what makes you believe the world is round?

Seeing as I would guess none of us here have been to space and seen the earth from up there, why do we believe the world is round?

It's now common knowledge that the world is round that gravity exists. These things are Truth's.

Yet when we talk about evolution which is as much as a scientific truth as the world being round and gravity, why is there so much debate on the subject, when so much scientific evidence is there to support it?

reply to post by woodwardjnr

---

Well, apart from the vast amount of images from space and satelites, science and physics and the countless pilots and captains who have sailed/flown around the world and never mentioned an 'edge' or tipping point...

Nothing i guess.

YouTube Link

^ for the round earth theory of yours lol.

Evolution, still isn't completely complete.

It's a bit deeper then you think. People want evidence, that really is quite absurd, such as saying, I will not believe there is a black hole, till I see one up close, with my own eyes! lol.

[edit on 13-10-2009 by Republican08]

It's more a question of why we believe certain scientific truths than others. I could argue that evolution is a scientific truth, but 50% of people on this board would disagree despite the evidence.

[edit on 13-10-2009 by woodwardjnr]

It's a theory yes.

But then again, 50% of the people on here (rounding that) believe we just bombed the poor ole moon people.

The moon is round, the sun is round.

Everything on earth is a cycle, a circle, a spherical gesture that expresses the physical aspect of our planet.

reply to post by Republican08

---

They did what? I was supposed to be visiting the moon people next week.

As for the OP

Theory compared to observable fact-Evolution compared to Roundness of Earth, hmmmm. Evolution-compared to creation is what you are speaking about? Or other possible theories, like the Aiuragpu people coming here and injecting monkeys with the Gene Modifiers required to accelerate the advancement of the primate species?

Faith compared to science, I myself believe in a creator. Are you going to lump me in with the flat earth crowd? To eliminate all possibilities absolutely is idiotic and ignorant. Not attacking.

When someone tells me something is an absolute, I have to call them on it. Nothing is absolute. 1+1 can possibly equal 1,1 if speaking about to items that cannot be added. Just a little weird philosophy on my part.

Regardless of Sagan who comes up with another of his absurdities, the reality is that nobody has ever doubted the Earth is round; sit by the ocean; climb a mountain, stand on a vast plain: you can actually see the curvature of the planet; every child has noticed this at one time or another. The Greeks didn't discover the Earth was round, they just figured the mathematics behind it. It's just another of those things that some scientists use as an example without actually giving it any thought or reading any history books (Irving Washington, in the 1820's was the first person to ever say that at one point, people believed the Earth was flat). It's the same as the astonishment some historians felt last year when they discovered humans had been using levers before Greeks figured out the math behind them: I'm sure you discovered how levers work when you were a kid playing with sticks or pieces of wood...

Evolution, on the other hand is more complex and can very rarely be witnessed in a generation or within a few generations, that's why it's harder to accept.

Beg your pardon?

As with the evidence of evolution could you explain that please?


Found this on the web.

Children believe the Theory of Evolution because they have been brainwashed by the education system. Kids are taught that life can evolve given enough time. This is a false statement without any scientific support. They are taught that if given enough time, a monkey at a typewriter could punch keys at random and eventually type President Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. This is nonsense. These government-educated kids actually believe this nonsense. Just ask one of them. Time does not make impossible things possible. As an example, a computer was programmed in an attempt to arrive at the simple 26-letter alphabet. After 35,000,000,000,000 (35 trillion) attempts it has only arrived at 14 letters correctly. What are the odds that a simple single cell organism could evolve given the complexity of more than 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations all in the correct places? Never in eternity! Time does not make impossible things possible. Don't believe that nonsense.

Evolutionists say birds grew hollow bones for less weight in order to fly. How would a bird pass this long-term plan to the millions of generations in order to keep the lighter bone plan progressing? The idea that birds or anything else has million-generation evolutionary plans is childish. The evolutionary concept of growing a wing over millions of generations violates the very foundation of evolution, natural selection.

Birds aren't the only species that proves the theory of natural selection to be wrong. The problem can be found in all species in one way or another. Take fish for example. We are told by evolutionists that a fish wiggled out of the sea onto dry land and became a land creature. So let's examine this idea. OK, a fish wiggles out of the sea and onto the land, but he can't breathe air. This could happen. Fish do stupid things at times. Whales keep swimming up onto the beach where they die. Do you think the whales are trying to expedite a multi-million generation plan to grow legs? That concept is stupid, but let's get back to the fish story. The gills of the fish are made for extracting oxygen from water, not from air. He chokes and gasps before flipping back into the safety of the water. Why would he do such a stupid thing? This wiggling and choking continues for millions of generation until the fish chokes less and less. His gills evolve into lungs so he can breathe air on dry land, but now he is at risk of drowning in the water. One day he simply stays out on the land and never goes back into the water. Now he is a lizard. If you believe this evolutionary nonsense, you need psychiatric help.

Giant dinosaurs literally exploded onto the scene during the Triassic period. The fossil record (petrified bones found in the ground as at the Dinosaur National Park in Jensen, Utah, USA) shows no intermediate or transitional species. Where are the millions of years of fossils showing the transitional forms for dinosaurs? They do not not exist, because the dinosaurs did not evolve.

