Flat Earthers

[Spidey]

Yea, Alter-Fox that makes sense, but I would probably replace conspiracy with hoax, conspiracy carries too many implications that I can't see.

[Alter-Fox]

Re: Lightwolf

Uh, dude, I never said "religion vs science". I may choose not to be religious but that doesn't mean I don't see value in it.

I just used the two worldviews as an example for how the same type of thinking can take two different people to two wildly different conclusions, and why both still deserve credit for actual thought and not just belief.
As far as that actual debate goes, my own thoughts are really just that due to the incomprehensible nature of all-powerful supernatural beings that are beyond our comprehension, the contradictions between the two ideas might only really look like contradictions to our limited minds. For all I know, they might both be right.

Scientific process is all about coming up with a good idea that's probably mostly wrong and then working out those details to make it less and less wrong. Inconsistencies are to be expected even in really good models.
Scientific process is also about endlessly and desperately trying to get enough funding to do that, so progress in fields that don't directly benefit governments or businesses can absolutely be frustratingly slow.

If someone came up with another model that could explain all the same things, I'd certainly give it some serious thought. But they haven't yet, and I'm certainly not smart enough to do it myself, so...

Re: spider
Lol that's fair

[LightWolf]

You did say "I may like the scientific argument on that issue more than the religious one," as though the religious one didn't include science. You may not have meant it in that light (in which case I retract applicable comments), but a lot of people who say that do, and frankly it's a massive pet peeve of mine when people try to imply that theistic religion and science are at odds when they aren't.

Anyway, back to the flat Earth busting.

[Alter-Fox]

Aaaah, no no no, you see I was just trying to use euphemisms for the conclusions people reach when they weighted the evidence of one over the other (evolution and creationism) and to try and avoid derailing the entire thread and... well, you see how well that worked for us. XD
I did not mean to imply that either point of view doesn't consider the other's evidence at all, only that on the general ideas in each one (an explanation for the entire creation of the earth vs an explanation for the fossil record and the relationships between different species), they're weighing one of those ideas more than the other.
I certainly wasn't trying to say that anyone who looked at the world primarily through an "own eyes evidence" approach would immediately see all the research into the molecular mechanisms and decide that it was perfect and flawless, only that they'd probably see the same things that Darwin did, especially if they had learned about his thinking. The point was that while they may be basing their worldview on knowledge other people gained for them, they're still coming to a worldview based on that knowledge, rather than accepting the knowledge based on a worldview they inherited.
Upbringing and education can influence that but it's the person themselves who decides it. In other words it's still possible for someone else who learned about Darwin's thinking in the same classroom to decide they like the bible's version better.

I had the impression from your response that you were calling the entire evolutionary model "unscientific" based on a few seemingly-inconsistent studies into the fine molecular details, which if you had been doing that would have betrayed a gross misunderstanding of science itself. My impression was wrong, though.

At least we didn't get someone else coming in here and jumping on it. With the type of thread this is, that could easily turn this from a "fun argument" to a "very not fun argument".

[Krom]

If you are wondering how life spawned in an oxygen rich atmosphere, the answer is: It didn't.

It likely isn't even possible to spawn life in an atmosphere as volatile as the one present on the modern Earth. Oxygen is some seriously nasty stuff.

[dissent]

yeah, and now, rust never sleeps

[Alter-Fox]

I've always found the idea that the environment where life can form is not the same as the environment where it can grow complex interesting, Krom, 'cause so many peoples' ideas of how much life there might be in other places in the universe seems to be "if the planet is habitable for complex organisms, there'll probably be some there".
But it's quite possible from this idea that that would turn out to be almost entirely false. And maybe get even more complicated since the organisms also shape the environment. Maybe more likely to find a whole load of planets that are almost habitable but not quite, because no life or not enough life formed there.

And hey, Oxygen *is* nasty. Yet we not only live in it, we breathe it to make ourselves more powerful. Now I for one think, this must make us basically superbeings.

[Krom]

You know, there is one thing that has happened in the last 18 months or so that is somewhat of a gift to the science of evolution. A clear and obvious example of it actually happening in time scale that a human can perceive. We even have names for it: Delta and Omicron.

