Is The Earth Flat Or Round?
- Thread starter seed_time_harvest
- Start date
-
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.
Just happening upon this post and I agree with you. I have asked people how they can't see God's hand in the universe. A common response seems to be is that it took a long time for the universe to organize itself into an orderly state with neat solar systems and spiral galaxies. I think it's helpful to have good responses to that.
The best response, I believe, is that the universe has many laws of physics whereby an orderly state is even possible. If this is all random then it's statistically impossible to even have the kind of universe we have. There are many statistically anomalous properties to the universe.
At some point these aren't coincidences anymore. This is intelligent design.
The best response, I believe, is that the universe has many laws of physics whereby an orderly state is even possible. If this is all random then it's statistically impossible to even have the kind of universe we have. There are many statistically anomalous properties to the universe.
At some point these aren't coincidences anymore. This is intelligent design.
-
2
- Show all
Indeed, the more recent discoveries of just how finely tuned our universe is, the more astonishing in how it looks orchestrated by a super intellect. There are only four forces, remarkably, that built and regulate our universe (gravity, electromagnetism, strong, weak). But their respective strengths are extremely critical to make things work at all. For example, a very tiny increase in the strength of gravity would have crushed the universe in its early seconds. A tiny decrease would prevent stars from forming.
Atheists were quick to reject Lemaitre's "Primeaval Atom" model -- the science that presented what we call the BBT. They were set on the view, as was Einstein originally, that the universe was static (fixed for eternity) and infinite. A "beginning" pointed directly to the first words of the Bible. To top it off, Lemaitre was a priest. But the evidence kept growing and science respects the scientific method, which kept revealing just how wonderous BBT truly is. There is no real competition to BBT, currently.
Atheists were quick to reject Lemaitre's "Primeaval Atom" model -- the science that presented what we call the BBT. They were set on the view, as was Einstein originally, that the universe was static (fixed for eternity) and infinite. A "beginning" pointed directly to the first words of the Bible. To top it off, Lemaitre was a priest. But the evidence kept growing and science respects the scientific method, which kept revealing just how wonderous BBT truly is. There is no real competition to BBT, currently.
-
2
- Show all
The circular shadow cast by the earth onto the moon... the changes of the constellations during the course of the year... the fact that shadows change length depending on your latitude... the fact that no one's fallen off the edge... the fact that Columbus discovered the Caribbean islands... the landing on the moon... Mars... Venus... Titan... the probes soaring a-ROUND and past planets and their moons... the freaking photos of the Earth from outer space!!!
The flat earth "model" is an extremely simplistic, childish one. The actual one based in reality shows a God who's incomprehensibly more vast in His abilities and intelligence than we humans could ever and will ever comprehend.
The flat earth "model" is an extremely simplistic, childish one. The actual one based in reality shows a God who's incomprehensibly more vast in His abilities and intelligence than we humans could ever and will ever comprehend.
-
1
- Show all
You're far more right than they like to admit. The Mulitiverse Theory fails to meet the scientific requirement for "theory". Every theory must allow for tests (i.e. falsification). If the model cannot be tested, it is supposition at best, not a hypothesis or theory.
I've noticed that many have dropped the "theory" part from "Multiverse theory", but simply say multiverse. This is a little more honest.
We can't even see all of our own universe, much less see regions that are beyond ours. The evidence suggests that there is no direction to look to get beyond the edge of our universe since all indications are there is no edge.
I've noticed that many have dropped the "theory" part from "Multiverse theory", but simply say multiverse. This is a little more honest.
We can't even see all of our own universe, much less see regions that are beyond ours. The evidence suggests that there is no direction to look to get beyond the edge of our universe since all indications are there is no edge.
-
1
- Show all
Right, and we know that the ancient Greeks knew all this. Erasthones measured the shadow lengths (angles) and calculated the circumference of our sphere to within about 80% of its true value. Aristarchus argued that the big Sun was the center of the "world", and Earth revolved around it.
