As someone indoctrinated with heliocentrism and evolutionism in my schooldays, I had little effort in discerning the truth when arguments against both were put to me. I knew Gerard Keane when he was writing Creation Rediscovered and we discussed geocentrism. Gerard was open to its possibility but said if he was to support it it would probably undermine his efforts to convert others to creationism. I understood perfectly his fears but I told him to be careful when addressing Galileo and his attack on Scripture when writing his book. Leave it neutral I told him and no matter your thesis will be unaffected. Alas, Gerard made a bags of it and errors are now obvious to me and others in his great book.
No doubt there are those now who believe that flat-earthism will do the same to geocentrism so to protect it from further ridicule are very reluctant to combine the two.
In my time defending geocentrism I too have come under the ridicule dished out to any who try to expose something hundreds of years in the human psyche. Flat-earthers have now entered that arena. Compared to geocentrism, which has tradition and a papal decree to defend it in theology, and scientific evidence to support it in the realm of philosophy, flat-earthers rely far too much on conspiracy theories to convince many.
I say this as one who was converted away from heliocentrism and evolutionism. Never once did I hear of a theology that defended flat-earthism, nor did I hear of a Church teaching that mentioned the word flast-earth. Non evolutionary creation has 40 thesis defending it (Paula Haigh), and geocentrism has all the Fathers supporting it and a pope decreeing its existence. There is a traditional doctrine of a global geocentrism. Since its beginning the defence of geocentrism was a Ptolemaic one, and Ptolemy had a globe at the centre.
“All educated persons of Columbus’ day, very much including the Roman Catholic prelates, knew the earth was round. The Venerable Bede (c. 673-735) taught that the world was round, as did Bishop Virgilius of Salzburg (c. 720-784), Hildegard of Bingen (1098-1179), and Thomas Aquinas (c. 1224-74). All four ended up saints. Sphere was the title of the most popular medieval textbook on astronomy, written by the English scholastic John of Sacrobosco (c. 1200-1256). It informed that not only the earth but all heavenly bodies are spherical.’ --- Rodney Stark: Catholicism and Science, Stark, 9/2004.
For me as a Catholic, my faith was foremost in my attempt to determine the truth about the order of the cosmos. Its geocentrism has brought a new love for God and His Creation into my life and I know the life of others. I cannot find much in a theological flat-earth to help me determine the truth of the shape of the earth.
I suspect most flat-earthers on this forum are first and foremost biblical flat-earthers, and therefore it is true no matter what arguments are offered to the contrary. As I said I can understand this belief. To defend geocentrism was for me to defend the infallibility of the papacy. If Galileo was right, then the dogma of infallibility of Catholicism was wrong. No such crisis exists with flat-earthism. Your attempt to make it so does not help your position.
But science can help too. Not one scientific experiment in history supported heliocentrism more than geocentrism. That was crucial in my choice.
Relativity prevails in the order of the universe, so there is no PROOF. Similarly I suspect there is a relativity to a flat earth. The vast size of the earth probably makes its curvature (if it has one) produce experimental results that would also apply to a flat earth. We have been through plenty of that stuff. Nobody wins outright. In my mind after 500 years of sea travel, one would have thought man would have discovered that edge necessary for a flat earth. You give us data about distances around that edge and distances around what we call the north pole that I feel could be challenged but one would need to measure it oneself for it to really count as evidence. To me the whole thing is one big mess, convincing nobody on its merits.
Yes, a round shape of earth can be seen on the moon at times but you say the flat earth is a circle shape that could do the same. I doubt it, it would mean the sun has to go beneath the earth to cast the shadow on the moon above. But your sun and moon are always above. Alas I have not the enthusiasm to work it out.
Like geocentrism, only if one could view it from far enough away would there be proof of its shape. We see a global moon from earth, and global planets. But unlike geocentrism, which cannot be seen by man as it means going outside the universe, the earth's shape can be judged by satellites above us..
But there is your biggest hurdle. We have all seen the rockets take off. We have seen men go into rockets and taken off. We have seen men die in such take-offs. We have heard men got to the moon where the shape of the earth can certainly be judged from. We know thousands of men have been involved. We know NASA is 100% filled with heliocentrists and evolutionists and are doing all this to try to find life somewhere else so as to undermine earth as the only place where life exists. We know they pretend to us Newton and Kepler's maths when in fact they probably use the geocentric maths of Cassini. But to say all are engaged in a conspiracy to block evidence of a flat earth or to produce photos contrived deliberately to deceive the world into believing in a global earth is too much of a conspiracy for me.
There lads and lassies is your weak spot, trying to convince people of such a conspiracy.
Topic: Errors with Robert Sungenis "Globe" model (Read 2387 times)