Covid-19 has evolved before our very eyes, it is proof of evolution so strong it has literally choked millions to death. I know pointing this out won't actually convince anyone who believes in creation that they are objectively wrong, but at least I get the satisfaction of knowing evolution actually allows us to make predictions of the future and then see those predictions come true. In other words, I get to say "I told you so."

[LightWolf]

It only proves microevolution (within a species), which has been observed and proven several times. It does not prove one species can become another entirely (macroevolution). That said, few people on either side of the debate seem to know the difference; most seem to think "Adaptation proves all evolution!" or "Evolution doesn't exist; neither does natural selection!"

[Krom]

Macroevolution doesn't exist. It is always "microevolution", eventually enough of it piles up that you can call it a different species, but there is never really a clear line where a species branches off and asking for an example of one is unreasonable.

You even say we have proven the small steps, so what makes you think that you can't get somewhere else entirely as long as you just keep walking for long enough?

[LightWolf]

First off, microevolution, macroevolution, species, etc. are well-defined terms.

According to Berkeley:

Microevolution is evolution on a small scale — within a single population. That means narrowing our focus to one branch of the tree of life.
...
For animals, it’s fairly easy to decide what a population is. It is a group of organisms that interbreed with each other — that is, they all share a gene pool. So for our species of beetle, that might be a group of individuals that all live on a particular mountaintop and are potential mates for one another.

Biologists who study evolution at this level define evolution as a change in gene frequency within a population.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolutio ... evolution/

Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level. So instead of focusing on an individual beetle species, a macroevolutionary lens might require that we zoom out on the tree of life, to assess the diversity of the entire beetle clade and its position on the tree.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolutio ... evolution/

species: A group of individuals that actually or potentially interbreed in nature. In this sense, a species is the largest gene pool possible under natural conditions.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/glossary/species/

So yes, it is perfectly reasonable to ask for an example of where a species branches off. Actually, I'll beat you to it - in researching this I found a recent example where two finches mated, producing a new species - of finch. Still a bird. Nothing which indicates that a single-celled organism could eventually become either a dog or a person - what most people think of with macroevolution, and what I have an issue with.

Most evolutionists do, as you pointed out, believe that a series of microevolutionary adaptations add up to macroevolution. Then where is the recent evidence of transitional species (commonly used in the context of one organism turning into an obviously different kind of organism over X time)? After all, evolution is supposed to occur continuously. It wouldn't just stop in time for us to develop the scientific method. There should be groups of organisms we can observe where, within the span of a traceable amount of generations, stop being the same kind. Events such as the Cambrian Explosion demonstrate that family-level macroevolution can happen on a very quick basis (https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/news/201 ... ought.html), so surely it must have happened once in the recent past. (When I refer to 'kind', the closest technical definition is the taxonomic 'family'.) Heck, why aren't there all kinds of species halfway between one kind and another still alive? Why are there so many obvious differences between kinds, such that we can clearly define so many of them into families?

No matter how far you try to walk on the microevolutionary globe, you will never reach the moon. (If you're Burly, you might fall off the edge of the Earth...there is an analogy to fatal gene disorders there if you wanna think about it that way.) You will never see the kind of changes evolution claims to be capable of. I haven't even touched on the lack of few-celled organisms yet.

(Speaking of globes and Burly, hey Burly, where's your response to Dave's Globebusters response? Not gonna let you off the hook this easily... this is why I wanted to move to a separate thread.)

[Krom]

No it is not reasonable to ask for an example of a species branching off in real time. You post an article saying "the Cambrian explosion may have happened much faster than originally thought" without apparently reading it: 20 million years. You also talk about two different species of finches mating and producing a hybrid offspring, not the same thing!

Also how would you tell if some species is in a transitional state? Are you going to observe and document every generation for tens of thousands of generations? Do you think any human researcher or even research organization has sufficient lifespan to even document such a change? Do you have any idea how long it took for single celled organisms to become people and dogs? Is the species you decide to observe actually experiencing any selective evolutionary pressure that could even potentially make it transition into something else? Do you even understand that said selective evolutionary pressure generally means the origin species goes extinct and won't be around to observe and compare with anymore?

