It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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: 3
5
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 08:25 AM
link   
The world IS flat,

Space-Time is curved




posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 


Actually the earth is oblong, not really round, spherical in shape yes, but not exactly round. I mean this has been a PROVEN fact, whereas evolution, is still a theory, there is evidence to support this theory yes, but on the whole, when it boils down to it, i cannot be proven as a DEFINITE, not yet, nor do i believe it ever will be. so this is the problem most people have. until there is irrefutable proof that evolution is fact (which there is none because its still a theory) people will be fighting amongst themselves. Evolution can not be observed such as the sun rising and setting, or throwing a ball into the air and having it fall back to earth.... that is the reason to the question you posed. however, your OP is a bit biased if you read my conclusion, and re-read your own words.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Conclusion
 


Amazing post.


Since the OP put round earth, flat earth, and evolution on the table, your post is perfectly on topic.

Will the "creation-phobics" read and understand? I hope some will.

I wonder how many scientists would like to come out of the closet but fear humiliation and ridicule from peers, as well as: loss of funding, demotion, and even job loss?

I was born believing in creation. I've always been this way.

I wish people would stop being creation-phobics.
People should be more tolerant.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 09:33 AM
link   
Come on now, the Earth isn't round - it is clearly an infinite polygon

Thks

Bravo



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 10:11 AM
link   
Nothing really, because if my eyes were squares mabey it would look different. But since my eyes are round I see in a round perspective.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 10:53 AM
link   
How can you say evolvtion does not exist?

Whales have leg bones. google it. or are the pictures faked to disprove creation. Whales had leg bones in the past. The reason why they still do is becuase it is still in their DNA. DNA is the species plan for survival.

Google, Anthropology and take a class instead of believing your pastor.

You are evolving right now. Our hair is the most noticable, humans are becoming less hairy. Evolution? or God doing it to confuse you?

Humans are getting taller.

God could have created the universe, but he did not put us here excatly how we are now. We evolved into what we are, and to discard it becuase you have read a bible site and grew up being preached to is just ignorant.

Do a little scientic reaserach of your own or read upon some instead of blindly following your leader.

Or disagree forever and die ignorant..

NO! NO! NO! NO! HEEHAW! HEEHAW!



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Republican08
 


Lol. Why you getting angry. Do not answer that I know why. When you can look at all the evidence from both sides equally then try to respond with a little more EVOLVED reasoning please.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by tooo many pills
 


Getting taller? This Link might interest you....but i doubt it.

www.s8int.com...

There Were Giants in Those Days

"There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare [children] to them, the same [became] mighty men which [were] of old, men of renown." Gen 6:4

In this section we take a look at some of the still available evidence that men of giant stature—even larger and more robust than “Neanderthal” man existed in the past. It’s not an area that evolutionists really deal with at all. In fact, science barely acknowledges that these giant footprints in rock or very large human bones even exist. It (very large, modern man) certainly does not fit in with evolutionary theory.

Christians generally believe that there were apes and there were men in the past. Evolutionists are not willing to accept that there existed in the past giant versions of modern man because there is no evolutionary explanation for their existence, just as there is no real attempt to explain giant versions of modern day animals.

(Left to Right, 6 foot Male, Goliath, "Gigantopithecus" and in comparison, Og, King of Bashan)

On the other hand, those who believe that God created the world know that according to the Bible, men of giant stature once walked the earth. The Bible quite matter-of-factly states that there were giants in those days (before the flood) and also after.

A Christian, believing as he does that Goliath actually existed, does not need to be concerned with the confused state of anthropology and its controversies, he might wonder if evidence of these races and countries of giant men have been found? The answer, without having to sort ape from proto-ape and alleged proto-human is yes..as we will continue to see.

Finally, before begin looking at some of the evidence that giants actually lived, we want to point out one glaring, obvious fake story prevalent on the net: The Kossuth Giants.