Books published by evolutionists have shown the giant Cetiosaurus dinosaur with the long neck extending upright eating from the treetops. They claimed natural selection was the reason Cetiosaurus had a long neck. This gave them an advantage in reaching fodder that other species could not reach. One day during the assembly of a skeleton for a museum display someone noticed the neck vertebrae were such that the neck could not be lifted higher than stretched horizontally in front of them. The natural selection theory was proven to be a big lie. The Cetiosaurus dinosaur was an undergrowth eater. The long neck actually placed the Cetiosaurus at a disadvantage in his environment, just the opposite from the natural Theory of Natural Selection. Evolutionists will now claim the animal evolved a long neck because he had the advantage of eating from bushes on the other side of the river. This is typical of the stupid logic of an evolutionist.
The evolutionist will claim that the presence of many individual species proves evolution. This shallow statement is devoid of reason, logic and scientific proof. Evolutionists line up pictures of similar-looking species and claim they evolved one from another. The human "family tree" is an example of this flawed theory. Petrified skulls and bones exist from hundreds of species of extinct monkeys and apes. Evolutionists line up the most promising choices to present a gradual progression from monkey to modern man. They simply fill in the big gaps with make-believe creatures to fit the picture. This procedure can be done with humans only because there are many extinct monkey and ape species. They never do this with giraffes, elephants or the Platypus. The pictures are placed in all of the textbooks that evolutionists use to teach kids this nonsense. The pictures are simply a grouping of individual species that does not prove evolution.

Close to the Missing Link -- Oldest Human Ancestor Discovered.

Why do they claim the above discovery is "close to the mission link." The answer is simple. Look at the picture. It is a monkey. A monkey species that has become extinct. Lot of species have become extinct. Thousands of species have become extinct. It is obviously not similar to a human. Look at the feet with the big toe spread away from the smaller toes exactly like a modern chimpanzee, not like people. A newly discovered extinct species does not prove a "missing link" has been found. Don't let them brainwash you with this nonsense.

Charles Darwin admitted that fossils of the transitional links between species would have to be found in order to prove his "Theory of Evolution." Well, these transitional links have never been found. We only find individual species. Evolutionists try to form these individual species into a link according to similar major features such as wings or four legs, but this simply proves the Theory of Evolution to be a fraud. Darwin was hopeful that future fossils would prove his theory correct, but instead, the lack of transitional links has proven his theory to be wrong.

The presence of individual species actually proves they were not developed by an evolutionary process. If evolution were true, all plants, animals and insects would be in a continual state of change. No two creatures would be identical, because they would not be separate species. All life forms would be a continual blend of characteristics without a clear definition among the species. Everything would be changing, and every animal, insect and plant would be different. The cheetah above proves evolution does not exist. All species are locked solidly within their DNA code.

Evolutionists Go Ape Over Ape-Girl.Evolutionists are going ape over "Ape-Girl."

The fossilized bones of a new animal have been found in Ethiopia near the site where "Lucy" was discovered many years ago. By the way, Lucy was a monkey, not an early humanoid. The number of bones of the Ape-girl skeleton are unique because Lucy had only a few head fragments. This find gives us a lot of information about the animal because major parts of the skeleton were unearthed (assuming these are all from the same animal). It has teeth in the jaw and is said to also have unerupted teeth still within the jaw. The evolutionists call the animal a "human-like" female child about three years of age and an "individual." This is not a "human-like" fossil. It is an "ape-like" fossil because it was an ape. Duh!

The evolutionists call the animal a "transitional species" and a human ancestor even though it has a head exactly like a modern-day ape. The jaw is thrust forward and the forehead pushed back and slanted. The true appearance is more easily seen from side picture below.

Ape-girl also has arms "that dangled down to just above the knees. It also had gorilla-like shoulder blades which suggest it could have been skilled at swinging through trees." It looks like an ape. It has a head like an ape. It has arms like an ape. It has shoulder blades like an ape. It is obviously an ape, not a human, pre-human or humanoid. Evolutionists simply will not accept the obvious. This animal is simply a young ape. Its size is as would be expected for a young modern-day ape.

Scientists call these ape-like features "evolutionary baggage." In other words, these scientists are discrediting their own evolutionary theory of "natural selection." They are calling the ape-like features unnecessary "baggage." The theory of natural selection is not supposed to have unnecessary baggage, remember?

The age of this fossilized animal is also very much in doubt. Scientists many years ago claimed a tooth found was Nebraska Man, a pre-human fossil millions of years old. They determined the age of the tooth. The scientists had sculptured an entire ape-like skeleton from information they found in one tooth. These lies were exposed when real scientists found the tooth to be from a modern-day pig.

reply to post by Conclusion

---

Numerous stars if it was possible.

2nd line

reply to post by woodwardjnr

---

Um, because I have been high enough to see the curvature of the Earth first hand?

reply to post by Conclusion

---

Would you mind giving link?

Just a simple question, and a second line.

reply to post by Republican08

---

Here ya go.

www.biblelife.org...

Ok reserving this spot.... I've got a lot of work to do.

