The Flat Earthers Are Still With Us

narcberry writes "The BBC reports on a scientific community still holding to flat earth theories. From their article: 'Are there any genuine flat-earthers left? Surely in our era of space exploration — where satellites take photos of our blue and clearly globular planet from space, and robots send back info about soil and water from Mars — no one can seriously still believe that the Earth is flat? Wrong. Flat earth theory is still around. On the internet and in small meeting rooms in Britain and the US, flat earth believers get together to challenge the 'conspiracy' that the Earth is round.'"

Comments

Scientific community?

[Aardpig]

Well, that's obviously not the right thing to call them...

Re:Scientific community?

[unfasten]

The more correct thing to call them would be a co-host on The View.

Re:Scientific community?

[jacquesm]

I think I can live with the flat earthers a good bit more than I can with the creationists. They're really out with an agenda. It's no secret that there have always been people with less than optimally functioning critical faculties...

Re:Scientific community?

[Curtman]

You just wait until we adjust the curriculum to reflect reality.

The roundists have been spreading their lies for far too long.

Re:Scientific community?

[Rosy At Random]

Somehow I'm thinking the intersection of flat-earthers and creationists contains a lot of the flat-earthers.

Re:Scientific community?

[Kneo24]

I completely agree. There is no scientific basis for the "flat earth theory". None. Zero. Zilch. They can use whatever "scientific" (pseudo-science in this case) means they'd like, but that doesn't necessarily make it scientific. It is a proven fact that the Earth is round. So are other planets.

I wish people would stop calling cretins who pretend to use science as scientists. It soils the good name of science!

Re:Scientific community?

[Kneo24]

I know, replying to myself here, but I did do what's forbidden around here. I read the fucking article. These guys are god damn crack pots. The Earth is infinitely horizontal? Have they ever held a ball in their entire life? Do they have any sort of concept of perception?

What's even more irritating is that yes, they also believe the earth is circular, which sort of contradicts their infinitely horizontal theory. Someone important tell this dick-weeds to fuck off and stop breathing my precious air. I hereby decree that they are too stupid to function in a normal society.

Re:Scientific community?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Proven fact" is a very bad phrase. Proven to whom? You can say there are evidence, or better yet, that there are simple and clear ways to corroborate that the Earth is round, and that if anyone has any doubts they can perform these experiments for themselves.

Nothing is proven. You can only present your case, and allow the jury to judge for themselves.

Re:Scientific community?

[pxlmusic]

what's more fcuked up is that these idiots are breeding.

Re:Scientific community?

[conlaw]

When you start adjusting the curriculum, be sure to include the views of this important group: http://www.manwillneverfly.com/index.htm

Re:Scientific community?

[dmoen]

Do you have any evidence to support your assertion that Flat Earthers have the ability to get laid?

Re:Scientific community?

[Yvanhoe]

Someone tells these humorless Americans that humor can take many faces. What flat-earthers are doing is quite admirable in fact : they take the challenge of defending a view that is contradicted by almost every fact of normal life and try to create a coherent if convulated theory about it.

Re:Scientific community?

[nasor]

I actually went to their web page, and it seemed pretty clear that it was a tongue-in-cheek joke. Although I'm sure they're all having a BIG laugh at how worked up everyone is getting over the whole thing.

Re:Scientific community?

[deadmantyping]

The Earth is flat, just within a curve space. Oh snap! Did I just blow your mind!

Re:Scientific community?

[budgenator]

There is no scientific basis for the "flat earth theory". None. Zero. Zilch.

Are you sure, have you seriously looked at their arguments and considered them on their merits rather than you emotional beliefs? I'll bet if you sit down with a dedicated Flat Earther and had a debate, he or she would smoke you. i seriously doubt that the Flat Earthers believe the Earth is flat, but they do like taking the contrarian position and arguing it for the sport value.

Re:Scientific community?

[Jonny_eh]

Sometimes I wonder if the creationists are an elaborate parody too. Have you ever heard their arguments?

Re:Scientific community?

[n9hmg]

From their welcome page: "We welcome both skeptics and believers, so please join us.".

It's just a granfalloon, and they explicitly say so with that statement. I think there may be a scientific pursuit going on there - but in the study of human thought and interaction. They're examining coping mechanisms - the ways people twist their minds around to make the world fit what they believe.
Besides, haven't we all have to do an assignment in chemistry class where we explained an experimental result purely in terms of phlogiston theory? I'm tempted to go join them for a while, just for the fun of it.

