It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


what makes you believe the world is round?

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 04:37 AM
I tend to think that earth is round because the objects that I can see through telescope are round and revolving each other. I actually don't need a telescope to find that out. I just have to look up into the sky.


[edit on 13-10-2009 by v01i0]

posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 04:39 AM

Originally posted by JPhish
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]

Well, as with age, we all become hardened, (AH! you christians do the same, as with all humans! don't start snapping!) and we get this, George Carlin like attitude, I'm old, I'll probably be dead soon, and "I don't give a damn what you think about me, as long as I get my point across!".

He's fairly old now, and just really isn't looking for money, or a friendly letter from a christian who oh so much loves him, he's going to say what he is going to say, and whether one likes it or not, he's saying it.

And he's a genius, and has studied alot, so when he's posed with questions that need only be asked to their 7th grade biology teacher, he may just explode.

posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 04:42 AM

Originally posted by v01i0
I tend to think that earth is round because the objects that I can see through telescope are round and revolving each other. I actually don't need a telescope to find that out. I just have to look up into the sky.


[edit on 13-10-2009 by v01i0]

If only you could see it from the side, then you'd truly know it was flat.

pity we only can see all the flat circles from one side..

posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 04:46 AM
reply to post by Republican08

eh, figured it was the getting old part . . . too bad . . .

Seems he had a Carl Sagan type thing going for him when he was younger.

Of course, the only person who doesn't like Carl Sagan is Morpheus.


posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 04:46 AM
reply to post by Republican08

Well, in fact I don't care whether it's round or flat. But since the OP asked, I had to give in my few cents

As a matter of fact, watching moon could give you the impression of a flat circle since it only appears to be showing one side of it.

But I guess watching planets could convience one other way since they seem to revolve around their axis or perhaps they have somekind of holotexture showing in their surface?

But true, I have never seen earth from space, so I don't know nothing, but then again - I don't care because it doesen't make any difference in my life.


posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 04:53 AM
reply to post by Republican08

Ok this may help you more.

It states the following:

by Do-While Jones
Some Real Scientists Reject Evolution

Do any scientists with Ph.D. degrees reject the theory of evolution? Yes, they do!

The Credential Attack

You may have noticed that evolutionists often attack the scientific credentials of any scientist who rejects the theory of evolution. They have to do this because:

1. There is so little scientific evidence that supports evolution.
2. What little evidence they have is highly questionable.

Since they can’t refute the scientific evidence, they try to refute the scientist.

The more time we spend defending ourselves, the less time we have to present factual data about the unscientific notions upon which the theory of evolution is based. That’s why we tend to ignore the personal attacks and focus on science.

Because we do this, our critics naturally claim that we don’t defend the credentials of scientists who reject the theory of evolution because we can’t. Since the charge is repeatedly made that all “real scientists” accept the theory of evolution, we will address that charge this month.
Past Scientists

There is no question that some of the most famous scientists of all times believed in creation. Ann Lamont has written a book entitled 21 Great Scientists Who Believed The Bible. She devotes chapters to Kepler, Boyle, Newton, Linnaeus, Euler, Faraday, Babbage, Joule, Pasteur, Kelvin, Maxwell, and Werner von Braun. These men weren’t dummies, and they believed in creation.

Evolutionists, of course, will argue that these great scientists lived before Darwin, and weren’t acquainted with the theory of evolution or modern scientific discoveries. While that may be true of some, it certainly isn’t true of Werner von Braun (1912 - 1977). Furthermore, their argument is based on the false premise that the evidence for the theory of evolution is stronger today than it was in the sixteenth through twentieth centuries. In reality, it was easier to believe in the theory of evolution when the fossil record was much less complete, before spontaneous generation of life was disproved, before genetics and molecular biology were understood as well as they are today.
Present Scientists

There are thousands of modern scientists who reject evolution. There is a partial list of them at But evolutionists apparently believe that any modern scientist who rejects evolution has merely been brainwashed by Christian doctrine. For example, consider this email we received from “P”.

Subject: "Science is against the theory of evolution."
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 10:25:52 -0400
From: P

Dear Do-While Jones

I was interested to discover your web site at

You say: "The theory of evolution is not believed because of scientific evidence. It is believed DESPITE scientific evidence. Science is against the theory of evolution."

