articles are a direct rejection of all foundations anywhere and everywhere and are direct encouragement to not anchor oneself to anything, but rather to allow oneself to be tossed as chaff to and fro by the wind of every passing fad and new idea.

The scientists who believe "science never proves anything" are admitting they do not perceive or understand any facts or truths and thereby claim to "know" nothing. Therefore I think the entire philosophy is extremely stupid.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

You can't have air pressure next to a vacuum without a container. That is one argument, not my only argument.
The pressure of the claimed "vacuum of space" is supposedly WAY stronger than the weak force of gravity.
That is if you even believe gravity is a force. Please keep in mind Einstein called it a fictitious force.
We can get into what he meant by that if you want.
View attachment 79850

Gravity might be weak compared to other natural forces, but it's still strong enough to hold entire planets and stars together, and just as well it dilates time and warps galaxy cluster-wide space. To believe it can't hold in place an atmosphere is absurd.

 

[Soandso]

Unfortunately the scientific consensus appears to claim it doesn't have any proof of anything.
View attachment 79852
This Peer-reviewed journal article I have from the Journal of College Science Teaching http://www2.lv.psu.edu/jxm57/pdf/POV-Sept06.pdf
even goes so far as to say this.
View attachment 79853
I find that greatly disturbing.
These articles are a direct rejection of all foundations anywhere and everywhere and are direct encouragement to not anchor oneself to anything, but rather to allow oneself to be tossed as chaff to and fro by the wind of every passing fad and new idea.

The scientists who believe "science never proves anything" are admitting they do not perceive or understand any facts or truths and thereby claim to "know" nothing. Therefore I think the entire philosophy is extremely stupid.
View attachment 79854

I think their reasoning might be the fact that, as we learn more, the things we suspected to be true turn out to either be more complicated or outright incorrect. There isn't one theory out there that hasn't been amended or updated as our understanding of it improved. This is the downside of being subjective beings trying to uncover things objectively - we can only really do it through trial and error. That means there will always be things we can't totally know

Do you think the scientific body is legit?

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

Gravity might be weak compared to other natural forces, but it's still strong enough to hold entire planets and stars together, and just as well it dilates time and warps galaxy cluster-wide space. To believe it can't hold in place an atmosphere is absurd.

It is observably proven with a vacuum chamber!

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

I think their reasoning might be the fact that, as we learn more, the things we suspected to be true turn out to either be more complicated or outright incorrect. There isn't one theory out there that hasn't been amended or updated as our understanding of it improved. This is the downside of being subjective beings trying to uncover things objectively - we can only really do it through trial and error. That means there will always be things we can't totally know

Do you think the scientific body is legit?

If you are refering to mainstream academia, I think it is provably and legitimately corrupted.

 

[ChristineM]

If you are refering to mainstream academia, I think it is provably and legitimately corrupted.

So prove it

 

[ChristineM]

It is observably proven with a vacuum chamber!

Never seen a whole planet in a vacuum chamber