Just by seeing the beginning of the site.



Most of the links are broken anyways... they can disprove all of evolution apparently, but unable to make a decent link....

We believe the earth is round because we've been told that it is, and we make fun of those who question that teaching. Very few of us have personally seen solid evidence that the earth is round. Photos? Fakes. Testimony of pilots or astronauts? They're in on the conspiracy. Curvature of the ocean horizon? Optical illusion. And so on.

Most of what we know, we take on faith. It is simply impossible for us to check out every single fact, to perform all the experiments that would demonstrate scientific facts. So we are told the world is round, shown a globe, see a few photos, and OK. We accept it. Why not? Nothing tells us this evidence is fake or incorrect.

There really isn't all that much debate about the theory of evolution. What debate exists is primarily based on religious beliefs, not science. The theory of evolution conflicts with a very literal reading of the Bible. Some Fundamentalists believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, and that anything that disagrees with the Bible is wrong and evil. The Bible says the world and all its life was created in six days, not billions of years. The Bible says that animals and plants reproduce "after their own kind", meaning that there can't be new species. Species could die off, but not come into being.

What is happening in the US is that a vocal and politically active minority of religious fanatics have sought to force their Bible-based beliefs into the schools as "Creation Science". When that didn't work (it was too transparently based on scripture), they tried "Intelligent Design".

These Fundamentalists were successful in bullying some school districts into adding "Creation Science" or "Intelligent Design" to the curriculum and giving it equal weight with the theory of evolution. The problem, of course, is that these topics have nothing to do with science, and everything to do with religious belief. The only reason anyone is "discussing" this is that politicians are wimps and don't want to stand up to religious fanatics and tell them to stay out of schools.

The evidence supporting Darwin's theory is compelling, but not overwhelmingly so. If you try very hard, you can find ways of explaining away most of it. However, very few scientists dispute that Darwin's theory accounts for most of the observations that have been made over the past century or so. Yes, there are gaps and apparent contradictions. Yes, there are things that evolution doesn't explain. However, it's the best we have at the moment. If someone thinks of a better explanation, one that fits the facts better, then it will become the new theory.

The evidence supporting Creation "Science" or Intelligent Design is meager. There is a supposed human "footprint" in the footprint of a dinosaur. There are some other anomalies, which I no longer remember. That's it, though. Nothing much, just a few oddities. If they hope to convince scientists that their ideas are correct, Creation Scientists are going to have to amass a huge amount of data to support their claims.

The debate about evolution is not a scientific debate. It is purely political.

i believe that the earth is round because i can readily test and observe that it is, and every time the results are the same.

Disclaimer: I'm a theist but not of the Abrahamic faiths. I have minor biblical scholar and scriptural skills. Also I am not a scientific/legal or medical expert in any field. Beware of my Contagious Memes! & watch out that you don't get cut on my Occams razor.All of this is my personal conjecture and should not be considered the absolute or most definitive state of things as they really are. Use this information at your own risk! I accept no liability if your ideology comes crashing down around you with accompanying consequences.

Explanation: S&F!

1stly to answer why I personally think the world is spherical in shape is due to observing the earths rotation against the background of the sky whilst veiwing a Luna Eclipse [wiki]!

Luna Eclipse [google images]

Luna Eclipse Calculator [dacre.net]

Personal Disclosure: Also I have heard an as yet unconfirmed story [unconfirmed by me] that some ancient greek genius sent his slave far south to near the equator to look into a well on a certain specific day at mid day and then report back to him what that slave saw. On exactly the same day at the same time the greek genius was looking in his own greek town well and he noted where the sun appeared and appearently it wasn't reflected by the water in the well like what the slave at the equator saw....the whole well in greece cast a shadow to the north! this proved the earth wasn't flat!

P.S. I'll answer the evolution question in my next post!

Um, not but a few lines below in your website it says this.



The scientific 'truths' int he page, hold no leg to stand on, hell it's a double amputee to put it lightly.

It basically goes saying that, those who believe in science books, is brain washed, and they do nearly everything in vain, and they look outside of the earth, but only in vain, in worthlessness..... someone believes that the earth is all there is




Now this could be a thread on its own!

Need I say more? From this website?



Well here is another gem from the site you proclaimed. Apparently separation of church and state is a 'BLATENT LIE". Hmm, little did I know...



Another gem... I was an atheist in a private school, and public school, and I assure you, untill I reached college, did I dare ever admit, I didn't buy into any god.

And in public school in high school, did teachers always tell me, (outside of class) to pray to god, or to pray to whatever, or they would pray for me.... yeah, i've been prayed to alot, in vain may I add

YouTube Link

The above video explains that away.




To finish, that all this here and said, and unsaid, that a period of extreme life, and proteins and such and such accumulation perhaps natural selection taking time to achieve what we have is childish, well then what is a bearded man in the sky who happens to be a sexist, and hypocrit, and murderer, and creates everything out of nothing, what is that?

reply to post by Republican08

---

wow i actually really enjoyed listening to Dawkins in that video.

What happened to him? When did he become such an absolute snob?

Thanks for the good video by the way!

[edit on 10/13/2009 by JPhish]