Re:Scientific community?

[TriggerFin]

The intersection of two groups is the objects which are members of both groups. In this case, the GP posits that most of the members of the "flat earth" group are also members of the "creationism" group.

Re:Scientific community?

[FishWithAHammer]

The Flat Earth Society was created as a big joke in the first place. Most of the people posting there (myself included) are doing so as a tongue-in-cheek joke.

Yeah, there are a few nuts in there who actually believe it, but you'll get stupid beliefs anywhere.

Re:Scientific community?

[StormReaver]

"Someone tells these humorless Americans that humor can take many faces."

When the crackpots (such as the creationists) invade your school systems, you'll lose your sense of humor, too.

Re:Scientific community?

[houghi]

Flat and round earthers can live together in harmony. The earth is both flat and round. Just like a pizza.

Re:Scientific community?

[Gonoff]

It sounds to me like uou are unable to believe that there is nobody that dense.
Bob Heinlein wrote "Never understimate the power of human stupidity.

If people are so pusposely ignorant as to ignore the evidence about one thing, they will find it easy to ignore other truths as well.

I find it very believable that a small but vocal bunch of amazingly stupid people think the earth is flat. If they do, they will certainly have other foolish opinions as well.

Re:Scientific community?

[ale_ryu]

We should do to them exactly what they did to our guys 500 years ago, burn them, hang them, etc., at least we have proof we're right :P

Now, seriously speaking, it's obvious these guys are trolling, and they've put a lot of effort in it. Considering most of the slashdot community actually got angry at them I'd say they have succeded. Yep, these guys are successful trolls :P

Re:Scientific community?

[BewireNomali]

creationism is an opiate. it makes people who need it feel better about their existence. i can imagine that the guy who spins wonderous tales of magical beings can get laid - depending on his charisma, etc. it got jk rowling billions of dollars. *shrugs*

and yes i did compare the bible to harry potter.

flat-earthers? these guys do not get laid.

Re:Scientific community?

[rhyder128k]

This flat earth nonsense is easy to disprove. Just get an illustrated bible and look at Genesis. The Earth is clearly round in many modern editions that I have seen. They'd probably get around it by claiming that those versions of the bible were reinterpreted by human beings and different from other versions of the bible. Yeah right, that logic would prove that every existing bible is false. But that's just how whacky a flat-earther can be.

Re:Scientific community?

[freddy_dreddy]

I've only read a few threads and what they do is what every scientist pro or contra does: attack it from every possible angle. The topic they've chosen is as innocent as can be, and from the bits and pieces I've read they put up a very nice show which is amuzing to read

Questioning Science is not anti-scientific. Taking ruling theories as absolute truth is unscientific.

Stuff like this should be demonstrated in schools to show kids how science works and learn them how to build and defend your case.

Re:Scientific community?

[wideBlueSkies]

Agreed, that is a parody site.

Prior to the group's leader dying (in the last 10 years or so), there was a more serious website maintained, with documentation on their theories/beliefs, etc.

This guy had the global believers (yeah, global) pretty well organized - he'd collect membership fees, mail out newsletters, set up conferences, the usual for someone runnign a group. After his death, as expected, no one picked up his work, and things started to fall apart.

Don't let the parody site fool you. The Flat Earth people are as entrenched in their belief as normal people are about the world being a globe.

Re:Scientific community?

[dgatwood]

That theory is comedically easy to disprove. The distance from San Jose, CA to DFW airport is 1,685 miles. At five hours or so for the flight, that comes to on the order of 300 MPH. A bus traveling that speed on land would not make it. The tires would blow out after a few thousand feet at such a speed. Even if you could get around this problem with a new tire design, you'd still have the problem of hitting people and vehicles on the way. And, of course, if there were some elaborate theatrical production outside a plane traveling at such a rate, the people would fly away themselves. Oh, and I would add that with the number of people in and around these two airports, surely someone would have seen these 300 MPH busses if such a story were true.

Re:Scientific community?

[Ernst Hot]

Which is why Nathan Poe formulated Poe's Law

Re:Scientific community?

[Zebra_X]

It did seem that way, but Tom Bishop spends an awful lot of time defending the theory, one might mistake the amount of time he's invested (average 9 posts per day, ~ 9,000 posts total) as something more than "humor" lol

Poor sod

Re:Scientific community?