According to 95% of scientists (and over 98% of "life and earth scientists") in the US support the basic tenants of evolution. (A minority, like biochemist Michael Behe, claim there is evidence of an outside "designer").

You say: "We are a secular, non-profit corporation, not associated with any church. If you want answers about religious questions, ask a religious organization." But can you name one scientist who (a) is not a "Bible Literalist" and who (b) rejects evolution and supports the "young earth" hypothesis?

I look forward to hearing from you.


We visited the web site he referenced. It said,

According to Newsweek in 1987, "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..." That would make the support for creation science among those branches of science who deal with the earth and its life forms at about 0.14%. [italics and ellipsis used as on their web page]

So, even 14 years ago, Newsweek reported that there were 700 “real” earth and life scientists who rejected the theory of evolution. We will address the criteria for “respectable academic credentials” in a moment, but first we want to examine some data from that web page.

The web page presents two tables of data divided into rows representing race, sex, education, and income, etc.. One table contains data from 1991-the other from 1997. Unfortunately, the two tables didn’t use the same criteria for separating the data into rows, so it is difficult to compare them. In fact, the only common row is “Everyone.” The 1991 data showed 47% of all adults believed in creation, 40% believed in theistic evolution, and 9% believed in evolution. That only adds up to 96%, so presumably 4% had no opinion or did not respond. Then the web page said,

1997-NOV data is little changed. Note the massive differences between the beliefs of the general population and of scientists:
Group Creation Theistic Evolution Evolution
Everyone 44% 39% 10%
Scientists 5% 40% 55%

They want you to focus on the 5% versus 44%. But suppose it is really true (as Newsweek said) that in 1987 only 0.14% of all scientists believed in creation, and 10 years later 5% believed in creation (as this survey says). If the numbers given on that web page are correct, the number of scientists who believe in creation increased from 700 in 1987 to 24,990 in 1997!

Of course, we know we are comparing apples and oranges because the surveys probably used different definitions of “scientists.” We don’t know how the surveys were conducted, or how accurate they are. We are just reporting (not defending) numbers produced by our critics.

We don’t have any numerical data to support our belief that more and more scientists are rejecting the theory of evolution, but we think there is evidence that the trend is real. For example, we are seeing more stories about high school science teachers who are getting in trouble for presenting all the evidence for and against evolution in the classroom. We just received an invitation to subscribe to WorldNet. Their advertisement said, in part,

The July edition of's monthly print magazine-consists of a breathtaking investigative report on the debate between evolutionists and creationists.

Titled "EVOLUTION: The basis of all life, or a fairy tale for scientists who reject God?" -- this issue is perhaps the clearest, most concise, and ultimately most devastating report available on the all-important issue of the origins of life.

Ironically, while the almost sacrosanct theory of evolution is coming under spectacular scientific assault from every direction, at the same time its adherents have ushered in a new censorship movement in America.

* Roger DeHart, a Washington high school teacher, had been teaching evolution to his 9th- and 10th-grade students for 10 years in the Burlington-Edison School District when a student filed a complaint against him for criticizing Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. He was prohibited from teaching biology after that.

* Community college instructor Kevin Haley in Oregon was also condemned by other faculty for questioning evolution.

* Minnesota high school science teacher Rod LeVake was banned from teaching biology due to his criticism of Darwinism.

We believe that there would not be so much opposition to science teachers who take a balanced approach to teaching evolution if there were not so many science teachers who are presenting scientific arguments against evolution.

We get criticized for using fairly tale analogies, but we can’t help a similarity to the story of The Emperor’s New Clothes. Wise people knew the emperor was naked, but they were afraid to say so because they were afraid to appear to be fools. When one little boy blurted out the truth, then other people had the courage to agree. We believe that there are many other scientists like DeHart, Haley, and LeVake who realize the inadequacy of the theory of evolution to explain the origin of life, and are just now willing to state what they know to be true because other scientists have broken the ice by saying that the emperor has no clothes.
Who Are Real Scientists?

But, some might argue, DeHart, Haley, and LeVake aren’t really scientists. They are just high school science teachers.

If high school science teachers aren’t really scientists, then we have to accept the fact that a large segment of the general public (specifically, people who have high school diplomas and no higher education) were taught everything they know about science from unqualified non-scientists. This line of reasoning leads to the conclusion that many people have been taught that evolution is true by non-scientists who don’t know what they are talking about.