What the Bible Says About Giants

2 Samuel 21
In still another battle, which took place at Gath, there was a huge man with six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot--twenty-four in all. He also was descended from Rapha. When he taunted Israel, Jonathan son of Shimeah, David's brother, killed him.
Numbers 13:33
And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.
Deuteronomy 2:11
Which also were accounted giants, as the Anakims; but the Moabites called them Emims.
Deuteronomy 2:20
(That also was accounted a land of giants: giants dwelt therein in old time; and the Ammonites call them Zamzummims;
Deuteronomy 3:11
For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of giants; behold his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbath of the children of Ammon? nine cubits was the length thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man.
Deuteronomy 3:13
And the rest of Gilead, and all Bashan, being the kingdom of Og, gave I unto the half tribe of Manasseh; all the region of Argob, with all Bashan, which was called the land of giants.

Modern Polydactly

Click and drag photo to resize. Script from The Java Script Source

(Photo: an example of polydactly and a minor case of double rowed teeth)As we will see in looking at these snippets of evidence, six fingers and/or six toes and double rows of teeth are characteristics often associated with giants.

Click here for Larger view and additional examples

Click and drag photo to resize. Script from The Java Script Source

(Photos from Last Refuge.com)

"Near Braytown, on the headwaters of the Tennessee river, were found some remarkable footprints impressed in what is now solid rock. The tracks included those of a human heel ball thirteen inches wide!" The marks clearly showed that the fellow whose stride in that distant day turned to stone had six toes on each foot. Source: Stranger Than Science, by Frank Edwards

Deu 3:11 For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of giants; behold, his bedstead [was] a bedstead of iron; [is] it not in Rabbath of the children of Ammon? nine cubits [was] the length thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man.

It doesn't make a big deal about them--no theological points about them except that God's people could defeat anyone.

Scripture states that Goliath was about 9 feet tall. Og, King of Bashan described above was thought to have been taller; his bed needed to be made of iron and was about 15 feet by 6 to 7 feet wide (literally, king sized). He was thought to be 10 to 12 feet tall and proportionate. A cubit is conservatively estimated to be approximately 20 inches.

The State of the Science

This giant skull, embedded in solid rock, presents several problems for materialists.

"And it may seem harmless to you now that its been exposed. But, did you know that over 500 people obtained their PhD's by writing their thesis on "the Piltdown Man"? I dare say, no one took back those PhDs after it was exposed, and those people taught hundreds of thousands of people." Wyatt, Newletter Five

In 1982 Dr. Lyall Watson stated: "The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all of the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin!"

Likewise, a 1994 article in Time Magazine admitted that: "Yet despite more than a century of digging, the fossil record remains maddeningly sparse. With so few clues, even a single bone that doesn't fit into the picture can upset everything. Virtually every major discovery has put deep cracks in the conventional wisdom and forced scientists to concoct new theories, amid furious debate."

Prior to more recent developments of techniques for dating by means of radioactive materials, there were fundamentally only two methods of estimating the age of a fossil. The first was the geological level at which the specimen was found.

The second, applying more particularly to human fossils, was the general appearance: whether apish and "primitive," or essentially like modern man. These two criteria are still largely applied, since the majority of the more ancient remains of early man are completely fossilized and C-14 methods of dating cannot be used.

But it has long been recognized that if the fossil remains of early man are arranged according to their degree of primitiveness, the order will be found to contradict the series arranged on the basis of antiquity as established by the levels at which they are found."

GIGANTOPITHECUS" & "MEGANTHROPUS"

There is no controversy about these facts; there was a race or group of people found in Australia called "meganthropus" by anthropologists. These people were of very large size--estimated between 7 to 12 feet tall, depending on what source you read.

Click and drag photo to resize. Script from The Java Script Source

These people were found with mega tool artifacts, so their humaness is difficult to question. Four jaw fragments and thousands of teeth have been found in China of "gigantopithecus blacki"--named after the discover. Based on the size of the teeth and deep jaws, its size has been estimated at around 10 feet and as tall as 12 feet, 1200 pounds. (Photo:Giant human femur reportedly found in Turkey)

The "problem" is that human fossils are the rarest of all, and generally, only the hardest bones, jaws, teeth and skulls survive. As with most "early man" artistic recreations, a great deal of the individual is surmised.