[jd]

The current land-speed record is a fraction over mach 1. Admittedly, this involved a bus only insofar as said bus provided a means for journalists and mechanics to reach the site, but it does mean that the tire argument alone is insufficient. The current land-speed record for a television journalist is over 300 mph, but he did indeed suffer a tire blowout. His survival and continued career, despite massive head injuries, does however prove that you don't need brains to be a TV celebrity.

Re:Scientific community?

[MonoSynth]

Okay, but let's see this in the perspective of a flat earth as they call it. In fact the earth isn't flat our round(ish). It has it's own unique dimensional system. The Round Earth theory is made by the New World Order government (USA, 'former' USSR, China, Japan and the EU) after they discovered this Earth-specific dimension system.

This system is so complex, it's ungraspable for most of mankind, but that would lead to the realization by us proles that we're not as smart as we think we are, reducing our level of self-confidence to that of the non-NWO countries (the cheap labour slaves). So they invented the Round Earth theory by providing (manipulated) pictures of a round earth, all made by combining photo's taken from hot air balloons. Steve Fossett had a big role in this project, but about one year ago he had some personal issues with some of the conspiracists and he threatened to write a book about the true shape of the earth.

They also provide 'pictures' of other round planets, just to let us believe that there are more round planets and that it's a perfectly normal thing for a planet to be round.

But as I said, the truth is as good as ungraspable. There are all sorts of complexities involved. The teleport from one end to another, for example. It prevents people from falling off the earth (but it also (still) prevents us from knowing what's underneath the earth). It's easily exploited to cross the pacific ocean from Japan to the USA, for example. This teleport-thing also makes it possible to strenghthen the Round Earth theory.

And what to think of the amazingly complex gravitational system that puts us on the earth and manages to move the sun, moon and stars in predictable yet complex ways? They just recently started to understand this system and made use of it to place satellites in 'orbit' without falling down (how else do you think that satellites always stay on the same place? By moving just exactly as fast as the earth? Impossible. They're just hanging there in the flat, static sky).

It's exactly those people that managed to analyze the inner workings of the teleport and made their own teleports and placed them in populated areas around the world, calling them 'Airports'. They attached bird-like wings to the buses that bring people to the teleports, just to make them believe they were going to fly through the air. In fact, the plane doesn't come off the ground, it's just replaced with a laser projected version while the real bus ('plane') is taxied to the teleport to be teleported to another 'Airport'. The windows are in fact hi-res screens. The current system is still pretty slow though (but a lot faster than boats and trains!), but in the future it will allow us to be teleported to anywhere in the world in seconds. Maybe even with a pocket 'aeroplane', but that won't be released to the public before they find a way to masquerade it as something that fits in the Round Earth theory.

Oh, and btw, the Flat Earth Theory is made by the same conspiracists, just to give the non-believers something else to believe in.

Re:Scientific community?

[AmishElvis]

I strongly suspect that these guys are the ultimate trolls. I think "Flat Earth" is a giant exercise in keeping a straight face.

Re:Scientific community?

[MikeBabcock]

You can disprove flat-earth theory.

You can't disprove creationism.

That doesn't make creationism true, but it makes believing in it defensible (and if you don't think so, you're too wrapped up in your own worldview to realize most people don't need their day to day beliefs to be rationalized and provable).

We've seen the resulting universe from what may have been a big bang, or a sudden creation, or a complete non-event, but we have no proof of any of them.

Re:Scientific community?

[Anonymous Coward]

Science and Religion ARE compatible!

Re:Scientific community?

[gregbot9000]

I was talking to a hard core Mormon neighbor the other day when he started to pressure me to his views, at which point I smacked him with fact. his response was to quote Nietzsche, "Faith is not wanting to know what is true." in support of his ridiculous beliefs. The only appropriate response I could think of was to grab my crotch and proposition him, worked like a charm, now they cross the street when they see me.

People want to be stupid and believe fantasy, it helps them cope with things that are beyond them, look at the 9-11 truth movement. Anyone, even Scientists, who try to shield their beliefs or theory's from scrutiny should be instantly slapped.

Re:Scientific community?

[D'Sphitz]

The difference is I can understand why creationists think what they do. They have some "evidence" in the bible, they've been brainwashed since infancy, and it's a nice emotional crutch to not have to come to terms with their own mortality.

I'm at a loss to come up with any rationalization for believing the earth is flat, though.

Re:Scientific community?