Macroevolution still doesn't exist as anything but a language term humans use to sort things, it doesn't just happen in the natural world. You are literally asking for a fish to one day grow legs and lungs and then crawl out of the sea or even an amoeba colony to just suddenly become an elephant.

[LightWolf]

Created a new thread. Now Burly can have a chance to post his rebuttal, if he has one.

[TigerRaptor]

Created a new thread. Now Burly can have a chance to post his rebuttal, if he has one.

Oh boy! Are you sure about that?

Something like this might happen.

[Burlyman]

People always get mad about flat earth and Christianity. It's not religion they don't like, it's Christianity.

NIce try attempting to bait me into a "rebuttal"

[LightWolf]

Oh hey look what I found, something which addresses the model...erm, models, that flat earthers try to use.

I was asking you to rebut this. It even addresses flaws with his earlier video on the subject.

I am Christian, mind you. The side thread on evolution was a result of that, attempting to show scientifically that macroevolution has more problems than the Genesis account of creation. In the case of Flat Earth, not only is it scientifically untenable in any reasonable sense, you have to resort to a weird selective hyper-literalism to reach that conclusion from the Bible anyway.

[Burlyman]

That's not true. I'm Christian and I used to believe in the globe like you all do. I don't mean this about everyone but it's a little bit arrogant to assume that just because someone doesn't agree with what is falsely called science that means he's an idiot. I hear this all the time. Remember, I didn't say everyone thinks flat earthers are idiots... if you all are really serious about me explaining flat earth in response to that video, I will.

[Krom]

You don't have to say flat earthers are idiots, that much is self evident.

[Burlyman]

See what I mean? LOL... You just proved my point. So, Krom is arrogant.

[LightWolf]

I am serious; if Dave is wrong on these counts, please explain how. Also, if not selective hyperliteralism, then what do you call the interpretive framework which says verses supporting a flat Earth must be taken completely literally, yet allows for stars to be holograms in spite of Genesis 1:16? Or is it ultimately arbitrary?

I've studied the psychology of this scale of disagreement enough to know not to call someone an idiot off hand, unless they prove themselves to be one. Please don't prove yourself to be a fool.

[Burlyman]

I'd be careful with that word 'fool' if I were you. Jesus said that if a man says 'you fool' he deserves to be punished with hellfire.

See, LightWolf is an example of a person who didn't give an immature response. I'll watch the video and explain why the maker of the video is wrong and I'll talk a little bit about "hyperliteralism."

Okay so number 1, flat earthers don't believe in globebuster's model of the sun. The sun can't move faster on some days and slower on other days making some seasons less sunny. It just doesn't make sense. I believe that the model in the book of Enoch is the true model where the sun moves on invisible tracks in the sky and is not affected by gravity.

I haven't checked but I think Globe busters might be a group of shills.

Number 2: The water vapor in the air acts as a convex lens and the suns light doesn't make it across because it is refracted downwards to where it reaches the night sky. There's also a daylight that doesn't come from the sun but it's shut off and is now known as the quantum vacuum.

Globe busters made a big mistake in showing the graphic with the sun opposite the moon all the time like yin and yang, but the moon moves like the sun just slower.

an eclipse happens because the sun and the moon are the same size (about 32 miles wide) and a solar eclipse is when the moon passes over the sun, a lunar eclipse didn't exist in the beginning but there's an invisible object that passes over the moon. The sun does get hotter if you fly towards it but nobody does this, so this guy is right. It's nice how this guy is pleasant when presenting this. The axial tilt of a ball earth doesn't even make sense when you think about it. An area on the ground is still hit with the same radiation. Why would it be cooler?

I think it's safe to say that Globebusters doesn't represent the flat earth community (and neither does the flat earth society). Number 3 proves that they don't know what they're talking about or, more likely, they want to give a nonsensical model of flat earth that just stirs up confusion and dissent.

Number 3: The coriolis effect is actually the Magnus effect. It depends on guns, not the rotation of a ball earth.

