So... Do we have any Flat Earthers here?

Where Fellowship and Camaraderie lives: that place where the CPS membership values fun and good fellowship as the cement of the community
User avatar
UncleBob
CPS Theological Dogmatician
CPS Theological Dogmatician
Posts: 32285
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Lubbock, TX USA
Contact:

Re: So... Do we have any Flat Earthers here?

Post by UncleBob » Mon Feb 01, 2016 8:42 am

This is awesome: BETTER AND FLATTER EARTHS. Can You Speak Venusian?
As I write these words, I am sitting in my quiet study in Sussex, England, looking out
over the rose-garden towards the belt of trees which shields us from the sea. There is the
gentle breeze so familiar in Selsey, but nothing more. Yet it has been claimed that if the
Earth were spinning round, as conventional scientists claim, there would be a howling
gale all the time.

To see just how this theory works, we must go back almost two thousand years - in fact
to the second century A.D., when the most famous scientist in the world was Claudius
Ptolemaus, better known as Ptolemy. We know very little about his life, except that he
flourished from around A.D. 120 to 180; that he lived in Alexandria, and that he belonged
to the Greek school of thought. I-le was an expert astronomer and mathematician, and
also a geographer; his map of the known world was remarkably good, even though he did
join Scotland on to England in a sort of back-to-front position. Also, he wrote books.
Much of our knowledge of ancient science is due to him, because, by a miracle, his books
have come down to us – even though only by way of their Arab translations

A few earlier Greeks, such as Aristarchus of Samos, had taught that the Earth is a planet
moving round the Sun, and that it rotates on its axis. Ptolemy could not bring himself to
accept this secondary role for the Earth, even though he was quite prepared to believe that
the world is a globe. His reason was quite straightforward. If the Earth is whirling round,
and the atmosphere is not whirling with it, the result will be constant, violent wind - just
as you can experience today if you stand up in an open car which is traveling along the
motorway at 60 m.p.h...
"One man's theology is another man's belly laugh." - Robert A. Heinlein

"Many of the points here, taken to their logical conclusions, don't hold up to logic; they're simply Godded-up ways of saying "I don't like that." - Skip

User avatar
Del
Hacked by Kellyanne Conway
Hacked by Kellyanne Conway
Posts: 35649
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: So... Do we have any Flat Earthers here?

Post by Del » Mon Feb 01, 2016 9:38 am

Rusty wrote:
Onyx wrote:If the Flat Earthers don't own-up, I'm gonna have to start naming names.
Oh go ahead; I dare you. It's a pre-Woofy notion.
Hint: They use terms like sun-rise and sun-set. Those are flat Earth terms. They say FES a lot. They also say RET, with derision.
But... The whole problem of Australia is tantalizing. Are they really down under? And please, pray tell, under what?

1) Presume Australia is on the top side of the flat Earth, then Earth may be a disk with the N. pole at the centre and the S.Pole is smeared around as the distant horizon for everyone and marks the edge. There is no S. pole. That probably means that Australia is whirling faster than us. Are you dizzy? But they're clearly not down under anything.

2) Presume that Australia is on the reverse side of the disk. The under side or the dark side. Why did they call it deepest darkest Africa? Because it too is on the reverse side. The South Pole is at the center of the under-side. Then down under makes some sense. Yes? Is Hades Australia? Hmmm.. Does Australia have lots of nasty dangerous creatures that might have been exiled to Hades? BTW why are you named Onyx?

I think there should be more evidence. Onyx, when you're standing, facing the edge, which way is the Earth turning? Toss a ball straight up and see whether it lands on one side or the other.
Time zones need a little work. What about seasons? Onyx is in summer. When it is light here; it is dark there.
Australians like to visit Europe & America & Canada because they don't have to walk around on their hands while they are here.
"Utter frogshit from start to finish." - Onyx

"Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you." - Eph 4

User avatar
tuttle
Brother of the Briar
Brother of the Briar
Posts: 11987
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: So... Do we have any Flat Earthers here?