[omfgnosis]

No, "your" was correct. It is referencing [a round earther's] action, not stating what [the round earther] is doing. It's the same as saying, "your behavior" or "your action".

Re:Scientific community?

[ChromaticDragon]

Maybe.. maybe not..

I had a history teacher in High School who purported to be a Flat-Earther. This chap was a very good humanities/history teacher. He had all sorts of ways to bring alive one of the more boring subjects (at least for teenagers who won't figure out for another decade or two why it's one of the most important subjects). This was also my wrestling coach. So for many reasons we respected this man. And he did have a good sense of humor.

But we had no idea why he claimed to believe the Earth was flat. To this day, I'm still not certain if this was real, tongue-in-cheek or yet another creative teaching methodology. He did put most of the students on the spot to defend why we believed the Earth was round. Almost none of us had any other answer than things like "but... but... people have gone up and taken pictures". None of us could explain how for several millenia all educated folk have known the Earth was round based a few obvious things such as the way a ship disappears over the horizon, the fact that the shadow of the Earth on the moon is always round and things like certain constellations going out of sight as folk travel north or south. This was well before the Google age where someone in the classroom could have found all that in a couple of minutes on the web.

In any case, you need not fear alternative ideas (even blatantly false goofy ones) in your school systems. If anything you should fear people trying to coopt the boards to ensure goofy ideas are taught in a non-critical fashion. But then, if you have any idea of the history of schools and school boards in America, you're probably jaded anyhow.

Re:Scientific community?

[rk]

We've seen the resulting universe from what may have been a big bang, or a sudden creation, or a complete non-event, but we have no proof of any of them.

The moment you break out a word like "proof", you are already on the express bus out of Scienceville. Science is about coming up with theories that match observations, and can make predictions about future observations. The reason why scientists generally regard the Big Bang Theory as a good theory is because it fit observations made at the time and is confirmed by more observations made since that the theory predicted. When observations are made that don't fit the theory, the theory gets elaborated on (in the case of relativity refining Newton's classical mechanics) or outright rejected (luminiferous ether, phlogistons). A theory can be disproven, but can never really be proven.

Any reasonably honest scientist will cheerfully acknowledge that the current understanding of cosmology, evolution, or any other science doesn't represent the whole truth, or even a truth, but are models to explain what we see in nature. If science had all the answers, we'd have no need for further science research!

Re:Scientific community?

[risk one]

And the fossils are like pepperoni slices that God topped his pizza with to test our faith. It all adds up.

Re:Scientific community?

[nasor]

It's funny, because I would expect slashdot readers to be much less susceptible to trollish "I'll see if I can actually trick anyone into thinking that I'm being serious with this obviously fake, incredibly stupid post" sort of thing. But apparently not.

That being said, it's a great subject for trooling. And good troll will tell you that you need to make a post that is:
1. Obviously wrong
2. About a subject that's complicated enough that it would take someone significant time/effort to properly explain why the original post is wrong
3. Stupid enough that you can get a laugh at the expense of all the people who took your post seriously and put in significant time/effort to respond

Re:Scientific community?

[BeanThere]

Yeah ... reminds me of some Richard Mitchell:

"Words never fail. We hear them, we read them; they enter into the mind and become part of us for as long as we shall live. Who speaks reason to his fellow men bestows it upon them. Who mouths inanity disorders thought for all who listen."

Re:Scientific community?

[Profane MuthaFucka]

I think I have found in you a kindred spirit!

P.S. Wanna fuck?

Re:Scientific community?

[flappinbooger]

Jezza, is that you?

Re:Scientific community?

[Goaway]

That is certainly no surprise. A large part of the people who work in IT support are the kind of people who confuse familiarity with computers with intelligence.

Re:Scientific community?

[jagdish]

There is no light. The Sun sucks dark. In fact it sucks dark so hard that the friction of the dark moving to the Sun causes the Sun to be very hot. The flow of dark towards the Sun interrupted by the Earth causes the side of the Earth away from the Sun to accumulate dark, thus causing Night. As the Earth rotates the dark caught on the night side can then be pulled off, this causing the absence of dark known as Day.

What we call light bulbs are truly dark suckers as well. That is why light bulbs are hot, just like the Sun. When a light bulb is full of dark and won't suck dark any more, it cools off. If you look in old light bulbs you can even seen the accumulation of dark.

Dark is also heavier than water. This can be seen in the oceans where the deeper you go the darker it gets.

(Source unknown)

Re:Scientific community?