The moon has nothing to do with the tides. lol and Globebusters said something stupid and claims that storms don't depend on magnetohydrodynamics (basically) and he gives different wind velocity vectors on one map as opposed to another map, he gives it more vorticity instead of drawing the circular wind vectors.

Number 4: The author of this video is right. What Globebusters said about the globe hypothesis is dead wrong. Globe and flat earth are two models, it's just the real evidence shows the earth is flat. Globebusters also didn't say WHY mainstream astrophysics doesn't make sense. It's just the idea that space is vast and objects can move through it and suns are huge with smaller "planet" worlds.

Number 5: It's been proven that even with the same momentum if a helicopter moves off of something it moves at a different velocity than the thing that is under it. So, it's not like switching off a gravity button on a globe where the earth would move real fast under the helicopter, it would just move away. What happens when you fly in a helicopter? The helicopter hovers and moves off and the earth looks stationary (which it is).

Number 6: the author is lying in number 6; first we were taught the so-called "solar system" from a relatively stationary frame of reference, and we were shown all the planet velocities. The blue trails don't prove or disprove anything, yet the author bothers to mention it. Then we were taught that the orbits change each time so it's not the same ellipse or in the same direction, but tracing out a pattern with its changing trajectory. Then the science mafia said it's not only doing that, but it's moving through a huge Milky Way galaxy and the speed of the earth is 40,000 meters per second but every object is turning and revolving, which wouldn't allow for Newton's gravity field to hold anyone or anything to the earth.

Number 7: There is such a thing as absolute motion because the aether exists. There's no precession of the earth because the earth is fixed "onto nothing" or onto space... real space.. that has no electrical permittivity so no particle can get outside the heaven and earth system.

Number 8: The author tells a half-truth about "Antarctica" visits and says "anyone can go there" then subtly admits that you can only go certain areas, but uses the official excuse that it's a barren wasteland and nobody would want to traverse the rest of it. The real reason is it forms an ice wall around the earth. Also it's said that certain flights are impossible and therefore unavailable but nobody is told why, they say they just get the runaround and their flight gets cancelled because of different excuses. Moreover, the author's pictures he showed don't prove anything and once again he proves he is ignorant of the flat earth explanation about the Antarctic Treaty and mentions NASA as if Globe busters said it.

There are military bases but it's not like Area 51 where the personnel have to chase you and get you to leave. Nobody goes outside of those certain places to visit Antarctica so there's no point in trying to intimidate them or gun them down. I also know of a weapons development program that I won't talk about that took place there. The antarctica treaty is a peace treaty because there are no enemy countries, that's all nonsense.

Number 9: The cavendish experiment is a stupid joke. It works by the wire or whatever just turn the weights and the objects "electromagnetic fields" attract each other even though they may equal the zero vector or zero tensor, because of the "field lines" that are still there, or more accurately, because of quantum electrodynamics (or aether hydrodynamics).

There's a thing that lets all objects fall (except the sun and the moon) but I'm not allowed to tell you what it is; it makes all objects fall toward the flat earth and the seas.

Number 10: The electric universe theory is still wrong but a lot of flat earthers and other people try to say it's what causes gravity and call it "electric gravity." So I wouldn't go this route in explaining gravity. Aether hydrodynamics (it's not just luminiferous) is a theory of hyperdimensional physics and it explains Maxwell's "molecular vortices" (if he even existed). Space-time has nothing to do with gravity on the flat earth. Planets are not heliocentric objects. Some people think they are holograms (from people, not from "holographic universe.")

Number 11: The earth is said to look concave at very high altitudes.

Number 12: The periodic table is not the same as in mainstream chemistry but mainstream chemistry is a real model, it's just not true. Globebusters just says something stupid here and dismisses it saying it just sounds smart.

Number 13: Christians aren't handed a worldview with the Bible, they have to find out whether it's true or not before they die. Not everybody has "blind faith." Nobody can tell me there is no God because I talk to Jesus often and confirm that it's Him and He's the same person that's written about in the Bible, but He doesn't always say things that are like what's in the Bible (for example, He uses contractions).

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) said some really stupid things about flat earth trying to prove a globe earth with NASA-style suns and physics. LOL.

