I'd certainly be interested in being challenged by an argument or two, but in no way do I have 6 hours to spend listening to the whole case.
I did skip ahead in it and listened about the canal experiment in which a boat traveled 6 miles down a straight canal and was visible from the starting location the whole way. I would say to that that the water was not "standing water" as video footage clearly shows the water flowing, and water always flows from higher ground to lower ground, and therefore, the surface of the water at the start of its origin will always be higher than the place it flows to (or it would not flow there). This could effectively mean the man conducting the experiment in the canal water was at a higher altitude than the boat was 6 miles away. In effect, the water surface may well have been more or less flat over that distance.
I'm assuming the experiment was actually conducted and expected drop in altitude was as claimed.
I think clearly, if the earth was flat, there would certainly be much more ample evidence of it which simply does not exist, such as a photo from an airline cruising at 35,000 feet on a very clear day that shows things much farther away than is possible with a round earth.
I think clearly, if the earth was flat, there would certainly be much more ample evidence of it which simply does not exist,
I have viewed numerous "flat earth" videos and my opinion is similar to yours in the opposite. I found that the "ball shaped" earth and "gravity" lacked ample evidence to allow for a satisfactory or definitive conclusion. My interest in this subject was more about the "firmament" spoken of in Biblical texts (and many other ancient texts/cultures) and described as a sort of dome over the earth. If this firmament exists is it impenetrable ? [The ridiculous number of high atmosphere atomic bombs exploded in the late 50's gives me pause to inquire, why allegedly intelligent scientists from the U.S. and Russia would allow this at all].
I also thought it strange, if true, that not even one image exists of earth that have resulted from an astronaut simply turning the camera 180 degrees (while outside of the space station) to show the ball earth.
All of NASA's images are computer generated or artist renditions which bothers me and when I think about the moon missions and the possibility that they were faked. Did we really have the technology necessary to communicate with a mission that had landed on the moon some 238,000 miles away ?
Some here will know the name "Renee from North Carolina" a caller on talk radio programs (that annoys me to no end, and called me a "flesh peddler"). She called in to "The Power Hour" and reported that she had seen the actual "Moon Lander" and couldn't believe that it was even possible that this piece of junk ever landed on the moon.
For me, a Bible believer, the ever expanding universe and the notion that the earth is a speck of dust lost in the immensity of the universe deprives humanity of a special place in God's creation. This idea makes mankind itself insignificant and the result of an accident. It immediately allows for the BIG BANG THEORY and causes people to ignore the mathematical perfection of creation or the world we can actually see for ourselves.
I have questions now about a subject that I hadn't considered before and consider it now primarily because the official story as related to mankind has so often been false, that I no longer trust "anything" that oozes out of the television or is promoted by the Vatican or the governments of the world.
I do think that humanity is being degraded and the sanctity of life is losing importance because people think they don't matter which I believe ultimately leads to many believing that NOTHING MATTERS.
I have concluded for myself that our existence on this wonderful earth whether a ball or flat is nearly miraculous even though at times it is disrupted by events we have a difficult time understanding.
Thanks for the thoughtful response. First, I will point out the obvious truth that people have an absolutely enormous capacity to believe things whether they are true or not. The fact that there are just as many Muslims in the world as Christians, and that the faith these two groups possess is primarily determined by that of their parents makes that obvious enough. Clearly the two faiths are incompatible with each other, so clearly at least one of these two groups is incorrect in their theology and has simply not done enough digging for the truth, ultimately having accepted what their parents have told them about God.
But that's how we are. Call it human nature, but it's a fact that some people from both groups are still willing to die for what they do believe.
From this, I consider the challenge for each of us is to be open minded and stay open minded about what the universal truth is, as it's clearly a far greater challenge than most of us would even guess. That is why no matter how silly I consider someone's beliefs to be, including a flat earth (and I do consider it silly) I still won't mock them. I instead enjoy the intellectual puzzle of debunking the arguments I don't believe in, and defending my own beliefs when others attempt the same against me.
As for flat earth, we can argue about things we've seen and heard on the internet, but ultimately that does indeed come down to a he said/she said argument. Instead, how about if I relate my own personal experience in the matter. I have had DirectTV in the past where a TV signal magically appears on my TV when a satellite dish is aligned just right pointing into the sky. Round earthers would contend it's because the dish is aligned properly with a broadcasting satellite in geosynchronous orbit around the spherical earth. How would a flat earther explain my personal experience in getting a TV signal in this way, as I assume with that model satellites cannot exist over a flat earth.
As for faked moon landings, even if they were faked, that wouldn't prove the earth is flat. Certainly during the cold war there was motive to fake the landings if moon landings were not possible at that time.
As for the notion that we could not possibly be merely tiny specs of insignificant life on an impossibly small spec of dust in an impossibly large big bang universe, I am completely confident that we are not at all insignificant in spite of that exact scenario. As I see things, it is not our humanity that makes us God's children, but us as souls. While both Christianity (and Islam, for that matter) both assume that an immortal soul is somehow created by human DNA (a concept that makes no scientific sense whatsoever) I contend it does not (and I have yet to hear anyone at all even attempt to argue to the contrary). The general assumption is we are humans who have souls, while I contend it's the opposite, that we as souls actually originate from a place outside this universe who possess human bodies. Reincarnation is one element of a great many that fit into this model, and the big bang theory and all the widely accepted notions about the universe do as well, including evolution. As I see it, it works perfectly in both theological and scientific terms, and explains all I see and experience so much better than any mainstream faith does.