[ConceptJunkie]

Are you suggesting we all live on a disc? And what carries this disc? Next, you'll say something ridiculous like "the disc is balanced on the back of four elephants who in turn are carried by a giant turtle".

That's so silly I bet you couldn't even write a good fantasy story about it.

Re:Scientific community?

[fm6]

Dude, did you happen to notice that manwillneverfly.com is tongue-in-cheek? The leader of this organization describes himself as "Chairman of the Bored".

Re:Scientific community?

[upside]

I thought the guy behind Notice for Newbies post on their forums, "Professor Gaycunt" was also a bit of a giveaway.

Re:Scientific community?

[maglor_83]

So God is a cat? Why, now everything makes so much sense!

Re:Scientific community?

[Keen Anthony]

You can disprove creationism, and you can do it rather easily. Creationism doesn't stop with "God created man". That's the domain of the mouth-breathing religious zealot who knows nothing about the scary world around him, including the history of the Bible. Real Creationism "theory" has become far more developed as Creationists try to respond to challenges.

There are quantitative observations the deeper you go into the theory. Calculations of such things as the age of the earth based on the summation of ages of the apostles are used as prima facie evidence that God created man, and yet carbon dating in this example easily shows the calculations are wrong.

Re:Scientific community?

[Stooshie]

using the bible to disprove the flat earth theory is like using spaghetti monsters to disprove unicorns.

Wow.. Just Wow

[Namors]

Cue the Turtles

Re:Wow.. Just Wow

[Namors]

me too
BBQ or Soup ?

Re:Wow.. Just Wow

[Kent Recal]

Watch your words you naysayers.
As it seems Paris Hilton will be president soon and I wouldn't be too surprised if the earth would be declared flat then - if only to "simplify things" a bit.

Re:Wow.. Just Wow

[Destoo]

- But, what does the turtle sits on?
- Another turtle.
- And that turtle?
- It's turtles all the way down

Which is worse

[yamamushi]

I can't decide which is worse, the Flat-earthers, or the hollow-earthers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow_Earth . I heard some guy on C2C the other week spouting out some nonsense about looking for a hole in the arctic that would prove the earth was hollow, I can't believe people still believe this crap.

Re:Which is worse

[TomHandy]

I can't decide which is worse, the Flat-earthers, or the hollow-earthers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow_Earth . I heard some guy on C2C the other week spouting out some nonsense about looking for a hole in the arctic that would prove the earth was hollow, I can't believe people still believe this crap.

Neal Adams (famous comic book artist, especially for Batman) is a big proponent.... check out his crackpot site: http://www.nealadams.com/morescience.html Actually, he's a proponent of the "expanding earth" theory which is even more crackpot.

Re:Which is worse

[zsau]

I believe that the we're the ones who're living on the inside of the earth. The outside of the earth doesn't really exist though; instead what regular science considers to be the centrepoint of the earth is actually the very edge of the universe. Although if I bother reading your link a similar proposal is discussed there (attributed to Martin Gardner), but my link's to the site of a guy titled the Wizard of New Zealand, so it's probably more reliable than Wikipedia.

Re:Which is worse

[Truekaiser]

if i remember correctly the earth gains about a few tons a day due to all the debree that falls from orbit, though not all at the same time it's basicly from rocks about the size of your head or smaller.

Re:Which is worse

[ZosX]

I gotta be honest. I just looked at a lot of expanding earth pages and it really seems no more crackpot than plate tectonics and it also helps explain a few things such as why pangea seems pretty far fetched. I mean a whole sphere of water with one single landmass? It seems the surface would have had to have been more homogeneous than that. Also why are the sea floors so brand spankin new? I do know that at one point a great deal of North America's land mass was inundated with sea water, but that isn't really an explanation as to why the oceans that are present now are basically new. Plate tectonics was considered very crackpot when it came out as a theory. Also take note that these are all still in the theory stage. Plate tectonics has yet to be fully proven.

WOOOSH!! @ Americans

[EEPROMS]

Im Australian so I can understand the subtle nature sarcastic english humour. Sorry I have to rush off I have a committee meeting on a new funny walk that needs approval...

The OTHER Conspiracy

[Eggplant62]

Don't forget, there's a conspiracy of NORMAL PEOPLE trying to steal your slack and preventing the aliens from rescuing all SubGenii on July 5, 1998.

See http://www.subgenius.com/ for more details!

Yeah, the Earth is flat!

