Flat Earth
- Thread starter Deuxdiesel
- Start date
If it's a square it only has 4 "flat" sides which could create a tunnel that would allow something to be inside.
If it's a cube it has two extra sides.
I'm not sure if they think it's either, but all sides are probably flat.
What exactly would be the point anyway of a huge conspiracy to make everyone think the earth is a sphere when it is really flat? I really want to be in on the conspiracy here but i feel like I'm missing something
My goal in my OP was simply to say that the conclusions of modern science regarding the distant past are not the result of neutral interpretation of data.
Someone had brought in a philosophical claim about the age of the earth, equating it with the flat earth type of claim. One is observable, the other is not. One is testable, the other is not.
That’s my only point. The two conclusions have a different degree of credibility/certainty
That was likely me. Ever been to someplace like the Carlsbad Caverns and looked at the formations created by deposits of micro thin layers of dissolved limestone? If you have a slight understanding of the process and have observed the build rate, it isn't hard to imagine that all that didn't happen in a few thousand years. If you understand erosion and how it works, it isn't difficult to imagine that something like the Grand Canyon didn't happen in a few thousand years. My point was if you have an open mind and some basic understanding of nature, it is impossible to believe that the earth is only 5000 years old.
I'm not interpreting @JMT as agreeing the earth is 6000 years old. Only that scientist are guessing at the age just as much as others. They use study and logic and scientific method and mathematical approximation and extrapolation and all sorts of tools at their disposal. As opposed to the guy with a stone spear trying to stay alive in a harsh world and judging time by his lifespan.
But even with better tools available we do come at things with our own preconceived notions that may affect what we determine as "fact". Science has changed hypothesis that were considered settled science by the majority more than once in my lifetime. Enough that I take the latest science with a grain of salt, waiting for the next guy to come along and describe things better or test the hypotheses in a different manner which over turns the previous. Guys like Hawking even disagreed with himself over time.
From a mathematical standpoint saying the universe is 6000 years old may actually be more accurate than saying it's 13 billion years old; if it turns out that the universe is only 5 billion years old.
But even with better tools available we do come at things with our own preconceived notions that may affect what we determine as "fact". Science has changed hypothesis that were considered settled science by the majority more than once in my lifetime. Enough that I take the latest science with a grain of salt, waiting for the next guy to come along and describe things better or test the hypotheses in a different manner which over turns the previous. Guys like Hawking even disagreed with himself over time.
From a mathematical standpoint saying the universe is 6000 years old may actually be more accurate than saying it's 13 billion years old; if it turns out that the universe is only 5 billion years old.
I'm still not entirely certain we aren't living in a simulation. It sounds crazy, but it crosses my mind more often than it ought to 
I'm still not entirely certain we aren't living in a simulation. It sounds crazy, but it crosses my mind more often than it ought to
And the programmer keeps trying to track down that bug in the system giving you that thought.
I'm still not entirely certain we aren't living in a simulation. It sounds crazy, but it crosses my mind more often than it ought to
Those who believe the earth is about 5000 years old as we know get that from the Bible in Genesis. We read of creation/supernatural if you will. The issues with the Bible is honestly the English language. For instance the word "LOVE" it is so general and overused that its meaning is almost endless but nothing specific. Love=sex, love=taste of food, love=friendship, ETC. So in Genesis the Bible says IN the beginning God made the heavens and earth. Then verse 2 says that the earth was void and without form. Well there is a word there that when going back to Hebrew language can mean BECAME. So the world became void and without form. This is often referred to as a time gap or the time gap theory. I personally can believe it. Look around in nature, to many things work so harmoniously together for there not to be a creator. Its like your jeep. If one thing in your steering isn't quit right you get death wobble. Well I don't care how old you think the earth is, if one thing in nature is out it could not have lasted this long. This is the total claim for global warming scare. Going back to a jeep again. the jeep can operate in different climates and temperatures without exploding. I can understand climate change or even shift because nature is out of its control but the creator created a earth that will endure. Just like Jeep created a vehicle to endure.
warning: If you are set against a God or creation account please don't read any further as it may be upsetting
Using science alone to prove God exists or the beginning of time will never happen!!! it cannot, because it was created for man to exist without God. God is everywhere, but in Gods plan he created man in his image and gave him choice. Once man choose against God, God and his spirit had to leave. Well without science man and the earth would have died. So science was created to sustain life without God thus its use is to be used without God so it can never be used to prove God. Your jeep was created to drive on land, it was never created to be a submarine so we cannot go to our jeep to find answers to what it takes to maintain buoyancy and propel a vessel through water. The study has to be changed which would honestly being an open mind that we all claim we have. It honestly is ironic to say I am open minded but I rely completely on science to prove.
warning: If you are set against a God or creation account please don't read any further as it may be upsetting
Using science alone to prove God exists or the beginning of time will never happen!!! it cannot, because it was created for man to exist without God. God is everywhere, but in Gods plan he created man in his image and gave him choice. Once man choose against God, God and his spirit had to leave. Well without science man and the earth would have died. So science was created to sustain life without God thus its use is to be used without God so it can never be used to prove God. Your jeep was created to drive on land, it was never created to be a submarine so we cannot go to our jeep to find answers to what it takes to maintain buoyancy and propel a vessel through water. The study has to be changed which would honestly being an open mind that we all claim we have. It honestly is ironic to say I am open minded but I rely completely on science to prove.
