Scripture Based Flat Earth Proposition

No one can disprove the flat earth theory. We have pictures! and a video!

Thread posters -- I think MerSee is a bot/AI. Not joking.

I reported a couple of his posts. Notice its replies just take a word from the post and then it posts a message related to it, but the reply has no coherence to the content of the message its replying to. And the incoherence has repetition too. Look at this series: (I added bold type)

There is no such thing as what people believe to be "satellites" (i.e. the CGI images that come to the mind of most when the word is mentioned). Real "satellites" that allow GPS and similar are what those not in the know would describe as weather balloons. Similar to those things dropping over the US that were accused of being Chinese spy balloons over the past 12 months.

I'm not sure what those things Elon Musk sent up look like.

No it doesn't. To prove the Earth isn't flat, one would need to measure the curvature. It has never been done to date, which is kinda telling, for those who still believe Earth to be a ball.

A circle is flat and round! Like a pancake.

It has not been verified - only assumed. And, that is what you are doing. (perhaps without realizing it)

You see - the "spherical model" is but an explanation of an observation. (an invented 'definition'/'description' that may-or-may-not actually match physical reality)

And, yes - a similar thing exists for the "flat model" (or any other model) - that is why it is called a 'model' - a model is an explanation for an observation.

However, what you are doing is trying to verify the observation by use of the explanation - by making the base assumption from the explanation (that the earth is a sphere) and wrapping the observation around it. You are "molding" your interpretation of the observation around that base assumption. You may not realize that you are doing it - but, that is what you are doing. In essence, you WANT it to be a sphere. Because, that is what you have been taught.

You are not trying to glean facts from the observation itself apart from the explanation. You are "getting your facts" from the explanation - which is unproven as being the actual factual physical reality.

You are "educating yourself" from the explanation and not the observation.

Flat Earth folks educate themselves from the observation and not the explanation.

~

I believe the FE model is the [more/most] correct one because of what the Bible says about the earth - I believe what the Bible says FIRST - and try to prove the model by the observation and not the observation by the model. (any model)

~

I live in Texas.

In this context. The modern use of the word has other definitions also.

As a matter of historical record, a small group of ships did exactly that a few hundred years ago - took two or three years and came up with a trip total distance of somewhere over 60,000 miles. (I do not remember the actual numbers reported.)

Look it up...

Really?

You [personally] actually saw it fly all the way up into orbit???

Or, are you [just] assuming it went [all the way to] where you were told it went?

Sure it is - show me something real-and-true and not "just take my word for it" hype.

You know good-and-well that he is talking about it on a very large scale.

I would just like to point out that where I live, seeing up to 100 stars in the night sky is a rare event. Usually it's in the 20's or 30's.

What we "know" is irrelevant if it does not line up with reality... right?

Since he posted a picture of a glass of water, which is not "very large scale", we now "know" that "very large scale" is not the reality he had in mind.

I would encourage you to think through your arguments before posting them.

You reject any evidence not conforming to your very specific parameters, so you need to do your own experiments. Get yourself to Southern Australia, South America, or Africa between mid November and mid-February, and note where the sun rises and sets in relation to the cardinal directions.

Then provide an explanation from your flat-earth perspective.

Did you somehow miss that 'multiplied by the square of the distance' part?

I have nothing against you, dear - not trying to be ugly to you or anything - just being direct-to-the-point and matter-of-fact about it.

I would encourage you to be more honest than to make an example out of a post that he made after you made the remark that I am referring to (post #507) - as an excuse in a defensive posturing maneuver for your own personal agenda.

The context of his post #514 is different than what it was in his post #463 - that you yourself corroborated in post #487 with your last sentence - so that - when he asked the thread title question in post #488 - everyone knows what he is talking about...

We all know that "very large scale" is what he meant - as in "water across the entire surface of" - not almost-microscopic water adhesion to contact surfaces.

Brother, you need to "aim higher" where honesty and integrity is concerned and stop pulling stunts like this...