Post by tuttle » Mon Feb 01, 2016 9:58 am

Onyx wrote:Seems like I keep hearing about this. I'm guessing it's about 23% on CPS.
Coming to this thread hot off the heels of your ribbing reminiscing about my "flat-earth" theories...I'm curious if you are using the term 'flat earth' quite literally or are you indicating more or less alternative views upon certain scientific claims? I don't believe the earth is flat but I do hold to some alternative views upon certain scientific claims (which is what I assumed you were generalizing in that thread...)
"You're my kind of stupid" -Mal Reynolds

"Better to die cheerfully with the aid of a little tobacco, than to live disagreeably and remorseful without." -CS Lewis

The Reformation Drinking Song

TNLawPiper
BrotherOfTheBriar YouHeartlessBastards
BrotherOfTheBriar YouHeartlessBastards
Posts: 16942
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 6:00 pm

Re: So... Do we have any Flat Earthers here?

Post by TNLawPiper » Mon Feb 01, 2016 10:10 am

hogleg wrote:Isaiah 40:21-22 --- Have ye not known? Have ye not heard? Hath it not been told you from the beginning? Have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth? 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:

Job 26:7 ---7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.
Are you saying the Bible says it's flat?

User avatar
Hovannes
one lone Wollensak
one lone Wollensak
Posts: 21945
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 6:00 pm
Location: In the fertile San Joaquin Valley

Re: So... Do we have any Flat Earthers here?

Post by Hovannes » Mon Feb 01, 2016 12:24 pm


User avatar
Onyx
Darth Onyx, Bringer of Unity
Darth Onyx, Bringer of Unity
Posts: 10802
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Skeptopolis

Re: So... Do we have any Flat Earthers here?

Post by Onyx » Mon Feb 01, 2016 3:18 pm

tuttle wrote:
Onyx wrote:Seems like I keep hearing about this. I'm guessing it's about 23% on CPS.
Coming to this thread hot off the heels of your ribbing reminiscing about my "flat-earth" theories...I'm curious if you are using the term 'flat earth' quite literally or are you indicating more or less alternative views upon certain scientific claims? I don't believe the earth is flat but I do hold to some alternative views upon certain scientific claims (which is what I assumed you were generalizing in that thread...)
Ha. Yeah, that's another thing. Young Earth, Flat Earth. Same wrong. Flat Earth is just a small enough minority to be cute. I have sympathy, but wrong is wrong.
4. No more signatures that quote other CPS members.
-- Thunktank

User avatar
UncleBob
CPS Theological Dogmatician
CPS Theological Dogmatician
Posts: 32285
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Lubbock, TX USA
Contact:

Re: So... Do we have any Flat Earthers here?

Post by UncleBob » Mon Feb 01, 2016 3:21 pm

Onyx wrote:
tuttle wrote:
Onyx wrote:Seems like I keep hearing about this. I'm guessing it's about 23% on CPS.
Coming to this thread hot off the heels of your ribbing reminiscing about my "flat-earth" theories...I'm curious if you are using the term 'flat earth' quite literally or are you indicating more or less alternative views upon certain scientific claims? I don't believe the earth is flat but I do hold to some alternative views upon certain scientific claims (which is what I assumed you were generalizing in that thread...)
Ha. Yeah, that's another thing. Young Earth, Flat Earth. Same wrong. Flat Earth is just a small enough minority to be cute. I have sympathy, but wrong is wrong.
I am tempted to join just for the membership card and the newsletter.
"One man's theology is another man's belly laugh." - Robert A. Heinlein

"Many of the points here, taken to their logical conclusions, don't hold up to logic; they're simply Godded-up ways of saying "I don't like that." - Skip

User avatar
tuttle
Brother of the Briar
Brother of the Briar
Posts: 11987
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: So... Do we have any Flat Earthers here?

Post by tuttle » Mon Feb 01, 2016 3:38 pm

Onyx wrote:
tuttle wrote:
Onyx wrote:Seems like I keep hearing about this. I'm guessing it's about 23% on CPS.
Coming to this thread hot off the heels of your ribbing reminiscing about my "flat-earth" theories...I'm curious if you are using the term 'flat earth' quite literally or are you indicating more or less alternative views upon certain scientific claims? I don't believe the earth is flat but I do hold to some alternative views upon certain scientific claims (which is what I assumed you were generalizing in that thread...)
Ha. Yeah, that's another thing. Young Earth, Flat Earth. Same wrong. Flat Earth is just a small enough minority to be cute. I have sympathy, but wrong is wrong.
Not the same wrong, because they are not the same theory. But perhaps the same condescension?