Based on the rest of what you said, how do we know that the planet was created to endure? Do we actually know that it wasn't created with a finite lifespan of 5140 years and will be barren of life shortly thereafter?
That said, I do tend to marvel at the whole "save the planet" bullshit. The planet will be fine. If at some point we the parasites remove all the things we need to sustain life, we will die off because our host can no longer support us and the planet will go on without us. If they wanted more credibility for me with regard to their save the planet agenda, they should change the slogan to "Save Humanity".
If you take your hands and put them together as in praying they fill all the gaps and join together to become even stronger. I look at either left or right hand as science and the other hand as Bible thus filling more gaps than without the other. Some of my answers will be Bible based and so science based.
In general a Creator creates something to last. I want my jeep to last as long as possible so I do routine maintenance. I believe a creator has done the same thing for the earth and if you believe the Bible the creator actually put man on the earth for routine maintenance, we find this in Genesis where God says he did not cause anything to grow yet because no one was there to manage and keep it in control, the word also used (and we have developed a poor understanding of it) is dominion . There are other scriptures that support the longevity of the earth. But now here comes a little preaching and thought provoking question. Would you die for your jeep if you knew its life span was short lived?
In general a Creator creates something to last. I want my jeep to last as long as possible so I do routine maintenance. I believe a creator has done the same thing for the earth and if you believe the Bible the creator actually put man on the earth for routine maintenance, we find this in Genesis where God says he did not cause anything to grow yet because no one was there to manage and keep it in control, the word also used (and we have developed a poor understanding of it) is dominion . There are other scriptures that support the longevity of the earth. But now here comes a little preaching and thought provoking question. Would you die for your jeep if you knew its life span was short lived?
To a some degree, you are describing science. Science makes propositions (informed guesses) and proceeds to intentionally disprove the proposition. If the proposition is able to be disproved using the current knowledge and understanding, it isn't science. If new knowledge and understanding arises that disproves older knowledge and understanding, that older thinking is no longer science.
This constant activity of disproving itself is how science arrives at a continually refined and nuanced way of describing the natural world. We cannot get to an understanding that the Earth is flat or a few thousand years old by following a scientific process. It also means that there are things we once thought were accurate becoming no longer accurate.
Last edited:
In every picture I've seen the Earth is indeed flat.
If the earth isn't flat, why are maps printed on flat paper? Hmmm?
Dont you dare drag globes into this, those are conspiracy tools implemented by the government.
Dont you dare drag globes into this, those are conspiracy tools implemented by the government.
What test would you run to see how old the earth was?
Yes, humanity knew the earth was round long before space travel.
We have present evidence that we can observe for the existence of dinosaurs. Not only is that evidence bones, as you know, but also skin and organ imprints, though these are extremely rare, as even dinosaur remains are rare proportionally to other fossil remains.
Have we seen a dinosaur? IDK, I haven't seen one. Some people have claimed to see them. Are they valid? IDK. It is interesting to read descriptions of human contact with large beasts before the invention of the word "dinosaur" in 1842 and before the discovery of the first dinosaur fossils. Rhetorically, what would accounts read like if a species was going out of existence? Would we believe those accounts if we were living but had never seen the species ourselves? IDK.
Yes, I've been to several caves, Longhorn Caves, Sonora Caves, all in central TX. I understand build rates, they are proportional to the amount of water that seeps through the ground. If that is a constant, then we can back calculate to get an estimated age. However, no one was there to observe if they were constant from the beginning of formation. So, it is less credible/certain, than an observable phenomena from the onset.
Erosion is another process that we can measure a present rate, but whether that rate was the same in the distant past is unknown. Did a breached dam occur via overtopping or piping that played a role in the formation of the Grand Canyon? There is evidence of an ancient lake known as Hopi Lake in NE Arizona. These processes would be adequate for cavitation and plucking, two catastrophic geological processes that we can observe today and may employ to explain the formation of Grand Canyon. Just saying, everything is not as cut and clean when scientists give explanations of distant past formations, etc...as they are when doing scientific experiments in a modern laboratory.
In short, if the present is the key to the past, we don't have any problem unlocking it. But how do we know? Nobody was there to observe it and take a measurement. If intellectually honest, which some are, it is a guess.