The question is, is gigantopithecus a man or an ape? I personally have no opinion, but it is clear that very large men did live once. Scientists are of course afraid of being ridiculed and rather than estimate the size of the individuals possessing larger skulls and teeth than "us", they prefer to use the term robust.

Anthropologists spend quite a bit of time trying to decide what is an ape, what is a man, who they believe descended from who and the like. Now, most consider gigantopithecus an ape,(its more convenient to the theory of evol) but the co-discover at least, and many others still see no difference between the teeth and jaws of Giganto than other so-called ancestors.

As we said, everyone believes that meganthropus with his mega-tools was a "man". Tools have been found in the same area as giganto as well, but the tendency has been to associate them with other "types' found at the same location.

MEGANTHROPUS

A comparison of the megatools from the six occupation sites soon showed considerable stylisation in the hand-axes, knives, adzes and other tools, forming two distinct tool-type culture periods. These have since been named the "Late" and "Early Phase", the "Early Phase" being the oldest and most primitive, the "Late Phase" showing more advanced styles of workmanship. ...the strata in which the "Early Phase" tools are found date from around 60,000 back to 180,000 years BP.

This is an example of a Mega Tool, over eighteen inches high. From an article by Scott Corrales. Another example of a mega tool is an ancient 37 lb copper axe (not pictured)

Aboriginal occupation of the Bathurst region itself dates back at least 50,000 years, so it is obvious that Aborigines lived side by side with the megatool people.....Rex Gilroy's Mysterious Australia

In this Photo below: on the top left is one of the skulls biologists have labeled Australopithecines. On the right Meganthropus. Bottom left is a modern man in scale along with a chimpanzee skull.

Giant stone-age man stone artefacts (implements) have been found in Central Western NSW Southern & far Northern Qld. These implements consist of hand axes, clubs, pounders, adzes, knives & other tools often ranging in weight from 8 to 36 lbs or more.

These artifacts are in fact identical to those used by meganthropus the giant Java man who inhabited SE Asia over a "million years ago", Meganthropus stood 12 feet tall & weighed several hundred pounds...AWARENESS QUEST

Early in this century some unusually large human teeth and jawbones turned up, ones so large that their owner's size has been estimated at six to nine feet tall. Those found in Europe were named Meganthropus, those found in south China and Java became known as Gigantopithecus. (see Photo: Meganthropus teeth on left modern man on right)

If one believes the Biblical account, their presence is no mystery, since giants are mentioned as living before the Flood (Gen. 6:4).The Truth About "Cave Men"



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


Thank you for your kind words. What I think is that when you are against something you will try to disprove it no matter how reasonable it sounds, and to be fair both sides do this. I am learning more about science everyday and I really love it, but for scientists to ignore evidence because they do not want to believe it will be the downfall of their agenda. Here is another link you might find fascinating.

hubpages.com...



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by endisnighe
1+1 can possibly equal 1

Heh, that one got me for a second. Until I thought about water. Add one drop of water to another drop of water, and you still have one drop of water, lol.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 12:46 PM
link   
The current theory I have been coming across is that the earth is a dodecahedron. That it only looks round due to the vaccuum of space.

For the record, even if the earth were flat, I dont believe there would be an 'edge' or 'tipping point'. Gravity and atmospheric pressure wouldnt allow you to fall off.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 01:54 PM
link   
I didn't feel like reading all the other comments. I hope I'm not repeating any, but:


The earth is not exactly round. Science knows this now. It is much wider at the equator. There are also many other "dips & lumps" I guess you could call them.

So the earth is not exactly round like a perfect sphere.

Also, has anyone heard of the "growing earth theory", or the "expanding earth theory"? It's very interesting.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
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?


Because people are stupid.

They are worthless. Don't even bother listening to people who debate evolution. They don't even have the brains to understand it.

Also, I've been on a plane and went west over the pacific and landed in Australia. That's how I know the world is round.

[edit on 13-10-2009 by FouL-LiveR]



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conclusion
reply to post by John Matrix
 


What I think is that when you are against something you will try to disprove it no matter how reasonable it sounds, and to be fair both sides do this.