I'm not young earth (as is commonly understood) either.
"You're my kind of stupid" -Mal Reynolds

"Better to die cheerfully with the aid of a little tobacco, than to live disagreeably and remorseful without." -CS Lewis

The Reformation Drinking Song

User avatar
Thunktank
Terminal Lance. Perpetual Sea Lawyer. Unicorn Aficionado
Terminal Lance.  Perpetual Sea Lawyer. Unicorn Aficionado
Posts: 20857
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Ad Orientem

Re: So... Do we have any Flat Earthers here?

Post by Thunktank » Mon Feb 01, 2016 3:52 pm

UncleBob wrote:
Onyx wrote:
tuttle wrote:
Onyx wrote:Seems like I keep hearing about this. I'm guessing it's about 23% on CPS.
Coming to this thread hot off the heels of your ribbing reminiscing about my "flat-earth" theories...I'm curious if you are using the term 'flat earth' quite literally or are you indicating more or less alternative views upon certain scientific claims? I don't believe the earth is flat but I do hold to some alternative views upon certain scientific claims (which is what I assumed you were generalizing in that thread...)
Ha. Yeah, that's another thing. Young Earth, Flat Earth. Same wrong. Flat Earth is just a small enough minority to be cute. I have sympathy, but wrong is wrong.
I am tempted to join just for the membership card and the newsletter.
Do they have an ordination program?

User avatar
UncleBob
CPS Theological Dogmatician
CPS Theological Dogmatician
Posts: 32285
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Lubbock, TX USA
Contact:

Re: So... Do we have any Flat Earthers here?

Post by UncleBob » Mon Feb 01, 2016 3:59 pm

Thunktank wrote:
UncleBob wrote:
Onyx wrote:
tuttle wrote:
Onyx wrote:Seems like I keep hearing about this. I'm guessing it's about 23% on CPS.
Coming to this thread hot off the heels of your ribbing reminiscing about my "flat-earth" theories...I'm curious if you are using the term 'flat earth' quite literally or are you indicating more or less alternative views upon certain scientific claims? I don't believe the earth is flat but I do hold to some alternative views upon certain scientific claims (which is what I assumed you were generalizing in that thread...)
Ha. Yeah, that's another thing. Young Earth, Flat Earth. Same wrong. Flat Earth is just a small enough minority to be cute. I have sympathy, but wrong is wrong.
I am tempted to join just for the membership card and the newsletter.
Do they have an ordination program?
Sadly, not that I know of. You can join here: http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublons ... ociety.htm
"One man's theology is another man's belly laugh." - Robert A. Heinlein

"Many of the points here, taken to their logical conclusions, don't hold up to logic; they're simply Godded-up ways of saying "I don't like that." - Skip

User avatar
UncleBob
CPS Theological Dogmatician
CPS Theological Dogmatician
Posts: 32285
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Lubbock, TX USA
Contact:

Re: So... Do we have any Flat Earthers here?

Post by UncleBob » Mon Feb 01, 2016 4:01 pm

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublons ... ociety.htm
Argument One - Experimental confirmation of the Earth's rigidity in space

1) The ether factor

In classical physics, ether was assumed to be a ephemeral substance which permeated all matter. This omnipresent medium was that through which visible light and other electromagnetic waves were supposed to have traveled. It was assumed to have qualities which now seem rather bizarre - too bizarre, in fact, to be allowed to exist, by Efimovich's teachings. So in 1887, two American scientists, operating under the Efimovich-based assumption that the Earth was moving through outer space and not the fixed center of the Universe, conducted an experiment to "prove" whether or not ether actually existed.

In this experiment, the general idea was to try to calculate the absolute speed of the earth relative to the fixed ether. In a sense, they would emit a light pulse, and calculate how far it "trailed" behind the earth, much like tossing a napkin out the window of a moving car to calculate the car's speed. It was assumed that, if ether existed, the light pulse would fall back in one direction, giving the physicists a tangible "absolute" speed of the earth. Their calculated speed: Zero.