[xayide]

My Uncle belonged to this society when he was in college in the 1970's. He likened it to the SCA. I love these guys because they will never, ever admit to the joke.

Re:Yeah, the Earth is flat!

[Rosy At Random]

For those who don't know but can't be bothered*, http://www.sca.org/ (The Society for Creative Anachronism).

* ... so why do I care? Bloody sod you! Ignore this post!

Re:Yeah, the Earth is flat!

[Andrew Kismet]

SCA is just LARPing, only slightly more insane.

Re:Yeah, the Earth is flat!

[magarity]

I love these guys because they will never, ever admit to the joke
 
It's like going to a Star Trek convention and talking to someone dressed up as Spock. He will never, ever, break character for the entire weekend.
 
Maybe not even after going home but that's between him and his mother.

So what?

[the eric conspiracy]

Flat earthers etc. are fine with me so long as they don't all join the school board and force the teaching of their ideas in public schools.

Re:So what?

[Tack]

The implicit comparison is apt. Denying a round earth is quite close in ignorance to denying evolution.

Re:So what?

[1u3hr]

The implicit comparison is apt. Denying a round earth is quite close in ignorance to denying evolution.

The vital difference is that probably 99% of avowed Flat Earthers don't actually believe it. They are just playing a role and defending an absurd position as an intellectual exercise, like a debating club where you have to advocate a point of view regardless of your personal beliefs.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not atheists, you dolt. Scientists. There are more than enough religious scientists who do not believe in "Creationism", thanks.

Neither side has proof but both sides have evidence.

Creationists do not have any evidence. They have a book.

I still have my BIG doubts...

[Spy der Mann]

How do we know it's not a club of pranksters who want to fool the world into believing flat-earthers still exist?

Flat Earth belief is a myth

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no historical evidence that anyone ever believed the world to be flat. The idea is a relatively modern invention.

Re:Flat Earth belief is a myth

[volcanopele]

Yeah, but the people Columbus would have recruited for his voyages would know full well that the earth was spherical. Anyone who lives near or works on the sea would know this. Again, Columbus' problem was convincing people that the Earth was smaller than the Ancient Greeks thought it was. Would you go on an ocean voyage, on a rickety boat (let's not pretend that the Santa Maria was some grand, big ship), with the potential for not seeing land for 6 months (roughly how long it would take to get from Spain to Japan)?

Maybe if you didn't live near the sea or were ever near one, you might think the Earth was flat. But then again, your whole world had maybe a 5-10 mile radius, and didn't care. And Columbus wasn't recruiting these people to be sailors.

Given a sufficiently large population...

[Hangtime]

you will find plenty of people that fall WELL outside the normal range. In my industry where I deal with millions of customers its always the case. Even if the earth were covered with only 1% of out of normal range people (which I think its much higher then that) that would mean 60 million or the roughly the size of the UK. If its closer to 5% then its the size of the US. Scary there might be that many people who think like that in the world.

Just as amazing

[winterice]

Not only that, but just as amazing, Young Earth creationists are still with us as well.

Re:Just as amazing

[Rosy At Random]

They've been around for a while now though; shouldn't they be at least Middle-Aged Earth creationists by now?

Re:Just as amazing

[krazytekn0]

I was going to mod you up, but decided a reply will be more in order... TAKE SPECIAL NOTE OF THE WORDS "Young Earth" This is the illogical creation theory, there are in fact people who believe that God created the Big Bang, or that he created living things through the process of evolution those who believe this are not nearly the "crackpots" that the normal slashdotter believes that ALL creationists are, this thinking on the part of many intellectual elitists is equally fallacious as Young Earth creationism.

Also note, there are a TON of other theories and I don't claim to represent any of them well. I just think people need to be a little introspective when they say things assuming that ALL creationists believe the earth is 6000 years old.

Re:Duh, of course the earth is flat!

[Rosy At Random]

And time is cubic!

Re:Duh!

[dada21]

Personally, I believe the earth is flat. I also do believe that the Internet is a myth. The Internet was created in an instantaneous moment when an Eliza program on a BBS gained self-recognition. What you read, right now, is really just this Eliza application that is creating exactly what you want to see. Since the software has gained so much knowledge, it is giving you the impression that you're actually talking to others, when in fact you're not.

The dilemma is whether or not I am real, or if I am just another creation of Eliza, the creator of all things web. You should be impressed that Eliza has taken such a strangehold on your life: forums do not really exist other than your own posts, and neither does FTP or ssh. All are just creations that Eliza has performed for you, and only you.

