No, the earth is not flat.

  • 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.
timemeddler said:
I think we all know flat earthers are just trolls looking for attention.
Click to expand...

I think you give flat earthers to much credit. It would better if this is true, but sadly, people honestly believe in a flat earth. I will show you the video of the flat earth conference.

"We're not crazy! *Cheer* "




I would say, flat earthers are either in denial, have major learning disabilities, combination of the two, or prescription drugs. At this point, I really don't care. They can believe whatever they want, just like Heliocentric believers.

Earth's shape is fascinating, but maybe what's more important, is what benefit does knowing the earth's true shape? That's really key I think.

For me believing in a Concave Hollow Earth, I feel God is closer, is in control, and allows to me filter out things that are a waste of time. Such as space aliens, moon landings, space travel, unknown galaxies, and faulty science. It really explains reality to me, that can be proven, rather than some lab coat spouting off scientific formulas (That can't be proven right or wrong). It also allows me to laugh at NASA, which is fun.

I wish people in NASA and the scientific community could just admit, that they don't know things, and present their information as it is their best guess, but it is rarely presented that way, if ever. This leads to further laughter in my view point, but they have to sound convincing, since they are getting government funding.
 
Isaiah 40:22 KJV
It is he that sitteth upon
the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Moses_Young
kinda said:
I think you give flat earthers to much credit. It would better if this is true, but sadly, people honestly believe in a flat earth. I will show you the video of the flat earth conference.

"We're not crazy! *Cheer* "




I would say, flat earthers are either in denial, have major learning disabilities, combination of the two, or prescription drugs. At this point, I really don't care. They can believe whatever they want, just like Heliocentric believers.

Earth's shape is fascinating, but maybe what's more important, is what benefit does knowing the earth's true shape? That's really key I think.

For me believing in a Concave Hollow Earth, I feel God is closer, is in control, and allows to me filter out things that are a waste of time. Such as space aliens, moon landings, space travel, unknown galaxies, and faulty science. It really explains reality to me, that can be proven, rather than some lab coat spouting off scientific formulas (That can't be proven right or wrong). It also allows me to laugh at NASA, which is fun.

I wish people in NASA and the scientific community could just admit, that they don't know things, and present their information as it is their best guess, but it is rarely presented that way, if ever. This leads to further laughter in my view point, but they have to sound convincing, since they are getting government funding.
Click to expand...
I think this was more like the first shill conference.
 
Moses_Young said:
NASA has kinda lost its credibility by lying - the issue has only snowballed over the past few decades, and now a large section of the population don't believe them. Isn't the invention of a new organisation using the same methodology of lying the easiest and most obvious alternative for them? Afterall, they had all that taxpayer money, and all they ever produced was a few rockets that went nowhere, and a handful of obviously fraudulent videos. How simple to create, purchase or otherwise hire other organisations that many folk won't associate with the first?

Your reference to Eratosthenes allegedly "proving" the Earth is flat has been addressed many times before, but I post below for the convenience of the casual reader. In short, you cannot prove something by relying on the assumption that it is true.

https://christianchat.com/conspirac...ured-and-if-so-how.211763/page-2#post-5114490

"The problem with this (as a proof of ball-Earth) [i.e. Eratosthenes' "proof"] is that the result is similar whether Earth is a sphere or flat. Flat Earthers simply respond that of course the angle of the sun is different at different places, because of trigonometry. To demonstrate this, simply place two upright blocks on a table about 1 meter apart and hold a torch overhead the first upright block. The shadow created by the first block will be almost non-existant [sic], dependent on how well the torch is held overhead, whilst the shadow created by the second block will be more pronounced. This doesn't mean the table is curved - it means trignometry [sic] results in different shadows dependent on the position of the blocks and the torch.

(It may have been that Eratosthenes assumed a large sun and a large distance between it and Earth for his "proof". However, these are Heliocentric assumptions, and it's circular reasoning to claim to prove a theory with the very theory one is trying to prove. Flat Earthers typically believe the sun is much smaller and closer than Heliocentrists. This is consistent with observation, which shows the sun's rays approach Earth at different angles, rather than all at the same angle as would be consistent with an [almost] infinitely large sun at an [almost] infinite distance)."
Click to expand...

um, hello...

Erasthones wasn't proving the earth is a globe, he was calculating an estimate of the circumference of the globe.

so, whatever you were quoting there, is pretty ignorant.

it was already well proven the earth is spherical from many ways, for hundreds of years before Erasthones, from ships disappearing over the horizon, from the motion of stars, from the sunrise and sunset, from the shadow of the earth during an eclipse of the moon, etc.
 
Mosie said:
May I just ask what difference does it make either way? Just think about it.
Click to expand...

It‘s for entertainment purposes. So open your own topic or join-in the fun depending on what you like.
 
posthuman said:
um, hello...

Erasthones wasn't proving the earth is a globe, he was calculating an estimate of the circumference of the globe.

so, whatever you were quoting there, is pretty ignorant.

it was already well proven the earth is spherical from many ways, for hundreds of years before Erasthones, from ships disappearing over the horizon, from the motion of stars, from the sunrise and sunset, from the shadow of the earth during an eclipse of the moon, etc.
Click to expand...
Lol. Tell that to your ball-Earth buddies. I wasn't the one claiming Erasthones had proved the Earth was a ball. But I agree with your sentiment - your ball-Earth buddy was "pretty ignorant" to claim Erasthones (or someone else circa 300BC?) proved the Earth was a ball, because the Earth has never been proven to be a ball.

I think ignorance comes with ball-Earth theory, as even you are claiming such easily refutable myths such as "ships disappearing over the horizon" and "the motion of the stars" as proof of ball-Earth, when these are anything but.
 
GaryA said:
According to modern science, eclipses do exist but cannot possibly exist.

Modern science disagrees with itself.
Click to expand...
Perhaps closer to the truth would be the science of "modern science" disagrees with the (heliocentric) religion of "modern science"?
 
Mosie said:
May I just ask what difference does it make either way? Just think about it.
Click to expand...
Entire worldview. If Earth is a just one of an infinite number of random planets in a random universe formed by a Big Bang, it's almost (for the masses who aren't capable of thinking on such large scales) believable for life to similarly have evolved by chance, therefore there is no reason to believe in God or a creator, man is insignificant and he makes his own rules - "do as thou wilt".

If on the other hand, Earth is flat, the Big Bang myth just died together with Heliocentrism. There is likely no such thing as outer space (as commonly portrayed), the sun, moon and stars are much closer, orbiting about the Earth which is central in God's creation, and Heaven and Hell are suddenly up there and down below - God is much closer and watching over us. Philosophically, there's a world of difference. But it's also about scriptural inerrancy - scripture implies the Earth is flat, and God would know.
 
welp. i don't know a thing about science, modern or otherwise. i also don't know for sure about earth's shape, i only know how beautiful it is, even in its fallen state. thanks be to God for that!

buuut i kinda love the flat-earthers. anyone who hangs their hat on what they believe the Bible says can't be all bad.

in fact, i think we should have a Flat Earth Day, and ima approach the gov't about instituting one. they'll go for it, don't you think? :giggle: ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back