We consider science teachers to be real scientists. We think engineers are real scientists. We don’t limit the term “scientist” to professors of evolutionary biology.

In 1999, Dr. Stephen Taylor wrote,

The Creation Research Society currently has a membership of 650 scientists, each one holding a Master’s degree or above in a recognized field of science. In a recent article Dr. Russell Humphreys, physicist at Sandia National Laboratories, New Mexico, estimates that there are around 10,000 practicing professional scientists in the USA alone who openly believe in a six-day creation.

When asked to name a “real modern scientist” who believes in creation, we might start with Henry Morris. Of course, evolutionists will immediately object, claiming he isn’t a real scientist. Why? Because he believes in creation. From an evolutionist’s point of view, anyone who believes in creation can’t be a real scientist. Therefore, scientists like Henry Morris, John Morris, Larry Vardiman, Steve Austin, and Duane Gish can be discounted immediately because they work for the Institute for Creation Research. Likewise, evolutionists won’t acknowledge Michael Behe, Andrew Snelling, Donald deYoung, and Kurt Wise, regardless of their academic credentials, because their creationist leanings are well-known.

This is another example of how evolutionists use circular reasoning. Circular logic concludes that no “real scientist” rejects evolution because the very fact that he rejects evolution means he isn’t a “real scientist”.

My late friend Jim Rieger used this method to distinguish a scientist from an engineer:

When a scientist makes a discovery, he immediately thinks, “This is an amazing new discovery. Where should I publish it?” When an engineer makes a discovery, he immediately thinks, “This is an amazing new discovery. How can I make a buck with it?”

Engineers are scientists who use scientific knowledge to design products (or invent procedures) that are commercially profitable. Scientists may speculate about how planets are formed, but not one of them has ever actually made a planet. On the other hand, when engineers claim they know to how to build a space probe that can reach those planets, they actually have to build it. This means that engineers tend to be brought back to reality more often than college professors.

ALL my friends with Ph.D. degrees who are college professors believe in evolution. NONE of my friends with Ph.D. degrees who work in the defense industry believe in evolution. When I mentioned this in a private email to an evolutionist, he replied:

This is known in the newsgroup as the Salem hypothesis, namely the observation that creationists who claim to have academic credentials generally turn out to be engineers rather than scientists. There are a number of theories to explain this tendency, of which yours is one. One could also argue that engineers are more inclined to accept black-and-white rule-based explanations whereas scientists are more likely to think abstractly about the underlying mechanisms. Whatever the reason, it is an interesting trend. [emphasis supplied]

Notice that if one is an engineer, he only “claim[s] to have academic credentials,” and isn’t really a scientist, in the words of that evolutionist. In response to his next-to-last sentence, one could argue that engineers are more inclined to accept only actual experimental results, whereas scientists are more likely to accept fanciful theories (if told skillfully enough).
Why Does it Matter?

Why does it matter who is a scientist and who isn’t? Because our society has been conditioned to accept the notion that any sentence that begins, “Scientists say …” is undeniably true. The general public has been told that scientists are unbiased, objective individuals who are never wrong. If you can’t trust what scientists say, what can you trust?

Evolutionists weren’t too worried when scientists said evolution was true and preachers said it wasn’t. But now that thousands of scientists (not counting engineers and high school science teachers) are saying publicly that evolution isn’t true, that’s a big problem for evolutionists. Scientists have much more credibility (in their opinion) than mere preachers do. The general public might believe what scientists say. Therefore, the evolutionists have to convince the public that the scientists who reject evolution aren’t really scientists-they are just high school science teachers, engineers, or skillful debaters posing as scientists.
Why 50 Scientists Reject Evolution

We would like to recommend the book In Six Days (why 50 scientists choose to believe in creation) edited by John F. Ashton. It is a collection of fifty essays, each written by a different scientist. Each author’s (impressive) academic credentials are listed at the beginning of his or her essay. They span a wide variety of academic disciplines. They aren’t all engineers! (But some are.)

The 50 essays are, on average, seven pages long. Each one gives the author’s reason for believing in the Biblical creation story rather than the theory of evolution. We have to give this book a (Cr+) rating for “strong Christian content”, but nearly every essay has strong scientific arguments for creation and/or against evolution.

