Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Definitive Flat Earth Map  (Read 133681 times)

0 Members and 6 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Kephapaulos

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1900
  • Reputation: +493/-20
  • Gender: Male
Re: Definitive Flat Earth Map
« Reply #30 on: December 07, 2025, 01:07:30 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • That is what keeps me from believing flat earth, that I have not come across a coherent system describing and modeling it. I might have missed it in this thread though. 
    "Non nobis, Domine, non nobis; sed nomini tuo da gloriam..." (Ps. 113:9)

    Offline Cera

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6814
    • Reputation: +3128/-1614
    • Gender: Female
    • Pray for the consecration of Russia to Mary's I H
    Re: Definitive Flat Earth Map
    « Reply #31 on: December 07, 2025, 04:51:14 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • So, this is based on that Pangea theory.  What do you supposed caused the breakup?  I mean, most likely the Flood, but how did that work, and by what mechanisms?  
    This is explained by the theory of Cataclysmic Geology. Read the work of the much-censored books by Immanuel Velikovsky (whose books were attacked and censored PRIOR to their publication).

    Immanuel Velikovsky (1895-1979) was a controversial author of several books suggesting a radical interpretation of history. In his best-selling book, Worlds in Collision (1950), he argues that the Earth and other planets, had been subject to cosmic catastrophes in historical times, that had been recorded in the oral traditions, myths and legends of the peoples of the world. His 1956 book Earth in Upheaval describes geological evidence that he says supports the idea of global catastrophes in prehistorical and historical times.
    In Ages in Chaos (1952), Velikovsky writes of parallels he found between biblical and Egyptian history from the Exodus to the early Divided Monarchy era, that initiated a debate on the chronologies of ancient history, and three more books, Oedipus and Akhnaton (1960), Peoples of the Sea (1977), and Ramses II and His Time (1978).
    Published posthumously, in Mankind in Amnesia (1982) Velikovsky draws on his training as a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst to propose his theory of collective amnesia to explains the inability of people to look at the overwhelming evidence of global catastrophes.
    The Velikovsky Affair
    The controversy surrounding Velikovsky’s work is often referred to as “The Velikovsky Affair” after the 1966 book of the same name by Alfred de Grazia. Velikovsky’s own point of view of the controversy is described in his book Stargazers and Gravediggers (1983). C.J. Ransom also recounted the saga in The Age of Velikovsky (1976), Shane Mage in Velikovsky and his Critics (1978), and Henry Bauer in Beyond Velikovsky (1984). Two television programmes have included Henry Zemel‘s docuмentary Velikovsky: The Bonds of the Past (1972), and the BBC program, Horizon: Worlds in Collision (1972).
    Criticism
    Criticism towards Velikovsky’s work has been extensive, including Harvard astronomers Harlow Shapley and Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin, who succeeded in forcing publisher Macmillan to transfer Worlds in Collision to Doubleday. In 1974 the American Association for the Advancement of Science held a meeting “Velikovsky’s Challenge to Science“, which included criticisms from Peter Huber, David Morrison, J. Derral Mulholland, Carl Sagan and Norman Storer, published in the book, Scientists Confront Velikovsky (1977). Other critics include Isaac Asimov, Martin Gardner, Bob Forrest in his six-volume book, Velikovsky’s Sources (1981), Stephen Jay Gould, and more recently, C. Leroy Ellenberger and Phil Plait.
    Appraisal
    Over the years, a number of publications, organisations and people have taken a sympathetic look at Velikovsky’s work, including the publications Pensée (1972-1975), Kronos (1975-1988), Catastrophism and Ancient History Journal (1978-1993)), Aeon (since 1988), The Velikovskian (since 1993), and the British organisation, the Society for Interdisciplinary Studies (1974 to present), and authors such as Alfred de Grazia, Lynn E. Rose, Lewis M. Greenberg, Warner B. Sizemore, Ralph Juergens, Irving Wolfe, Earl R. Milton, C.J. Ransom , Fred Jueneman, Dwardu Cardona, Ev Cochrane, Charles Ginenthal, David Talbott and Wal Thornhill. A Center for Velikovskian and Interdisciplinary Studies was founded in 1975. In 1973, the University of Lethbridge offered Velikovsky an honorary degree of Doctor of Arts and Science, that was conferred in the Spring of 1974.