Yes, scientists Albert A. Michelson and Edward W. Morley were baffled by this, wondering how the Earth could be sitting in one spot, while every aspect of the teachings of Grigori Efimovich indicated that the planet must be orbiting its own sun, and therefore must be moving at least with a critical orbital velocity. Moving quickly to avoid having to admit that they were wrong, they were able to instead "infer" from their results that the ether must not exist, and that light must propagate through no medium at all (impossible for a wave by the very definition of a wave). Their inference was generally accepted by the scientific community (save a few notable exceptions, including Hendrik A. Lorentz) and the "ridiculous" notion of ether was thrown out.

But light waves would still require a medium for transmission, and the actual purpose of the experiment was to determine the existence of that medium. The results speak for themselves: the Earth does not move. And even if the Earth did, the problems inherent in keeping it moving through this light medium called ether are overwhelmingly supportive of "Flat-Earth" theory.
Gold.
"One man's theology is another man's belly laugh." - Robert A. Heinlein

"Many of the points here, taken to their logical conclusions, don't hold up to logic; they're simply Godded-up ways of saying "I don't like that." - Skip

User avatar
FredS
Really, really likes watching kids fish.
Really, really likes watching kids fish.
Posts: 19259
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 6:00 pm
Location: Kansas City

Re: So... Do we have any Flat Earthers here?

Post by FredS » Mon Feb 01, 2016 4:02 pm

TNLawPiper wrote:
hogleg wrote:Isaiah 40:21-22 --- Have ye not known? Have ye not heard? Hath it not been told you from the beginning? Have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth? 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:

Job 26:7 ---7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.
Are you saying the Bible says it's flat?
You know when Psalm 103 says "He has removed our sins as far from us as the east is from the west."? Well if the earth isn't flat that means that our sins would meet up exactly half way 'round the world from where the psalmist was. That's right, all the sins of the world meet up in . . .Houston, TX.
"If we ever get to heaven boys, it aint because we aint done nothin' wrong" - Kris Kristofferson

"One of the things I love about CPS is the frank and enthusiastic dysfunction here. God help me, I do love it so." – OldWorldSwine

"I'd like to put a hook in that puppet and swing it through a bunch of salmon!" - durangopipe

User avatar
UncleBob
CPS Theological Dogmatician
CPS Theological Dogmatician
Posts: 32285
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Lubbock, TX USA
Contact:

Re: So... Do we have any Flat Earthers here?

Post by UncleBob » Mon Feb 01, 2016 4:03 pm

Argument Two - Difficulties with the model: incorporating an Efimovich-type model with the known Universe

1) Maintaining speed

In the Efimovich model, the planet Earth is supposed to be a large, spherical shaped ball of rock flying through space at hundreds of thousands of miles per hour. But how could the Earth continue to move at the same speed for as long a time as the "round Earthers" say that it has existed for; namely, several billion years. If outer space were a vacuum, then there would be no problem. But space is not a vacuum, it is instead filled with ether. The earth would have to have been pushing its way through the ether for all those billions of years. Shouldn't it have slowed somewhere along the line? What would keep the Earth from grinding down to a stop at some point on the Efimovichian timeline?

2) An accelerating world

A second critical piece to the Efimovich model is that the Earth is not the center of the solar system either. It is, according to "round Earth" theory, orbiting the sun at a radius of around five-hundred million kilometers. Were this the case, the Earth would be an accelerated object in circular motion around its sun. And thereby are the problems introduced. The Earth accelerating in circular motion would behave no differently than would a car taking a corner: loose objects (humans and animals would act like loose change or a cup of coffee on the dashboard) would slide around, or be thrown off completely. There would be an apparent centrifugal force on everything. During the day, when things would be facing the sun and therefore on the inside of the "orbit", buildings would be crushed and humans beings squashed like grasshoppers in a centrifuge. And at night, when everything would be at the outside, trees and buildings would be ripped from the ground and flung into outer space, and humans wouldn't stand a chance. Obviously, there is a flaw in Efimovich's "orbit" theory.
"One man's theology is another man's belly laugh." - Robert A. Heinlein

"Many of the points here, taken to their logical conclusions, don't hold up to logic; they're simply Godded-up ways of saying "I don't like that." - Skip

User avatar
UncleBob
CPS Theological Dogmatician
CPS Theological Dogmatician
Posts: 32285
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Lubbock, TX USA
Contact:

Re: So... Do we have any Flat Earthers here?