We should have compiled a matrix-with 50 rows (one for each scientist) and one column for each scientific argument used-to tabulate which arguments were used by which scientists. This would have shown which arguments are most convincing to most scientists.

Although we failed to count the number of times every argument was used, we did notice that the second law of thermodynamics was mentioned by seven of the fifty scientists. Specifically, they were Jeremy Walter and Stanley Mumma (two engineers), Larry Vardiman and Don deYoung (two physicists), Ker Thompson and John Baumgardner (two geophysicists, but Baumgardner also has B.S. and M.S. degrees in electrical engineering as well as his M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Geophysics and Space Physics), and Geoff Downes (forestry research, but he learned about thermodynamics in a physical chemistry class).

We, too, believe the second law of thermodynamics is one of the most powerful arguments against evolution. We have not used it on our web site because we haven’t found a way to explain it in a way that the general public can understand. These seven men give it a valiant try, and nearly succeed.

The problem is that thermodynamics is a one-semester mechanical engineering course that mechanical and electrical engineering students are generally required to take to graduate. Physics majors probably have to take it, too. It is a course that students usually try to put off until their junior or senior years because it is a tough course, which many students flunk.

To explain why the second law of thermodynamics prohibits evolution, one must rely on concepts appreciated only by people who have received a passing grade in thermodynamics. People who don’t understand thermodynamics make stupid counter-arguments about snowflakes or open systems.

Perhaps someday we will try to explain why the theory of evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. Meanwhile, the best we can do is recommend you read the essays in In Six Days written by the seven scientists mentioned above.
Science and Religion

Evolutionists can’t seem to separate science from religion. They sometimes imply (or even state outright) that the scientists who reject evolution do so because religious brainwashing has prevented them from being able to think rationally. Remember, the email from “P” challenged us,

But can you name one scientist who (a) is not a "Bible Literalist" and who (b) rejects evolution and supports the "young earth" hypothesis?

What has religion got to do with science? We don’t even ask our members what their religious beliefs are, let alone snoop into the religious beliefs of scientists we only know by reputation. However, we are quite confident that Harun Yahya isn’t a “Bible Literalist.” The last two chapters of his excellent 20-chapter book, Evolution Deceit, urge the reader to accept the Islamic faith. Therefore, he can’t be a Bible Literalist, but that is beside the point.

We certainly agree that most of the scientists who reject evolution believe the Bible, but it is unclear which is the cause and which is the effect. Do scientists reject evolution because they believe the Bible, or do they believe the Bible because they reject evolution? (On the other side of the coin, most atheists are evolutionists. Are they evolutionists because they are atheists? or are they atheists because they are evolutionists?)

Several of the scientists who wrote chapters for In Six Days say they were once atheistic evolutionists who didn’t accept Christianity and creation until after they realized that the theory of evolution is scientifically bankrupt. Their rejection of evolution did not come from some Christian brainwashing which prevented them from thinking rationally. They rejected the theory because science evidence is overwhelmingly against evolution.

We try as hard as we can to examine evolution from the point of view that it is a scientific theory, and examine it as critically as one might examine cold fusion or global warming. But whenever we do, an evolutionist tries to drag religion into the discussion, as “P” did in his email.

In this essay we have departed somewhat from our usual approach by addressing the academic credentials and religious beliefs of scientists who reject evolution. But we want to end with our usual appeal. We don’t want you to let personalities or religious arguments affect your decision. We want you to evaluate the theory of evolution itself-not the people who believe in it, or the reason people believe in it. We want you to look at the theory of evolution from a purely scientific viewpoint. When you do, we think you will find that science is against evolution.

posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 04:58 AM
Disclaimer: As elsewhere!

Explanation: 1stly before I rush of and post madly away at this topic I must ask for some clarification as to whether we are discussing Evolution which has an extremely large body of evidence that has been rigourously tested to the Nth degree! The logos of evolution is almost water tight and peoples problem with this leads them to arguments based on pathos [appeal to emotion] or ethos [appeal to someones reputation], neither of which are valid at all when dealing with SCIENCE! But if we are NOT talking about Evolution but instead are talking about Abiogenesis, then the whole argument is changed! Abiogenesis and Evolution are 2 SEPERATE things to be leads to the other but beyond that they are 2 distinct phenomena!