Makes you change your stance on how much time you're spending on slashdot with "us," doesn't it?

They are idiots

[MrHanky]

Yes, I'm still sore that my donut shaped earth theory never caught on. Mmmm, donut.

Re:Not Necessarily News

[alexgieg]

I think that the term 'News' should not apply to a 500-year old debate.

I think you're confusing two different things. 500 years ago people discussed whether the Earth was fixed of movable, but no one had any doubt whatsoever about it being a sphere. Earth's shape, and even its rough diameter, have been acknowledged scientific facts for way more than two millennia.

Fix your sentence to "I think that the term 'News' should not apply to a 2400-year old debate", remove your reference to the Aztecs, and your post will be in the correct time frame. ;)

Dont apologise for the downtime yet.

[simpleguy]

From the Flat Earth Society Forums:

"News: The Flat Earth Society forums are back up! I apologise for the downtime. The problem has been resolved and won't happen again...."

Far from the several thousand kilometres of flat earth, comes the slashdot effect. Expect downtime again.

Re:Duh!

[What'sInAName]

How does believe the earth is flat make you feel?

Encouraging...

[blind biker]

It's encouraging that these same people are global warming sceptics. From their FAQs:

Q: "How does global warming affect the ice wall?"

A1: The Ice Wall is really a mountain range. It just happens to be covered in ice and snow.

A2: Global Warming doesn't happen. It and its counter-theory (Global Cooling) are effects that cancel each other out. Remember, these "greenhouse gasses" can reflect heat back out into space as well as keep it on Earth. Yes, there are recorded rises in temperature, but the only records we have go back, at most, around 150 years. This is very likely an occurrence that happens every [x>150] years, that's happened before (perhaps many times), and that the Earth has thus survived before.

It's a matter of trust.

[Anonymous Coward]

Most people never travel farther than a few hundred miles from their place of birth. I've never seen Australia, so I don't know if it's on the other side of a round earth. For all I know it might not even exist at all. We're all like Truman. We believe what we're told because if we tried to verify everything, then we couldn't get on with our lives. Some people notice that "science" is often used as a "proof by intimidation" and consequently lose their trust in scientific results. So the earth is flat, because that's what I see, and none of you "scientists" can fool me with your "theories".

Same as evolution, really...

[EWAdams]

If you can't immediately [fnord] see it happening under your nose, it must be a [fnord] conspiracy. Flat earth, evolution, black holes, nanotechnology... all conspiracies.

Absolutely NOT funny

[Linzer]

The parent does not deserve a "funny" tag. Rather, it points out a serious error in the summary, which largely justifies an edit. The BBC article reports on a "group of people". How on Earth did they become a "scientific community" on /.?

The earth is not flat...

[Ruliz Galaxor]

The earth is round, just like a pancake.

Re:Not Necessarily News

[xayide]

You can prove the Earth is round by looking at a lunar eclipse. Educated people have known the shape of the Earrh for thousands of years. I have no idea why they teach us as children that everyone thought Chris Columbus would sail off the edge of the earth.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Not like the others?

[drolive]

In their fabulous FAQ, http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=a1f7f3fc005b90c85c7385afa7ee25d1&topic=11211.0 :
Q: "Why are other celestial bodies round but not the Earth?"
A: The Earth is not one of the other planets. The Earth is special and unlike the other bodies in numerous ways.

Brilliant! Myself, I was wondering why the world is revolving around me. They just gave me the answer.

You idiots

[PatTheGreat]

Dude, the Flat-Earthers aren't the Christian Right, here. Yeah, there's a Flat-Earther Society that likes to meet and pretend the Earth is still flat, but they don't, in actuality, take themselves seriousely. It's an amusing hobby and an excuse to get away from their wives and hang out with the guys once a year. Jeez.

Fake, fake and fake.

[k33l0r]

I think someone is pulling a great prank. Just read this section in their FAQ:

Q: "What's underneath the Earth?" aka "What's on the bottom?" aka "What's on the other side?"

A: This is unknown. Some believe it to be just rocks, others believe the Earth rests on the back of four elephants and a turtle.

That's straight of of Terry Pratchett's Discworld series.

Re:Fake, fake and fake.

[matria]

And he got it from Indian (not Native American) creation myths.

Re:Fake, fake and fake.

[Allstarenterprises]

You realize of course Pratchett was basing this view on Hindu mythology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

Re:Fake, fake and fake.