    Pray for the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary


    Offline Cera

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6814
    • Reputation: +3128/-1614
    • Gender: Female
    • Pray for the consecration of Russia to Mary's I H
    Re: Definitive Flat Earth Map
    « Reply #32 on: December 07, 2025, 04:58:37 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • .

    The Bible does not say Jerusalem is the center of the world. Who is this heretic claiming this?

    5
     Thus saith the Lord God: This is Jerusalem, I have set her in the midst of the nations, and the countries round about her.

    Look at the Bible first. The above is from Ezekial. Check your facts prior to labeling someone a heretic.
    Pray for the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary

    Offline Cera

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6814
    • Reputation: +3128/-1614
    • Gender: Female
    • Pray for the consecration of Russia to Mary's I H
    Re: Definitive Flat Earth Map
    « Reply #33 on: December 07, 2025, 05:01:23 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • This is a very uncivil way to talk. Can you please try to show at least basic courtesy when you speak to others on the internet.
    You might want to try following your own advice, Yeti. (i.e. calling someone a "heretic" because you are not familiar with the Bible).
    Pray for the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary

    Offline Cera

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6814
    • Reputation: +3128/-1614
    • Gender: Female
    • Pray for the consecration of Russia to Mary's I H
    Re: Definitive Flat Earth Map
    « Reply #34 on: December 07, 2025, 05:04:33 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • That is what keeps me from believing flat earth, that I have not come across a coherent system describing and modeling it. I might have missed it in this thread though.
    Use the search button here on CI to find old threads with a wealth of information.
    Pray for the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 47761
    • Reputation: +28254/-5289
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Definitive Flat Earth Map
    « Reply #35 on: December 07, 2025, 06:59:25 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • That is what keeps me from believing flat earth, that I have not come across a coherent system describing and modeling it. I might have missed it in this thread though.

    So, there are two logically distinct phases here, and they're always conflated by the globe advocates, on purpose.

    First, there's a mountain of evidence that falsifies or invalides the globe model.  Period.

    So, according to the scientific method, you have to them provide a new hypothesis that explains this additional evidence.

    You could in fact try to posit a globe that's, say, 10 times bigger than what they tell us, and this would explain some of the aberrant data, observations, and evidence.  Then you would test it to see if explains everything.

    There's this begging of the question that the globers engage in, where they simply assume they have a valid model.  That's the entire point of all the FE evidence, that "no you don't ... your model does NOT work".

    Then you add to it that nearly all ancient cultures had a flat earth cosmology, and to Catholics that means something, even if it doesn't for the evolutionists.  So, the latter hold that these were just a bunch of idiots and eventually learned better, as they progressed from out of the primordial soup, to grunts and groans, to using some primitive tools, and eventually stopped worshipping as a god everything they did not understand.  But Catholics have this notion of what's called "primitive revelation", where Adam (and Eve) had a complete and perfect knowledge of the natural order, and so if disparate cultures around the world had the same cosmology, there's a good chance it derives from Adam's knowledge.  It's very similar to the "universal consensus of the Fathers" criterion for Revelation and doctrine, where if all the Fathers scattered around the world say the same thing about some doctrinal matter, it comes from the Apostles and is part of the Deposit of Revelation.

    Speaking of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is entirely clear in describing a solid firmament above the earth, given its properties, where it keeps waters above from inundating the earth ... and there's no modern cosmological model that even comes close to accounting for it.  Modernist "Catholics" claim that the "firmament" is just a poetic way of describing "space", but that's nonsense if you actually look at what the Bible says about it and what the Church Fathers unanimously said about it.  Dr. Sungenis tried to explain it with a "Planck Fabric", and then later an Ice Ball / Dome ... but even he has to admit that just empty space absolutely does not cut it.  I think he abandoned Planck Fabric when he realized that it couldn't account for being something that kept watrs from inundating the earth.