[Burlyman]

Stars are not holograms, they are real lights in the sky, but none of them are "suns" or giant masses in a void of space. They're attached to the firmament. Taking the Bible literally is actually the best method of understanding what God is saying. If you're a Christian, why don't you pray to God and ask Him about it? I did that and He answered many of my questions including my questions about angels, Adam & Eve, and the fall of man.

[TigerRaptor]

Dextromethorphan overdose?

[Top Gun]

[fliptw]

Number 3: The coriolis effect is actually the Magnus effect. It depends on guns, not the rotation of a ball earth.

lol

[WarAdvocat]

It's amazing what one orbit around the planet would do to change some people's worldviews. Conversely, if you could just show others the edge of this flat planet, their worldview would change.

If the Earth is flat - where's the edge? It seems a lot easier than to go there than to get into orbit. Bring me someone who can say "I been to the edge/And there I stood and looked down"... and no, I ain't talkin bout love.

[Tunnelcat]

I find this whole argument funny. Every celestial body in the observable universe is round if it's of any significant size, all because of gravity and how it affects mass. The moon, a relatively small body in the grand scheme of things, is round. Even the sun, made up of gases, is round. Every other planet in our own solar system is round. We've got satellites and space ships that orbit and have orbited nearly every planet in our solar system. There are no disks, backsides or edges. So why would the earth, out of every celestial body we can observe, be the exception and be flat as a pancake, violating all the laws of gravity that apply to all the other local celestial bodies? The only way a planet would be relatively disk shaped was if it rotated so fast, the ball would flatten from centrifugal force. But if that were the case, objects would be thrown from the planet and we'd STILL see a sharply curved edge to this type of very unlivable planet, because even an atmosphere would be flung into space. I'm with War Advocat. Show me the edge of the earth, then we can have a discussion.

[Top Gun]

I find this whole argument funny. Every celestial body in the observable universe is round if it's of any significant size, all because of gravity and how it affects mass. The moon, a relatively small body in the grand scheme of things, is round. Even the sun, made up of gases, is round. Every other planet in our own solar system is round. We've got satellites and space ships that orbit and have orbited nearly every planet in our solar system. There are no disks, backsides or edges. So why would the earth, out of every celestial body we can observe, be the exception and be flat as a pancake, violating all the laws of gravity that apply to all the other local celestial bodies? The only way a planet would be relatively disk shaped was if it rotated so fast, the ball would flatten from centrifugal force. But if that were the case, objects would be thrown from the planet and we'd STILL see a sharply curved edge to this type of very unlivable planet, because even an atmosphere would be flung into space. I'm with War Advocat. Show me the edge of the earth, then we can have a discussion.

Because chemtrails, don't you see?!

[LightWolf]

TC, you forget he denies the existence of any of that stuff as space objects; it's either holograms or lights in the sky.

Stars are not holograms, they are real lights in the sky, but none of them are "suns" or giant masses in a void of space. They're attached to the firmament.

I guess I was being more specific about planets, which you asserted are holograms. However, why would they then act more like lights made to give signs (Gen 1:14) around the time of Jesus' birth? They did conveniently make a bunch of movements which, from Earth's perspective, the astrologers of the day interpreted as signs of royalty. Doesn't sound like hologram projectors which also must have existed far ahead of any comparable technology and which nobody has even claimed to have found. Also, if you want to get technical as you did then about what the Bible says God did and did not create, it never said that God created rocks or sand, just that he created 'land'. Am I to conclude that rocks and sand do not exist and that everything we walk on is generic 'land'? Better yet, where does it say God created air? It just references a firmament/expanse, not any oxygenated gas or other breathable substance.

I'm just taking the Bible strictly literally here.

If you're a Christian, why don't you pray to God and ask Him about it? I did that and He answered many of my questions including my questions about angels, Adam & Eve, and the fall of man.

I did ask, and it turns out Earth is, in fact, round. He also mentioned there are (non-specified) problems with the standard cosmological model, which I already knew given its reliance on aether (dark matter/energy - completely undetectable, yet it makes the equations magically work. Never mind they are inseparable from a model which is based on a uniform mass distribution that is contrary to the evidence. Invalidating the cosmological principle is itself enough to trash the evidence for dark energy.) There are none, however, which deny the existence of planets, a round Earth, or the vast majority of the raw evidence we have observed. Actually, the fact that we can find these issues and still come up with good models from a self-consistent and consistent over time evidence base is itself evidence that we are not dealing with a carefully-curated hoax that planets and stars exist, but rather that we're actually finding planets and stars.

