Is The Earth Flat Or Round?
- Thread starter seed_time_harvest
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
She looks lika pepperoni pizza pie.
Bubbling hot as it comes out of the oven and cools down, turnsa white as it's delivered.
Moons a Pizza
Bubbling hot as it comes out of the oven and cools down, turnsa white as it's delivered.
Moons a Pizza
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Been there, done that. 3-1/2 years on a warship, traveling South East Asia. So I've seen the curvature of the earth. I've also done a great deal of air travel in both Northern and Southern hemispheres. The flat earth society has adherents all around the globe, but not one of them has any evidence that the earth is other than a sphere. Their "research" is rubbish and easily discredited by anyone with a modicum of common sense.
-
1
- Show all
An observation - such as the Earth being flat - doesn't require a theory. The converse - the Earth being a ball (e.g. heliocentrism) - does require a theory, because it is not directly observed. Flat Earthers simply use Occam's razor to reject the pseudoscience supporting the theory of heliocentrism. Why believe the Earth is a ball, if it goes contrary to observation and to true science?
Please explain why shadows that fall Northward occur in Sydney, Australia, which is 10 degrees South of the Tropic of Capricorn, a phenomenon which is simply impossible on a North-centric flat Earth.
Here are the likely responses:
1. You will ignore the challenge because your mind is shut.
2. You will consider the challenge but never quite get around to investigating because your mind is shut.
3. You will investigate, find the truth, and come up with some ridiculous non-explanation to reject it because your mind is shut.
Here are the likely responses:
1. You will ignore the challenge because your mind is shut.
2. You will consider the challenge but never quite get around to investigating because your mind is shut.
3. You will investigate, find the truth, and come up with some ridiculous non-explanation to reject it because your mind is shut.
-
1
- Show all
I think you enjoy talking to flat earthers. 
-
1
- Show all
You can observe the curvature of the earth anytime you fly in an airplane and it gets to cruising altitude.
True science shows that the earth rotates on its axis. See Foucaults Pendulum and Coriolis.
See calculations for long range artillery and the rotation of the earth.
Observe the other planets in the solar system rotating around the sun.
True science shows that the earth rotates on its axis. See Foucaults Pendulum and Coriolis.
See calculations for long range artillery and the rotation of the earth.
Observe the other planets in the solar system rotating around the sun.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Brother - I don't think you realize just how much your own mind is 'shut' - 'locked' into/onto "bad logic" based on assumptions...
If I were to explain to you just-exactly-why your 'theory' about Sydney does not rest on actual facts - but rather, assumptions - would you even seriously consider it? Or will you just (as in, have already) write it off as poppycock?
I understand perfectly what you are suggesting. And, on the surface of it, it seems to make sense. But, there is something you are missing - because, you are making some assumptions that "gloss over" the actual facts of reality.
The 'phenomenon' you speak of is only 'impossible' within the confines of the Ball Earth model. And, your "proof" does not actually prove the result of your suggested 'theory'; rather, it is only logical deduction based on assumption. The deduction is good, but it is not founded on actual known facts - it is founded on [an] assumption of fact.
All you are actually doing is making observation fit the 'theory'. You must "step outside" of the 'theory' - leave the confines of the Ball Earth model - to see what [else] may exist in reality.
Without realizing it, you are acting on these assumptions without proof:
1) The earth is a ball.
2) The earth is tilted.
3) The angle of the tilt of the earth "sets the limits" of the position of the sun relative to the earth.
The tropics are based on and calculated from this angle - within the Ball Earth model.
The tropics look good and make sense on a globe in a classroom. However, they cannot be used as a basis for proof when they themselves have not been proven based on the reality of any reliable measurement and/or observation.
You cannot use the three things listed above to prove the three things listed above.
In the Flat Earth model, there is nothing to keep the sun from traveling beyond the tropics. Because, there is no tilt to set any limits.
In the Flat Earth model, there is nothing whatsoever that defines the tropics or sets any restrictions on the sun relative to the tropics.
The derivation of the location of the tropic lines are strictly mathematical and are only truly meaningful within the Ball Earth model.
In the Flat Earth model, the tropic lines are merely a "cross-reference" that may be used in making comparisons to the Ball Earth model.
Whether you realize it or not, you are only trying to set restrictions within the Flat Earth model using limits from the Ball Earth model.
"If I have said it once, I have said it a hundred times - you cannot examine and reason Flat Earth from a Ball Earth perspective."
If I were to explain to you just-exactly-why your 'theory' about Sydney does not rest on actual facts - but rather, assumptions - would you even seriously consider it? Or will you just (as in, have already) write it off as poppycock?
I understand perfectly what you are suggesting. And, on the surface of it, it seems to make sense. But, there is something you are missing - because, you are making some assumptions that "gloss over" the actual facts of reality.
The 'phenomenon' you speak of is only 'impossible' within the confines of the Ball Earth model. And, your "proof" does not actually prove the result of your suggested 'theory'; rather, it is only logical deduction based on assumption. The deduction is good, but it is not founded on actual known facts - it is founded on [an] assumption of fact.
All you are actually doing is making observation fit the 'theory'. You must "step outside" of the 'theory' - leave the confines of the Ball Earth model - to see what [else] may exist in reality.
Without realizing it, you are acting on these assumptions without proof:
1) The earth is a ball.
2) The earth is tilted.
3) The angle of the tilt of the earth "sets the limits" of the position of the sun relative to the earth.
The tropics are based on and calculated from this angle - within the Ball Earth model.
The tropics look good and make sense on a globe in a classroom. However, they cannot be used as a basis for proof when they themselves have not been proven based on the reality of any reliable measurement and/or observation.
You cannot use the three things listed above to prove the three things listed above.
In the Flat Earth model, there is nothing to keep the sun from traveling beyond the tropics. Because, there is no tilt to set any limits.
In the Flat Earth model, there is nothing whatsoever that defines the tropics or sets any restrictions on the sun relative to the tropics.
The derivation of the location of the tropic lines are strictly mathematical and are only truly meaningful within the Ball Earth model.
In the Flat Earth model, the tropic lines are merely a "cross-reference" that may be used in making comparisons to the Ball Earth model.
Whether you realize it or not, you are only trying to set restrictions within the Flat Earth model using limits from the Ball Earth model.
"If I have said it once, I have said it a hundred times - you cannot examine and reason Flat Earth from a Ball Earth perspective."
-
1
- Show all
I understand your assertions, bit consider them baseless. Reality bites.
From centuries of observation, the Tropics are identified as the latitudes outside of which the sun is NEVER at nadir (directly overhead). The observer's bias regarding the shape of the Earth does not affect this observation.
How about this: instead of arguing about what might be possible in a FE model, you present a model that accounts for the observable reality as described and demonstrated with photographs.
From centuries of observation, the Tropics are identified as the latitudes outside of which the sun is NEVER at nadir (directly overhead). The observer's bias regarding the shape of the Earth does not affect this observation.
How about this: instead of arguing about what might be possible in a FE model, you present a model that accounts for the observable reality as described and demonstrated with photographs.
-
1
- Show all