    Offline Freind

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 122
    • Reputation: +23/-26
    • Gender: Male
    • Caritas, Veritas, Sinceritas
    Re: Definitive Flat Earth Map
    « Reply #36 on: December 07, 2025, 07:04:22 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • So, there are two logically distinct phases here, and they're always conflated by the globe advocates, on purpose.

    First, there's a mountain of evidence that falsifies or invalides the globe model.  Period.

    So, according to the scientific method, you have to them provide a new hypothesis that explains this additional evidence.

    You could in fact try to posit a globe that's, say, 10 times bigger than what they tell us, and this would explain some of the aberrant data, observations, and evidence.  Then you would test it to see if explains everything.

    There's this begging of the question that the globers engage in, where they simply assume they have a valid model.  That's the entire point of all the FE evidence, that "no you don't ... your model does NOT work".

    Then you add to it that nearly all ancient cultures had a flat earth cosmology, and to Catholics that means something, even if it doesn't for the evolutionists.  So, the latter hold that these were just a bunch of idiots and eventually learned better.  But Catholics have this notion of what's called "primitive revelation", where Adam (and Eve) had a complete and perfect knowledge of the natural order, and so if disparate cultures around the world had the same cosmology, there's a good chance it derives from Adam's knowledge.  It's very similar to the "universal consensus of the Fathers" criterion for Revelation and doctrine, where if all the Fathers scattered around the world say the same thing about some doctrinal matter, it comes from the Apostles and is part of the Deposit of Revelation.

    Speaking of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is entirely clear in describing a solid firmament above the earth, given its properties, where it keeps waters above from inundating the earth ... and there's no modern cosmological model that even comes close to accounting for it.  Modernist "Catholics" claim that the "firmament" is just a poetic way of describing "space", but that's nonsense if you actually look at what the Bible says about it and what the Church Fathers unanimously said about it.  Dr. Sungenis tried to explain it with a "Planck Fabric", and then later an Ice Ball / Dome ... but even he has to admit that just empty space absolutely does not cut it.  I think he abandoned Planck Fabric when he realized that it couldn't account for being something that kept watrs from inundating the earth.

    I am asking once again what FE map you consider real. This is a reasonable request.

    Offline Yeti

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4214
    • Reputation: +2459/-532
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Definitive Flat Earth Map
    « Reply #37 on: December 07, 2025, 09:16:44 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • You might want to try following your own advice, Yeti. (i.e. calling someone a "heretic" because you are not familiar with the Bible).
    .

    Sorry, I thought the person in question was a protestant due to his bizarre interpretation of the Bible, but on searching the name of Fernand Crombette it turns he he actually was Catholic.

    I retract my calling him a heretic.


    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 33378
    • Reputation: +29669/-615
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Definitive Flat Earth Map
    « Reply #38 on: December 07, 2025, 11:03:51 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • That is what keeps me from believing flat earth, that I have not come across a coherent system describing and modeling it. I might have missed it in this thread though.

    Falsification is independent of replacement.

    If I find a box in my closet with docuмents and various other proof that I was adopted -- then I was adopted. I have just falsified the idea that my "parents" are my biological parents. That is past tense, done, regardless of whether I am EVER able to locate my real biological parents.

    What if I come up blank on locating my real biological parents? Then the adults I believed were my parents will just magically become my real biological parents? Even though I have proof to the contrary? It doesn't work that way.

    You are basically saying that "No, those 2 adults are your parents and will remain your parents UNTIL you can show me your REAL parents. I don't care if you already have proof they are not your parents..."

    See the problem with this argument?

    That's what Ladislaus is saying too. There is no "monkey branching" involved -- i.e., holding on to one branch, until you have a firm grip on the next branch with the other hand. I am here to tell you that you are already grabbing empty air with the first hand. The existing branch (the NASA Globe model) is an illusion, a lie. There is no necessity of an "equally comprehensive or solid" branch to swing to, when the first branch is neither comprehensive nor solid. The solidity of that "branch" is all a lie, an illusion.
    Want to say "thank you"? 
    You can send me a gift from my Amazon wishlist!
    https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

    My accounts (Paypal, Venmo) have been (((shut down))) PM me for how to donate and keep the forum going.