This is why the FE model resides in Sillyville, and not able to get out. It's been there for over 2000 years, but people seem to enjoy visiting Sillyville. Making a home there is folly.
This is why the FE model resides in Sillyville, and not able to get out. It's been there for over 2000 years, but people seem to enjoy visiting Sillyville. Making a home there is folly.
A clock face is round and flat.
Honestly you don't need to know the shape of the Earth to know that heliocentric model is incorrect. You can conclude that the people pushing heliocentricism are liars and maliciously motivated. Since science is only the method of observation, we can formulate our own ideas based on the evidence.
Honestly you don't need to know the shape of the Earth to know that heliocentric model is incorrect. You can conclude that the people pushing heliocentricism are liars and maliciously motivated. Since science is only the method of observation, we can formulate our own ideas based on the evidence.
The geocentric model (Aristotle/Ptolemy/Thomist) worked well for about 2000 years, but since this model is a scientific model, it was one that was open to tests and falsification.
When Galileo discovered how to make a telescope with enough resolution to see planets, he found that Venus went through both crescent and gibbous phases. This revealed that Venus (and Mercury) were not orbiting Earth, but orbiting the Sun. A theory can be proven to be false, though never proven to be true. it took 2000 years to prove that geocentric model false. The Jesuits, who were the top scientists of their day, quickly verified Galileo's work and confirmed that the model was false. They, however, adopted the Tychonic model where the Sun and Moon orbit the fixed Earth, but everything else orbits the Sun. A modified version of this that adjusts for non-circular orbits and with varying speeds has never been falsified. But it is....silly.
Useless ugly talk.
Science is all about those formulations; it's not just a telescope with a camera.
When Galileo discovered how to make a telescope with enough resolution to see planets, he found that Venus went through both crescent and gibbous phases. This revealed that Venus (and Mercury) were not orbiting Earth, but orbiting the Sun. A theory can be proven to be false, though never proven to be true. it took 2000 years to prove that geocentric model false. The Jesuits, who were the top scientists of their day, quickly verified Galileo's work and confirmed that the model was false. They, however, adopted the Tychonic model where the Sun and Moon orbit the fixed Earth, but everything else orbits the Sun. A modified version of this that adjusts for non-circular orbits and with varying speeds has never been falsified. But it is....silly.
Useless ugly talk.
Science is all about those formulations; it's not just a telescope with a camera.
If you don't see the problem, then you better come to appreciate what any Christian can by opening their eyes. There is no intermediary between observations and conclusions, not Kepler, not Newton and not me, however, it does Christians no harm to re-discover their heritage in these matters that was vandalised by Newton as an Arian.
The first solar system researchers realised that particularly bright objects we now called planets wandered against the background field of stars-
https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap100613.html
These planets would be seen to move in one direction against the background stars, stop and then move backwards before returning to their original path. The original geocentric researchers thought these planets did a loop-the-loop motion called direct/retrograde motion which belonged to the planets themselves as seen from a stationary/geocentric Earth.
https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html
Copernicus in around 1412 or so, demonstrated that it was really a moving Earth overtaking the slower moving planets that created the observed direct/retrograde effect hence the Earth moves in a 365 orbital circuit between Mars and Venus whereas the older astronomers had the Sun move between those two planets-
" The 10th argument, taken from the periodic times, is as follows; the
apparent movement of the Sun has 365 days which is the mean measure
between Venus' period of 225 days and Mars' period of 687
days. Therefore does not the nature of things shout out loud that the
circuits in which those 365 days are taken up has a mean position
between the circuits of Mars and Venus around the Sun and thus this is
not the circuit of the Sun around the Earth -for none of the primary
planets has its orbit arranged around the Earth, as Brahe admits, but the
circuit of the Earth around the resting Sun, just as the other
planets, namely Mars and Venus,complete their own periods by running
around the Sun." Kepler
Christians shouldn't be afraid of what I am telling them when they make the effort with honesty and integrity expected through our love and faith. There is not the slightest opposition in any of this and it was always a part of the Christian heritage.