Actually, that's not true.

Dawkins said, in an interview last week, that he agreed with another biologist who said that if a rabbit skeleton was found in the fossil record alongside dinosaurs, it would blow our current understanding of evolution away and he would have to adapt to the new data. In other words, he admits that the scientific approach is to increase understanding based on observation. The more you know the better your understanding becomes.

Compare this approach to that of creationists, who believe unequivocally that the truth was uncovered thousands of years ago and new data is either irrelevant or misinterpreted because it disagrees with this assertion.

See the difference?

Believing that the universe exists because of magic is not reasonable. It is the absence of reason. And disregarding over a century of research on this basis starts to beggar the imagination.

This is an interesting read if you are interested...it's Plato's 'Allegory of the Cave'.

en.wikipedia.org...

Extremely relevant for everyone to read.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 03:06 PM
link   
I could see pulling the wool over the eyes of the sheeple regarding a lunar visit in 1969.
But Hiding a flat earth from us in 2009, is tougher to believe.

As for evolution,
I can't see an argument against evolution making a lot of sense, when we see it on a much faster scale EVERY day. Simply put:

Unborn children don't require breathing, yet when they are born, they start to breathe.

Tadpoles die if you take them out of the water. They grow legs, and start to crawl out of the water, then... if you hold the finished product under water long enough,(frog) they drown.

These two simple processes don't take millions of years. Yet they technically evolve to survive.

What is the theory of non evolution? Did the bearded man in the sky just put everything here, in that seven day stretch?

[edit on 13-10-2009 by Demoncreeper]



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by ImplausibleDeniability
 


Lol. Sorry had to laugh at the word magic....sign.

Very interesting about the rabbit and Dawkins. So what do you think of this?

www.s8int.com...

11/11/2003

Every living creature leaves a trace.

In 1850 American archaeologist D. Carter made a sensational discovery in San Diego, CA on Texas street. His accidental discovery appeared to be that of a trace of the first Americans dating back to 80,000-90,000 years.

A considerable amount of artifacts has been studied. Unable to find heavy evidences in order to back up his theory, the archaeologist had simply been laughed at. Determined in proving his point to his skeptical colleagues, Carter decided to organize another dig in 1953.

He invited many famous scientists to witness his finds. The invitation was declined by everybody. Carter later wrote, "San Diego State University refused to view the finds which have been found in his own back yard."

Typical is the case of George Carter who claimed to have found, at an excavation in San Diego, hearths and crude stone tools at levels corresponding to the last interglacial period, some 80,000-90,000 years ago.

Even though Carter's work was endorsed by some experts such as lithic scholar John Witthoft, the establishment scoffed. San Diego State University refused to even look at the evidence in its own back yard and Harvard University publicly defamed him in a course on Fantastic Archeology.

What emerges is a picture of an arrogant and bigoted academic elite interested more in the preservation of its own prerogatives and authority than the truth.

Click and drag photo to resize. Photo of Carson, Nevada Prints. Script from The Java Script Source

Russia is no exception when it comes to this kind of activities. Majority of sensational discoveries were for the most part considered a lie. One can hardly imagine the amount of exceptional, sensational information that is being stored in today's archives. Here are some facts concerning such matters.

In 1961, two Russian scientists Okladnikov and Rogozhin discovered a large variety of tools in Siberia not far away from a town named Gorno-Altaisk located by the river Utalinka.

They concluded that their finds date back to 1,5-2 million years. Another Russian scientist Molchanov discovered absolutely identical tools on the river Lena near a village Urlak. Radiocarbon dating analyses of these finds has clearly identified a precise date: almost 2 million years.

The overall meaning of such finds appears to be of major importance, since it is thanks to them that we are able to trace the existence of the first human. They also ignite a rather controversial debate among scientists.

Every living creature leaves a trace. Certain evidences also indicate that humans existed during even earlier periods. Remains of a human skeleton vividly resembling those traits of a modern human being were found on the Pacific Coast.

Their age had been determined to be 5 million years. France and Portugal have also contributed valuable data to the everlasting search of traces of human existence.