Post by UncleBob » Mon Feb 01, 2016 4:05 pm

Argument Three - The impossibilities of holding unsecured objects in place on a curved surface

1) Staying on top

Once again, picture in your mind a round world. Now imagine that there are two people on this world, one at each pole. For the person at the top of the world, (the North Pole), gravity is pulling him down, towards the South Pole. But for the person at the South Pole, shouldn't gravity pull him down as well? What keeps our person at the South Pole from falling completely off the face of the "globe"?

2) Falling off

As we begin to make this argument, we acknowledge beforehand that we are aware of the property of matter known as friction. Yes, we realize that whenever two surfaces are held together by any force there will be a static frictional force that will resist any motion by either surface in any direction other than parallel to the force. The example we are using is an extreme situation, and would involve the object in question to travel a considerable distance (tens of degrees of latitude) from the "top" of the planet.

Using the "round Earth" theory, setting an object on the earth would be like setting grains of sand on a beach ball. Certainly a few grains would stay - right around the top, the surface is nearly horizontal - but when you stray too far from the absolute top of the ball, the grains of sand start sliding off and falling onto the ground. The Earth, if round, should behave in exactly the same fashion. Because the top is a very localized region on a sphere, if the Earth were in fact round, there would be only a very small area of land that would be at all inhabitable. Stray to the outside fringes of the "safe zone", and you start walking at a tilt. The further out you go, the more you slant, until your very survival is determined by the tread on your boots. Reach a certain point, and you slide off the face of the planet entirely. Obviously, something is wrong.

In order to avoid the aforementioned scenario, (which obviously is inaccurate, as you very rarely hear of people falling off the face of the planet) we are forced to assume that, in the "round Earth" theory, there would be a gravitational field radiating from the center of the planet. All objects, be they rocks, insects, humans, or other planets would have, under Efimovich's theory, have a gravitational "charge" that would, under a certain alignment, cause them to be attracted to the center of the Earth. Unfortunately, like a magnet in a stronger magnetic field, it would undoubtedly require a long time to re-align an object's gravitational charge, were this the case. And so we go to argument four, which deals with difficulties in having different "downs" for different people.
"One man's theology is another man's belly laugh." - Robert A. Heinlein

"Many of the points here, taken to their logical conclusions, don't hold up to logic; they're simply Godded-up ways of saying "I don't like that." - Skip

User avatar
UncleBob
CPS Theological Dogmatician
CPS Theological Dogmatician
Posts: 32285
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Lubbock, TX USA
Contact:

Re: So... Do we have any Flat Earthers here?

Post by UncleBob » Mon Feb 01, 2016 4:05 pm

Argument Four - Paradoxes associated with an inconsistent down direction

1) Negotiating long-distance travel

Now imagine, if only for the sake of argument, that the person on top and the person on bottom can both manage to remain attracted to the ground "below" them. What would happen if the person on one side decided to visit the other? Since the man at the North Pole has a different idea of what is down and up (and in fact experiences an opposite pull from the Earth's gravity) than the person at the South Pole does, when the denizen of the frozen Arctic visits his Antarctic counterpart, they will experience gravitational pulls exactly opposite of each other! The human from the North Pole will "fall up", never returning to the ground, and will continue falling forever into the deep void of outer space!

Looking at the feasibility of Efimovich's teachings cannot remain limited to examining small, solid objects such as human beings. A true analysis of his work must incorporate natural phenomena and how their existence is either explained or made difficult by each of the theories. In the next argument against the "round-Earth" theory, we will be analyzing the existence of two extremely commonplace (yet altogether unfeasible under the ramifications of having a round planet) non-solids: the atmosphere and the oceans.
"One man's theology is another man's belly laugh." - Robert A. Heinlein

"Many of the points here, taken to their logical conclusions, don't hold up to logic; they're simply Godded-up ways of saying "I don't like that." - Skip

User avatar
UncleBob
CPS Theological Dogmatician
CPS Theological Dogmatician
Posts: 32285
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Lubbock, TX USA
Contact:

Re: So... Do we have any Flat Earthers here?