The first solar system researchers realised that particularly bright objects we now called planets wandered against the background field of stars-
https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap100613.html
These planets would be seen to move in one direction against the background stars, stop and then move backwards before returning to their original path. The original geocentric researchers thought these planets did a loop-the-loop motion called direct/retrograde motion which belonged to the planets themselves as seen from a stationary/geocentric Earth.
https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html
Copernicus in around 1412 or so, demonstrated that it was really a moving Earth overtaking the slower moving planets that created the observed direct/retrograde effect hence the Earth moves in a 365 orbital circuit between Mars and Venus whereas the older astronomers had the Sun move between those two planets-
" The 10th argument, taken from the periodic times, is as follows; the
apparent movement of the Sun has 365 days which is the mean measure
between Venus' period of 225 days and Mars' period of 687
days. Therefore does not the nature of things shout out loud that the
circuits in which those 365 days are taken up has a mean position
between the circuits of Mars and Venus around the Sun and thus this is
not the circuit of the Sun around the Earth -for none of the primary
planets has its orbit arranged around the Earth, as Brahe admits, but the
circuit of the Earth around the resting Sun, just as the other
planets, namely Mars and Venus,complete their own periods by running
around the Sun." Kepler
Christians shouldn't be afraid of what I am telling them when they make the effort with honesty and integrity expected through our love and faith. There is not the slightest opposition in any of this and it was always a part of the Christian heritage.
-
1
- Show all
Yep. The word "planet" is from the Greek planetai, which means "wandering star". These are mentioned in Jude 1: 13 (as a metaphor for those in darkness).
Yes. Multiple epicycles and an equant were applied to each planet to better predict where they would be over time. This was very important for calendar making, and for astrology, which was further used in medicine. But this was a math model, not a robust theory. There weren't real explanations for how planets would do what they do.
Yes, Copernicus came to the understanding that the retrograde motion of the planets was easily explained by our motion around the Sun relative to their motion around the Sun. It was simply an observational result that made far more sense than employing mythical epicycles.
As a church canon, Cop was hesitant to publish his main work, but many encouraged him including the Cardinal of Cusa. His 1543 publication did what was needed -- it unified all the observations. Unification is a big deal. We want all the pieces to fit, not just a few. Unfortunately, he stuck with perfect circles for the orbits, and fixed speeds, so his model wasn't much better in terms of accuracy.
Yes. Multiple epicycles and an equant were applied to each planet to better predict where they would be over time. This was very important for calendar making, and for astrology, which was further used in medicine. But this was a math model, not a robust theory. There weren't real explanations for how planets would do what they do.
Yes, Copernicus came to the understanding that the retrograde motion of the planets was easily explained by our motion around the Sun relative to their motion around the Sun. It was simply an observational result that made far more sense than employing mythical epicycles.
As a church canon, Cop was hesitant to publish his main work, but many encouraged him including the Cardinal of Cusa. His 1543 publication did what was needed -- it unified all the observations. Unification is a big deal. We want all the pieces to fit, not just a few. Unfortunately, he stuck with perfect circles for the orbits, and fixed speeds, so his model wasn't much better in terms of accuracy.
I understand struggling with the faith-vs-my-eyes thing. But... this is not one of those areas that conflicts with the gospel or with the creation story. And, the heliocentric model, if anything, proves that God is far, far greater than one who'd create an earth-centric universe, with a flat world as our home. Dear God -- forgive the Bidenism -- this is ridiculous.
One night (May 13, 2012), I was walking through South Pasadena, CA. I was coming to the close of my walk (~5 miles) near a fire station. I decided to whip out my iPhone with the StarWalk app to look for some spring constellations that I'd never spotted before, but knew they'd be in the night sky in May.
I started with Hercules. From there, I discovered Ophiuchus, and one other. I thought to myself, "I wish I could see these stars up close". But then, the thought occurred to me that I see a star up close every day: Our sun.