Human remains have been found there ranging from 5 to 25 million years old. In 1979 archaeologist Fili discovered several prints of human feet imprinted on a 4 million year-old volcanic lava. The most exhaustive research has indicated that those prints belong to humans, not apes. As it is known all apes or ape-like creatures have elongated toes.

Some anthropologists, while being skeptical to dismiss Darwin-s theory of evolution, claim that those prints might have belonged to apes with clenched toes. Perhaps, this was the apes way of joking with humans. Who knows?

Another discovery of a calcified human footprint has been found in Turkmenia. Its age leads us all the way back to 150 million years, to the Mesozoic period, and ultimately to the time of dinosaurs. Can it be possible that humans inhabited this planet along with such monstrous creatures? Yes.

Russian scientists however claim that a single footprint is not enough to force rethinking of existing theories of human existence and to come up with something radically novel. But what about an entire chain of footprints found near Carson, Nevada? Those are incredibly precise and clear prints doubtlessly left by a human. Their size is gigantic. Their age is 213-248 million years.

It is not hard to conclude therefore that such a discovery cannot possibly go hand in hand with today's preconceived notions.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   
As for the primary topic point. A lot had to do with faith that you were being taught correctly if the Earth was 'round'. Similar to the teachings of pasts, full faith in the scientific community to teach the world was flat. I say expand your mind and seek out a local astronomy professor and have him give you the evidence that Earth is indeed, fact. I am sure they would love to actually sit down and speak of such matters.


reply to post by tooo many pills
 

Apparently the evolution train didn't come by my family in regards to the human species becoming 'less hairy'. It has to do more with the interconnection of multiple ares of the world reproducing together, not with a whole sale evolution of humans. Its adaption and gene domination.

Point: I have two children. I am 50% Scandinavian with 50% English/French/German (blond, blue eyes, fair skin) the mother of my children is 50% Latin (Mexico) and 50% English/French/German(dark brown, brown eyes, olive toned skin)

**quick note to mods -- I feel this is not giving out personal information, but if you do, go ahead and snip as needed**

Given that information, using logic one can probably put together a darn good profile of what my two children look like in regards to skin color, hair color, etc. -- Is it evolution? Have my children changed from what I am? They are a mix of different genes that have been around for thousands of years, each fighting a battle to be the dominant gene in the chain.

Don't remember who said it here, but micro-evolution I can see and agree with. Macro-evolution I would say not so much.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by FouL-LiveR

Because people are stupid.

They are worthless. Don't even bother listening to people who debate evolution. They don't even have the brains to understand it.



Thanks for adding value to the debate. No worries folks, Foul-Liver has spoken and apparently I (since I debate evolution) don't have brains to understand, yet I fully comprehended his passive aggressive condescending tone that he gracefully placed within that remark...I might even say with a smug probably residing on his face as he placed the last period.


I know I'm gonna get dinged for a personal attack or whatever, its just so darn prevalent and nearly rampant the people cannot actually debate or come up with a cognitive thought process to support their claims, such as '...people are stupid.' and 'They are worthless. ...'

I think there are valid questions on both sides of the aisle when looked at 'objectively'. Doing so allows you to see the forest through the trees or however that saying may go. You get the idea.

[edit on 13-10-2009 by ownbestenemy]



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 04:04 PM
link   
Evolution is a theory because there is no proof. The proof that the Earth is round is a photo from space and the realization you can fly in a straight line and end up back where you started. Where is this "snapshot" of evolution? We have proof that leads us to believe in evolution, but there is no solid proof (skeletons, etc). I grew up believing in evolution, and I think the theory is correct to some extent, but there is much more for us to learn.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conclusion

There Were Giants in Those Days

"There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare [children] to them, the same [became] mighty men which [were] of old, men of renown." Gen 6:4


There are giants today too ....





Obviously the world is round. But also flat. How else could it sit atop the 4 elephants that themselves stand atop the great space turtle A'tuin?








(btw I know the Earth is not flat because a) I climb hills and b) I've lived by the coast. Since time immemorial it's only be landlubbing townies who've ever thought differently.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join