Post by UncleBob » Mon Feb 01, 2016 4:06 pm

Argument Five - Difficulties in maintaining a functional Earth-bound atmosphere and ocean

1) The fluid problem

Water. Regardless of which train of thought you follow, it covers over seventy-five percent of our planet's surface. And the atmosphere, also a fluid, covers the entire surface. The difference is why. While flat-Earthers know that the ocean is really just a large bowl, (with great sheets of ice around the edges to hold the ocean back), and the atmosphere is contained by a large dome, the backwards "round-Earth" way of thinking would have you believe that all those trillions of gallons of water and air just "stick" to the planet's surface.

Conventional thinking would suggest that the water would just run down the sides of the Earth (to use the analogy again, like droplets running down the sides of a beach ball) and fall into outer space, while the air would dissipate. Using the earlier mentioned idea of "gravitational charge" gives some credibility to the theory. If the fluids were static, then exposure to the gravitational field for a long enough period of time would allow their molecules to align themselves with and be pulled in by the field.

But fluids are not static, especially not in the atmosphere and oceans. Great ocean currents run both at the surface and deep below, carrying water across huge basins, keeping the solution far from stagnant. Jet streams of air travel at hundreds of miles per hour through the atmosphere. And windblown rainclouds carry vast quantities of evaporated seawater across miles of ground, releasing their load far from its starting point. Water or air that (according to "round-Earth" theory) starts on one side of the planet could end up completely on the other side in a matter of only a few days. With all this turbulence and motion, if the world were round, the oceans should all fall "down" into the sky, leaving the planet dry and barren, and the atmosphere would simply float away. Why, just look at the moon. It is round, like a ball, and yet it has no atmosphere at all.

2) Thermodynamic complications

Taking into account the "gravitational charge" analogy once more, and assuming that for some reason the atmosphere was able to align itself with the new direction of the theoretical "gravitational field", we are faced with a new problem involving another branch of physics known as thermodynamics.

Obviously, the world is static, the fixed center of the Universe. The sun, planets and stars all revolve around it (although not necessarily in circular paths), in a plane level with the flat Earth.
"One man's theology is another man's belly laugh." - Robert A. Heinlein

"Many of the points here, taken to their logical conclusions, don't hold up to logic; they're simply Godded-up ways of saying "I don't like that." - Skip

User avatar
Onyx
Darth Onyx, Bringer of Unity
Darth Onyx, Bringer of Unity
Posts: 10802
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Skeptopolis

Re: So... Do we have any Flat Earthers here?

Post by Onyx » Mon Feb 01, 2016 4:11 pm

tuttle wrote:
Onyx wrote:
tuttle wrote:
Onyx wrote:Seems like I keep hearing about this. I'm guessing it's about 23% on CPS.
Coming to this thread hot off the heels of your ribbing reminiscing about my "flat-earth" theories...I'm curious if you are using the term 'flat earth' quite literally or are you indicating more or less alternative views upon certain scientific claims? I don't believe the earth is flat but I do hold to some alternative views upon certain scientific claims (which is what I assumed you were generalizing in that thread...)
Ha. Yeah, that's another thing. Young Earth, Flat Earth. Same wrong. Flat Earth is just a small enough minority to be cute. I have sympathy, but wrong is wrong.
Not the same wrong, because they are not the same theory. But perhaps the same condescension?

I'm not young earth (as is commonly understood) either.
Yeah, perhaps the same condescension. Like I said, I have sympathy.

And, OK, not identical wrong, but wrong in the same way. I mean this... If you are personally capable of doing the science, you will find that you agree with the established theory in either case. (There is a minute exception in the case of scientists who are also religious fundamentalists). If you are not personally capable of doing the science, or you have not read the balance of research, then you would be silly to pick a fight with the thousands of scientists who are. In that respect, it is the same wrong.
4. No more signatures that quote other CPS members.
-- Thunktank

User avatar
hugodrax
All Around Nice Guy
All Around Nice Guy
Posts: 14612
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: So... Do we have any Flat Earthers here?