[jimicus]

I think someone is pulling a great prank. Just read this section in their FAQ:

Q: "What's underneath the Earth?" aka "What's on the bottom?" aka "What's on the other side?"

A: This is unknown. Some believe it to be just rocks, others believe the Earth rests on the back of four elephants and a turtle.

That's straight of of Terry Pratchett's Discworld series.

Not true. The idea that the earth rests on the back of a turtle is not new:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

Re:Why did this get Slashdotted?

[WK2]

There is proof that the world is not flat. There will never be proof that God does not exist.

Re:Why did this get Slashdotted?

[thejeffer]

There will also never be proof that the Easter Bunny does not exist.

Pffft!

[Brandybuck]

'Are there any genuine flat-earthers left?'

Pffft! That's nothing. There are still 9/11 Truthers left! And they believe that fire can't melt steel!

Re:Not Necessarily News

[vivin]

No, the lunar eclipse happens when God plays frisbee and the frisbee flies across the disc moon that floats above our discworld!

Re:"expanding earth" theory

[gnuman99]

You even have an *idea* what you wrote??

Energy doesn't "convert" to mass and vice-versa. This is an *equivalence* equation, and not even a complete one because M is not M (as in rest mass) but also includes momentum.

If you can take any energy and magically convert it to mass (without the anti-particle), let me know. You'll get a Nobel prize in Physics.

Yes, all the energy ends up back in space as heat (regular light is almost heat anyway).

Now, if you said that the solar wind gets captured by Earth's magnetic field and sucked down to Earth - that is more believable. Except, the solar wind also strips off the outer layers of the atmosphere. So basically end up with insignificant changes.

1 cent for some effort and bold guessing though.

Re:belief without experience is more stupider

[Lost Race]

For rational people, "flat" or "round" Earth isn't a matter of belief or even truth. It's a matter of what geometric model works best to describe travel on or near Earth, best accounts for the movements of celestial objects, and so on.

For example, some flat-Earthers in TFA propose a geometric model of Earth as a disc with one "pole" at the center and the other at the circumfrence. Lines of latitude are circles, larger in the south than in the north. However, extra complexity must be added to this model to account for wildly varying rates of travel by the same vehicles around these lines; a simpler and more effective model uses a round Earth with better predictive value. This is not to say that the round Earth model is more "true" or worthy of "belief" -- just that it gives better results. Science doesn't care what is true, and reality doesn't care what you believe. Only results matter.

These guys provide a valuable service.

[Fantastic Lad]

They provide fodder so that the self-righteous Slashdotter know-it-all can feel superior.

I've met guys like this before, and a good portion of them are just being contrary because they know it bugs people.

Another good portion of them are suffering from some kind of obvious emotional/mental disorder which makes them difficult to be around. So yes, let's all laugh at the distressed people and jump up and down for the trolls.

The only real problem with these sorts of people is that they discredit any ideas which happen to have substance but which tend to get lumped in with and sullied by flat earth thinking.

-FL

Re:belief without experience is more stupider

[JasonNolan]

just because your model is better (and I agree it is) doesn't for a moment mitigate the fact that the model and theory is being replaced for an actual experience of the thing itself. Of course western science has the best results when you want to build a bridge. But you don't believe in science based on the model without ever seeing the bridge in action. Same with the world. And to say that science isn't about truth is ludicrous. It is a hegemonic belief structure just like any other. Just one that is really useful right now in terms of the sort of things we like doing. But I think you're on the money when you boil it down to the important bit. It doesn't matter what is true or right, but rather what is most useful at the moment... the predictive value; a concept that most people inside science seem to think that everyone understands... which is a strange thought. :)

Re:belief without experience is more stupider

[TapeCutter]

"That's as stupid as creationist and their logic. I don't care if 'science' says so, or God. My earth is relatively flat. Nothing in my personal experience shows me otherwise.....I personally have no way of verifying that information"

Science always gives you the option of reproducing results, if it deosn't then it can't be called science. If you are too lazy or stupid to repoduce the results for yourself but still insist they are wrong then you will quite rightly be labeled as an arrogant crackpot.

In the case of the flat earth, it's blindingly obviously you are not paying attention to your surroundings. For example how do you explain ships dissapearing over the horizon? If they fall of the edge then how do they get back?

"to suddenly go off into believing 'ex officio' everything science says is silly"

Please attempt to learn what science is before offering your critique.