Creation vs. Evolution

[Daniel1611]

I see. So earlier you claimed that "a flat earth has nothing to do with your specific brand of theology", but yet you see the current model as contradicting (or making it less likely) your specific brand of theology.

And you want us to believe that scientists and those that accept the progress of science are involved in a conspiracy or dupe, yet you are unwilling to admit that you might be dupe, or involved in a conspiracy?

No. I'm not saying that. Creationism can be true regardless of the shape or position of earth. But if the earth is shown to be the flat, stationary center of the universe, evolution will not survive.

Also, hiding more land is an important motive as well.

 

[noguru]

Firstly, you can't prove the earth is a ball by citing gravity. Gravity is only needed if the earth is a spinning ball. Saying the earth is round because if gravity is basically saying the earth is a ball because it's a ball

Further, why do flights from east to west take the same amount of time as flights west to east if it is spinning?

Again you demonstrate your poor understanding of science. Science does not "prove" anything. Science does research, compiles evidence, and arrives at a conclusion indicated by all the evidence.

You have a dubious experiment/research program from 200 years ago, and the current model has a vast amount of evidence (though you undermine that as well and do not admit your error there either) which supports it. And you still want us to accept your model over the current one.

I am surprised (but that surprise is becoming understanding) that you cannot see how absurd your expectations are in this regard.

 

[noguru]

No. I'm not saying that. Creationism can be true regardless of the shape or position of earth. But if the earth is shown to be the flat, stationary center of the universe, evolution will not survive.

Why do you think this?

 

[noguru]

Also, hiding more land is an important motive as well.

How does the model of spheroid earth hide more land than a model of a flat earth can hide?

 

[noguru]

Firstly, you can't prove the earth is a ball by citing gravity. Gravity is only needed if the earth is a spinning ball. Saying the earth is round because if gravity is basically saying the earth is a ball because it's a ball

Your claim that rising smoke is "evidence" that there is no such thing as gravity was shown to be inaccurate. Yet you have not admitted your error.

If you claim there is no such thing as gravity, then what evidence do you have that something else (like magnetism) is responsible, and how does that support your model over the current model?

 

[alwight]

You don't need all the scientists to be in on the joke. To become scientists, they learned from the text books the liars wrote. If they didn't go with it, they wouldn't have jobs as scientists

Call me gullible but I choose to accept that typically the best scientific people have enquiring minds, integrity and a desire to discover for themselves what is true by confirming the claims of others, or by falsifying what is wrong. Simply accepting whatever a textbook says because they want to pay the mortgage just doesn't fly in science, although for creationists it must.

 

[noguru]

Further, why do flights from east to west take the same amount of time as flights west to east if it is spinning?

Again, this shows your poor understanding of the model that is actually proposed. But I hesitate to correct you on this, because you demonstrate quite clearly that you refuse to admit your errors.

 

[Daniel1611]

How does the model of spheroid earth hide more land than a model of a flat earth can hide?

This mostly has to do with Antarctica. If the earth is a ball and we know the size, we have a rough idea of the maximum possible land. If we have a picture of it, we know the amount of land. If it is flat, the plain can extend. There can be more land on the other side of Antarctica. On the accepted model of the globd, there is no room for more land. If it's a plain, there can be more land.

 

[Daniel1611]

Call me gullible but I choose to accept that typically the best scientific people have enquiring minds, integrity and a desire to discover for themselves what is true by confirming the claims of others, or by falsifying what is wrong. Simply accepting whatever a textbook says because they want to pay the mortgage just doesn't fly in science, although for creationists it must.

When it comes to the shape of earth, all you have really is the text book. If you haven't seen it from space, you don't know what the shape is. All you can do is learn the calculations and look at the paintings. Whether they want to know if not, they won't KNOW.

 

[The Barbarian]

Firstly, you can't prove the earth is a ball by citing gravity.

Planets are round because their gravitational field acts as though it originates from the center of the body and pulls everything toward it. With its large body and internal heating from radioactive elements, a planet behaves like a fluid, and over long periods of time succumbs to the gravitational pull from its center of gravity. The only way to get all the mass as close to planet's center of gravity as possible is to form a sphere. The technical name for this process is "isostatic adjustment."

With much smaller bodies, such as the 20-kilometer asteroids we have seen in recent spacecraft images, the gravitational pull is too weak to overcome the asteroid's mechanical strength. As a result, these bodies do not form spheres. Rather they maintain irregular, fragmentary shapes.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-are-planets-round/

The Earth has far too much mass to not be round. So another way of demonstrating that it's round.

Gravity is only needed if the earth is a spinning ball.

Common misconception. Spinning has nothing whatever to do with it.

Saying the earth is round because if gravity is basically saying the earth is a ball because it's a ball

See above. Physics requires any body even a fraction of the size of the Earth, to be round.

Further, why do flights from east to west take the same amount of time as flights west to east if it is spinning?

For the same reason it takes you to walk to the front of a moving bus, as it takes you to walk to the back of the bus. The air is moving with the Earth, and an airplane on the ground is moving at the same speed as the Earth. So it only changes speed with regard to the surface of the Earth as a reference point.

