Jump to content

Flat Earth..


Lizard
 Share

Recommended Posts

I read a blip here somewhere about "flat earth"..and earlier I read a thread elsewhere that used the "well, scientists used to believe the earth was flat, so they could be wrong about...."(fill in the blank with any current scientific theory)

 

How does one counter such statements? (the current thread I was reading had to do with dinos and the bible and man.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read a blip here somewhere about "flat earth"..and earlier I read a thread elsewhere that used the "well, scientists used to believe the earth was flat, so they could be wrong about...."(fill in the blank with any current scientific theory)

 

How does one counter such statements? (the current thread I was reading had to do with dinos and the bible and man.)

 

That's not true. Early scientists knew the Earth was round. Here's how: When you see a ship in the distance, you can only see the top part of it because of the curve of the Earth's surface. Men of learning understood this. It was the Church who fought to keep people ignorant.

 

Taph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lizard-

 

This is called an argument from ignorance. It implies that since it is not known whether scientists are wrong about Subject X, (because of some future evidence of which we are currently ignorant) then we can conclude that they are wrong. It's an informal fallacy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a modern fabrication that the church or anyone used to believe the earth was flat:

 

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/history/1997Russell.html

 

Thanks for the info Antlerman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Greek scientist Eratosthenes (lived in third century BC) calculated the circumference of the earth quite accurately. I got this from

 

http://www.livius.org/gi-gr/greeks/scientists.html

 

Eratosthenes "invented a new method to calculate prime numbers, drew a famous world map, catalogued several hundreds of stars, but became especially famous for his calculation of the circumference of the earth, based on the angle of the shadow that the sun made over a vertical pole at Alexandria at noon and the fact that at the same time, the sun light fell straight into a well at Syene in southern Egypt. He concluded that the circumference was 45,460 kilometers, which is pretty close to the real figure."

 

Scientists had already believed the earth was a sphere before Eratosthenes. It's in Plato, for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Antlerman and ficino..both of those links are immensely interesting! Thank you so much. Now I'm going to have to dig more into what the ancients did know..sure gives me a new perspective. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read a blip here somewhere about "flat earth"..and earlier I read a thread elsewhere that used the "well, scientists used to believe the earth was flat, so they could be wrong about...."(fill in the blank with any current scientific theory)

 

if any christians mentions this, just point out that it was christians(catholic and protestant) who were most opposed to the round and solar centric model of a universe.

 

This happened even till the last centuary, and even today it is christians who are flat-earthers.

 

Perhaps now would be right time to pose a question

 

"If the earth was round and not helio centric, how come the HS never informed "true" believers about the truth of the earth physical nature?"

 

Now the tables could be turned on them

 

"If christians who were under the influence of the HS were wrong about the flat earth, then they could be also wrong about the creationism"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Antlerman and ficino..both of those links are immensely interesting! Thank you so much. Now I'm going to have to dig more into what the ancients did know..sure gives me a new perspective. :)

Yeah, it did to me too to realize that it was never about a non-spherical earth, but the argument in Columbus’s day was really, and more reasonably, about how far it was around the earth. Columbus actually was wrong, and lucked out to have hit the Americas.

 

It's ironic to have always understood this as real history, since being taught this fiction in school as a kid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I was in college my friends all went to a barbecue at one girl's house. Her aged grandmother from Sicily, who spoke very little English, was there nodding benignly. Somehow the topic of flat vs. round earth came up. Nonna Santoli said the earth was flat. Some of my fellow students tried to argue it is round. Then her face lit up and she said, "yes, round like pancake."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting. Makes me wonder what these dodo heads think of pictures taken from space showing an obviously spherical Earth. Do they write it off as Satan magically altering photos to deceive believers or what? :shrug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting. Makes me wonder what these dodo heads think of pictures taken from space showing an obviously spherical Earth. Do they write it off as Satan magically altering photos to deceive believers or what? :shrug:

Isn't there a group that believes the moon landings were faked? I'm not sure if they claim to be Christian, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Humans are imperfect, which is why we have a systematic method to acquire and refine knowledge in the first place. To use imperfection, the foundation of why human epistemology is necessary, to do away with epistemology itself misses the point of knowledge entirely.

 

Everyone will be wrong sometime, but the measure of human integrity is how you react to your mistake. Scientists admit their mistakes and refine their understanding of nature, priests either hand-wave and claim they were right all along, or play the "well you don't know for SURE" card. It's the difference between honest inquiry and copping out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't there a group that believes the moon landings were faked? I'm not sure if they claim to be Christian, though.

 

I don't think it's a "group" really, and they're not specifically Christians, merely just as dumb. I'm sure, however, that many fundies sieze upon the "Apollo Hoax" theory with gusto.

 

If I remember correctly, the whole hoax thing got a big boost from a Fox TV special of many years ago that purported to show how the landings were faked. The weak-minded evidence they used was almost immediately debunked in exacting detail. But, of course, stupid people don't pay attention to such things... According to a recent poll, over 30% of Americans believed (based mostly on that TV show and follow-up moronic websites) that the moon landings were faked.

 

Which means... more Americans believe in the virgin birth of Jesus than believe we actually landed on the moon in 1969. Is it any wonder that science education is in trouble?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the people that believe that we never landed on the moon, believe in wierd conspiracy theories and are paranoid about the power of the government and the media.

I do think some conspiracy theories may have some validity, like the Skull & Bones Society.

However, too many people would have had to be in on a huge hoax like traveling to the moon.

 

Taph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read a blip here somewhere about "flat earth"..and earlier I read a thread elsewhere that used the "well, scientists used to believe the earth was flat, so they could be wrong about...."(fill in the blank with any current scientific theory)

 

How does one counter such statements? (the current thread I was reading had to do with dinos and the bible and man.)

 

It was not accepted knowledge that the earth is Ellipsoid Elongate until about the 4th or 5th centuries BCE, and then it was only known among the seafarers and intellectual elites, particularly among the Greeks. It was not commonly accepted until much, much later, of course. That's why we get the often overplayed myths about Columbus' fears that he would sail off the edge of the earth (some thought this, not Columbus it seems!).

 

Yes, there was a time when science was young and didn't know such things, but science has a benefit no religion has...

 

What separates the claims of science and religion is not accuracy, per se, but the ability of self-correction. Religion's errors are immortalized forever while those who live by the progressive knowledge of science enjoy the continued benefit of newer, fresher knowledge. This is a "one up" for science since it can eradicate past mistakes and errors while religion is pretty much stuck!

 

If it is objected that it is a fault of science that it changes then I emphasize that life litself changes, and as new data arrives, this will invalidate older finds and help us to draw better conclusions. In truth, it is amazing just how much scientific data remains valid and is added to man's collective knowledge. Very little science ends up being trash theory like the old Darwinian recapitulation idea of the late 1800's.

 

The believer wants certainty, but life doesn't offer it infallibly so. All we can do is live and learn. That's all anyone can do. Newer knowledge will always replace older knowledge. It will be this way until the end of our species. Science is amazing. It predicts and provides for so much. It saves lives all the time. It is man's best tool, along with reason, to forge his own way in the world. We have what we have and science is the greatest help so far!

 

(JH)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't there a group that believes the moon landings were faked? I'm not sure if they claim to be Christian, though.

Which means... more Americans believe in the virgin birth of Jesus than believe we actually landed on the moon in 1969. Is it any wonder that science education is in trouble?

 

That's really sad that our society is so ignorant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.