Post by hugodrax » Mon Feb 01, 2016 4:16 pm

Thunktank wrote:
UncleBob wrote:
Onyx wrote:
tuttle wrote:
Onyx wrote:Seems like I keep hearing about this. I'm guessing it's about 23% on CPS.
Coming to this thread hot off the heels of your ribbing reminiscing about my "flat-earth" theories...I'm curious if you are using the term 'flat earth' quite literally or are you indicating more or less alternative views upon certain scientific claims? I don't believe the earth is flat but I do hold to some alternative views upon certain scientific claims (which is what I assumed you were generalizing in that thread...)
Ha. Yeah, that's another thing. Young Earth, Flat Earth. Same wrong. Flat Earth is just a small enough minority to be cute. I have sympathy, but wrong is wrong.
I am tempted to join just for the membership card and the newsletter.
Do they have an ordination program?[/quote?]

No, but they do really prefer that their members genuinely enjoy annoying others. I'm in if you are.
Etiam mihi opinio anserem perirent.

User avatar
UncleBob
CPS Theological Dogmatician
CPS Theological Dogmatician
Posts: 32285
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Lubbock, TX USA
Contact:

Re: So... Do we have any Flat Earthers here?

Post by UncleBob » Mon Feb 01, 2016 4:19 pm

Onyx wrote:
tuttle wrote:
Onyx wrote:
tuttle wrote:
Onyx wrote:Seems like I keep hearing about this. I'm guessing it's about 23% on CPS.
Coming to this thread hot off the heels of your ribbing reminiscing about my "flat-earth" theories...I'm curious if you are using the term 'flat earth' quite literally or are you indicating more or less alternative views upon certain scientific claims? I don't believe the earth is flat but I do hold to some alternative views upon certain scientific claims (which is what I assumed you were generalizing in that thread...)
Ha. Yeah, that's another thing. Young Earth, Flat Earth. Same wrong. Flat Earth is just a small enough minority to be cute. I have sympathy, but wrong is wrong.
Not the same wrong, because they are not the same theory. But perhaps the same condescension?

I'm not young earth (as is commonly understood) either.
Yeah, perhaps the same condescension. Like I said, I have sympathy.

And, OK, not identical wrong, but wrong in the same way. I mean this... If you are personally capable of doing the science, you will find that you agree with the established theory in either case. (There is a minute exception in the case of scientists who are also religious fundamentalists). If you are not personally capable of doing the science, or you have not read the balance of research, then you would be silly to pick a fight with the thousands of scientists who are. In that respect, it is the same wrong.
Onyx, I love you brother but is that an Argumentum ad populum I see in there?
"One man's theology is another man's belly laugh." - Robert A. Heinlein

"Many of the points here, taken to their logical conclusions, don't hold up to logic; they're simply Godded-up ways of saying "I don't like that." - Skip

User avatar
UncleBob
CPS Theological Dogmatician
CPS Theological Dogmatician
Posts: 32285
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Lubbock, TX USA
Contact:

Re: So... Do we have any Flat Earthers here?

Post by UncleBob » Mon Feb 01, 2016 4:21 pm

hugodrax wrote:
Thunktank wrote:
UncleBob wrote:
Onyx wrote:
tuttle wrote:
Onyx wrote:Seems like I keep hearing about this. I'm guessing it's about 23% on CPS.
Coming to this thread hot off the heels of your ribbing reminiscing about my "flat-earth" theories...I'm curious if you are using the term 'flat earth' quite literally or are you indicating more or less alternative views upon certain scientific claims? I don't believe the earth is flat but I do hold to some alternative views upon certain scientific claims (which is what I assumed you were generalizing in that thread...)
Ha. Yeah, that's another thing. Young Earth, Flat Earth. Same wrong. Flat Earth is just a small enough minority to be cute. I have sympathy, but wrong is wrong.
I am tempted to join just for the membership card and the newsletter.
Do they have an ordination program?[/quote?]

No, but they do really prefer that their members genuinely enjoy annoying others. I'm in if you are.
LOL! Would CPS be able to survive it?
"One man's theology is another man's belly laugh." - Robert A. Heinlein

"Many of the points here, taken to their logical conclusions, don't hold up to logic; they're simply Godded-up ways of saying "I don't like that." - Skip

Post Reply