Personal Disclosure: As for Dawkins blind watchmaker...well being blind DOESN'T make a creator an idiot savant that works only instinctively! That may just kybosh Dawkins "NO Intelligent Design" BS! His metaphore is incomplete and actually may lead to more problems in accurately discerning the FACTS of the MATTER [regardless of what they actually are!]. QM observer effects prove we are in COMMUNICATION with these sub atomic particles [fabric of existence] all the time just by observing them! They [sub atomic particles] know it and so do we via being able to interact with an environment thats far larger than our localized selves!

posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 05:18 AM

Originally posted by JPhish
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]

I used to really dislike Dawkins, thinking he was a fundamental snob, who would never listen to opinion of anyone else. I bought into the negative propaganda around Dawkins. Then I took some time to watch a few of his documentaries and my opinion changed. In a world dominated by religion, he is almost a soul voice trying to combat religious dogma.

I also learned a great deal about evolution, putting to bed my initial misconceptions of how evolution and natural selection works.

watching a few Dawkins videos will give you more of an insight into life than all the NWO and alien videos out there

posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 05:22 AM
reply to post by woodwardjnr

You do realise how much that sounded like a testimonial for a spiritual guru right? Not flaming you but just saying...

posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 05:29 AM

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by woodwardjnr

You do realise how much that sounded like a testimonial for a spiritual guru right? Not flaming you but just saying...

I've seen the light and the light is Dawkins

[edit on 13-10-2009 by woodwardjnr]

posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 06:30 AM
I can stand on the beach and tell the world is round. You can take a good photo looking out across the ocean and hold a ruler up to the waters edge and you can easily see its round as well.

posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 07:24 AM
If you havent seen it for yourself, its a good theory that the earth is round. I think its a good theory because i have yet to see it from space. I think all the images are photoshopped. Everything in science is a theory, there are very few laws.

See people think that a meotirite killed the dinosaur because of the Iridium rich K-T soil boundary. What if it was a volcano rich in iridium that exploded and killed off the dinosaurs....good meotirite theory, but not proof. Unless you have video documentation of the event or invent a time machine for me to go back to see it.

[edit on 13-10-2009 by THE_PROFESSIONAL]

posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 07:25 AM
reply to post by Voyager1

No, when you stand on a beach you only see that part of the earth that is a pimple on a is flat elsewhere.

posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 07:30 AM
I have found the answer to how to prove that the world is round.

I think that clears it up.

posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 07:30 AM
Why do I believe the earth is round? Well, in addition to all the second hand info (images from spece, etc.) I have seen several lunar eclipses. Simply watching earth's shadow against the moon proves that it is round.

posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 07:31 AM
I don't believe the world is round.
I know it is.
Jump into a little boat and head out into the big ocean. Then keep going into open sea until you can't see land. You'll figure it out.

What makes you think the world is any other shape?

posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 07:34 AM
reply to post by Conclusion

Bring it !!!

reserved post.

reserved, don't post here WITS!

posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 07:39 AM
reply to post by Republican08

Thank you for this video. Carl Sagan was a hero of mine, and I have read all of his books, and used to watch "Cosmos" whenever it came on, eating up the information like a kid with ice cream. The Earth is round, sort of, it actually bulges around the middle from what I have read and studied. God speed, Carl.

posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 07:57 AM
reply to post by woodwardjnr

I believe the world is round because the Bible says so, and then is was observed and the Bible was proven to be correct.

I believe micro-evolution(adaptive responses and variations within species) is observable and therefore a proven fact.

I do not believe in macro-evolution (mutations that caused thousands of different species to split and form thousands of new species). You have to believe in miracles more than God Himself if you believe that happened.

See my member profile page for the latest links to information regarding the evolution conspiracy/FRAUD(example: recapitulation, piltdown man, etc).

Everything is, as it was created.

posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 08:07 AM

Originally posted by woodwardjnr

I used to really dislike Dawkins, thinking he was a fundamental snob, who would never listen to opinion of anyone else. I bought into the negative propaganda around Dawkins. Then I took some time to watch a few of his documentaries and my opinion changed. In a world dominated by religion, he is almost a soul voice trying to combat religious dogma.

Your first inclination was the correct one.

I fight religious dogma all the time, but I don't need to use a belief system that requires millions of miracles (evolution) to do it.

The few that Jesus and the apostles performed are enough for me. At least they were observed and documented.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in