A rocket fired into orbit has the speed of the Earth added to it's speed with regard to the Earth. If it's moving east, the added speed is positive, and if it's moving west, the added speed is negative, since the Earth is spinning eastward.

This is why all nations launch spacecraft as close to the Equator as they can. The speed of the Earth is at a maximum there.

 

[alwight]

When it comes to the shape of earth, all you have really is the text book. If you haven't seen it from space, you don't know what the shape is. All you can do is learn the calculations and look at the paintings. Whether they want to know if not, they won't KNOW.

I know that I have flown from London to California, and that the flight first went north over Scotland and then the "land" below became strangely white and without trees, but happily the pilot then informed us that we were over the arctic.
No, I can't actually prove that the Earth is spheroid, but by combining such information gathered from many different sources, I think I believe what is the most reasonable thing to believe, which is not to disregard all that conflicting information, but to believe instead that the Earth is more likely to be uniquely flat. :nono:

 

[Jonahdog]

No. I just do not believe it's possible. We can't point the camera down and get a picture of the ocean floor, but we can see 240 Sextillion miles into space? How gullible can you be to believe that? They don't see 100 quintillion miles into space. Oh, no no no. They see 240 Sextillion miles into space. Lol at people just eating up everything NASA says.

And why can we not take a picture of the ocean floor by pointing a camera down?

 

[noguru]

This mostly has to do with Antarctica. If the earth is a ball and we know the size, we have a rough idea of the maximum possible land. If we have a picture of it, we know the amount of land. If it is flat, the plain can extend. There can be more land on the other side of Antarctica. On the accepted model of the globd, there is no room for more land. If it's a plain, there can be more land.

So you think the government(s) is/are hiding the land on the other side of this plain, the antarctic being that border?

 

[Daniel1611]

So you think the government(s) is/are hiding the land on the other side of this plane, the antarctic being that border?

They could be. Most flat earth models look like the United Nations flag basically. Antarctica is not the same as we seen in the globe model. Antarctica would be represented by the outer circle. So yes, it would be like a border. So going south from any point would take you to this border, like the globe model. On the other side could be more land, yes.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_the_United_Nations

 

[Jonahdog]

They could be. Most flat earth models look like the United Nations flag basically. Antarctica is not the same as we seen in the globe model. Antarctica would be represented by the outer circle. So yes, it would be like a border. So going south from any point would take you to this border, like the globe model. On the other side could be more land, yes.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_the_United_Nations

Charter a plane, keep flying, let us know what happens.

 

[Daniel1611]

Charter a plane, keep flying, let us know what happens.

That would be interesting to do, although I would have to be approved by the Antarctica Treaty organization and would have to use their approved routes. Many Antarctica crossing tourist routes cross over the peninsula by south america. To be sure we were actually crossing Antarctica, we would have to use our own route, traveling from one coast to the other in the estimated time it would take to cover that distance.

 

[MichaelCadry]

He that answereth a matter before he heareth is, it is folly and shame unto him.
Proverbs 18:13

Dear Daniel1611,

Something is wrong about your post. Let me look up the verse and fix it for you. You've got is instead of it. It should be: He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him. Yes, you're right. It is best to hear the other side before dismissing it altogether. It is better to read it first, and then dismiss it or not. Thanks Daniel. But now have an open ear for the other side also.

In God's Love,

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

I have noticed that all those multilevel marketing scams always tell their followers not to explain the system to others, but to urge them to "just watch the video."

So when someone can't explain things, and wants me to "just watch the video", it's a tip-off for me.

Dear The Barbarian,

The trouble usually is that the video is long and boring.

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Hi Michael, we just had the hottest day on record here although it didn't bother me too much since it was quite dry, not humid like it often is. According to my research the temperature here actually exceeded your 107 degree temperature which is highly unusual, but if it ever gets to 122 degrees however then I'll be thinking you might be right about Armageddon.
I didn't realise that you also had a monsoon season, I thought that was just Asia, there you go.
BTW I've walked across that bridge while it was still in London.

Dear alwight,

You had a temp. higher than 107? Or a temp. like 98, but dry? Sounds scary. Yep, we have a monsoon season here with large dust storms (called haboobs) and thunder and scary lightning, and strong winds. Late June to late September. But we can't really have a tornado because all the mountains get in the way. So you walked on the London Bridge. I think that is awesome!! They numbered each block, so they could put it back together once it got here. I believe it crosses the Colorado River. It crosses a point that is not too far apart. Well, will chat with you again soon, dude!!

Warmest Wishes And Cheerio,

Michael

:guitar: :singer: :angel: :angel: :cloud9: :thumb:

 

[MichaelCadry]

The Hubble telescope, they say, can see 15 Billion light years into space. A light year is about 6 Trillion miles. This thing is supposed to see so far that most people dont even know a name for the number.

It can see 15 Billion times 6 Trillion miles into space. We can't see to the bottom of the ocean but we can see 6 Trillion times 15 Billion miles into space. I call B.S.

http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/ask/284-How-far-can-the-Hubble-Space-Telescope-see-

Dear Daniel,

Yup, I feel the same way!! Scientists sometimes boost the numbers so much just so no one would ever try to tackle confounding their ideas.

Michael