I do not know why, but this started to open up the sky for me. Suddenly, the sky overhead began to seem almost 2-and-one-half dimensional. Almost three-dimensional. Hearing a star is 500ly away is one thing. Starting to get some level of comprehension of what that means is quite another. It was like looking at 35mm photos of the Grand Canyon all my life... and then seeing it with my own eyes. Yikes.
The universe's vastness became more real to me than it ever had been. This started to terrify me. The hugeness was terrifying. I had to stop, but I realized if His creation is terrifying, how much more is God?!? This is why we cannot look at him face-to-face.
Contemplating the insanity of the sizes and distances, I thought, "And Yours is the mind behind that!!" I was drawn to my knees, on the concrete, at 11pm, and worshipped tearfully for more than an hour. I could not physically prostrate myself enough. It was profoundly humbling, but not uncomfortably so. In fact, it was freaking wonderful.
Sorry, our God does not create flat earths. He's far, far, far, far more imaginative and powerful than that.
One night (May 13, 2012), I was walking through South Pasadena, CA. I was coming to the close of my walk (~5 miles) near a fire station. I decided to whip out my iPhone with the StarWalk app to look for some spring constellations that I'd never spotted before, but knew they'd be in the night sky in May.
I started with Hercules. From there, I discovered Ophiuchus, and one other. I thought to myself, "I wish I could see these stars up close". But then, the thought occurred to me that I see a star up close every day: Our sun.
I do not know why, but this started to open up the sky for me. Suddenly, the sky overhead began to seem almost 2-and-one-half dimensional. Almost three-dimensional. Hearing a star is 500ly away is one thing. Starting to get some level of comprehension of what that means is quite another. It was like looking at 35mm photos of the Grand Canyon all my life... and then seeing it with my own eyes. Yikes.
The universe's vastness became more real to me than it ever had been. This started to terrify me. The hugeness was terrifying. I had to stop, but I realized if His creation is terrifying, how much more is God?!? This is why we cannot look at him face-to-face.
Contemplating the insanity of the sizes and distances, I thought, "And Yours is the mind behind that!!" I was drawn to my knees, on the concrete, at 11pm, and worshipped tearfully for more than an hour. I could not physically prostrate myself enough. It was profoundly humbling, but not uncomfortably so. In fact, it was freaking wonderful.
Sorry, our God does not create flat earths. He's far, far, far, far more imaginative and powerful than that.
-
1
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Science is the observation of experimentation and designing more experiments based on the results. I've seen every star in the sky flashing pink, green and blue simultaneously. Nowhere in any school or text book will you find that. You will find nonsense about stars being billions of years old and different colours but appearing to the naked eye as white dots. This simple fact alone is enough for me to know that their claims are deception. That's before I could use any hundreds of proofs you can find videos of.
You want me to believe that scientists are smart enough to tell me the shape of the Earth, it's age, etc. Yet I can watch people debunk the Earth's curvature with lasers or a telescope showing boats that don't disappear on the horizon.
I don't think the shape of the Earth is important to men, nor is it required for salvation. I just think it's funny that Christians would rather side with scientists than what God said. Not me.
It's not my responsibility to provide hundreds of links to websites and videos of people proving that heliocentricism is satanic garbage. I'm glad that God reveals things to me, even more so when you insult me and get thumbs up emoji garbage all over your posts.
You want me to believe that scientists are smart enough to tell me the shape of the Earth, it's age, etc. Yet I can watch people debunk the Earth's curvature with lasers or a telescope showing boats that don't disappear on the horizon.
I don't think the shape of the Earth is important to men, nor is it required for salvation. I just think it's funny that Christians would rather side with scientists than what God said. Not me.
It's not my responsibility to provide hundreds of links to websites and videos of people proving that heliocentricism is satanic garbage. I'm glad that God reveals things to me, even more so when you insult me and get thumbs up emoji garbage all over your posts.
-
1
- Show all