One major thing I want to reference from your rebuttal - you insist that many flat Earth scientists and promoters have the flat Earth model wrong. It seems quite odd that people can't seem to figure out how a flat Earth is supposed to work when it's supposed to be so obvious that it does. On the contrary, it is easy to observe, test, and repeat the most important proofs for a round Earth - and it works consistently. All you've done is take the problem of contradictory models and shift it to an interpersonal one.

As for warning you about becoming a fool, I said what I said. A warning, not an accusation, yet I am perfectly aware of the historical connotation of the word. That said, it was intended as an allusion to Proverbs 26:4-5 about answering one. I've seen enough of your posts on this board to determine you are indeed wise in your own eyes. Prove yourself a fool, and there is no point in continuing this debate. You won't be getting any one-liners about dextromethorphan or chemtrails from me.

[Spidey]

Pie plates are "round".

[Darth Wang]

Funny how two people can ask God the same question and get different answers. Almost as if they're simply imagining the answers they want to hear...

[CDN_Merlin]

Or there is no God and they're simply providing themselves their own answers

[Tunnelcat]

Pie plates are "round".

No, they're circular and they have an edge. Spheres are round with only a surface.

I have some questions for Burlyman. If stars are just lights in the "firmament", why are some shaped like galaxies, gas clouds or violent explosions? Why are these pinpoints of light following the laws a gravity and moving, aggregating towards one another. Why isn't our own sun just a simple round ball of light like some cosmic lightbulb? Why even bother with all that complexity when all God needs to fool us lowly stupid humans is to display single pinpoints of light? And how far is this "firmament" from earth and why hasn't the original Voyager spacecraft hit it?

On the topic of God, can you prove the existence of God? We haven't been spoken to as his subjects for centuries, if we ever were. And why is God always referred to with a male pronoun (no, the Bible is not a factual source)? A "God" should not need a gender if said God was omnipotent. No need for that evil dirty sex (according to most male centric religions on Earth) to reproduce, nor any NEED to reproduce at all. For all we know, this whole planet is some giant lab experiment for the entertainment of some extraterrestrial alien life form more advanced than us.

[Darth Wang]

Or there is no God and they're simply providing themselves their own answers

Or he just isn't interested in talking to them.

[Top Gun]

If I were God, the very last people in the universe I'd want to talk to would be Bible-thumpers. Unless it's to smack them upside the head.

[TigerRaptor]

Another video was released. This time, Dave takes on this flat earth blockhead live.

[Tunnelcat]

If I were God, the very last people in the universe I'd want to talk to would be Bible-thumpers. Unless it's to smack them upside the head.

Maybe He is smacking them upside the head. It's in the Bible Belt South where the nasty weather's been at it's worst lately. A sign perhaps?

[Burlyman]

If the Earth is flat - where's the edge?

I just told you. The earth isn't a planet, it's a world. It didn't form as a "celestial body," it was created by God. The edge is where the Antarctica ice wall meets the firmament.

LightWolf, how do you know you were speaking to God and not to an evil spirit? Why are you judging me? You said I'm "wise in my own eyes" which has always been completely false. I'm in good standing with the Lord, and you base your judgments on things I've said in the past, even though I'm not 17 years old like when I started coming here. Don't you think that's a little harsh? I'm His servant so don't let your tongue rise against me in judgment.

There's also no such thing as an orbit. The only thing close is the sun and the moon hovering over the flat earth. A lot of flat earthers are wrong because they aren't scientists. Also, there are a lot of shills.

The Bible says the fool says in his heart 'there is no God.' and "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." I find it funny that some people reply only to post "lol" or some ad hominem.

By the way, Tunnelcat, I don't like talking about gender and God because people get confused, but I think you're mature and serious enough to say this to: The Lord told me He's not divided into male and female like man is, but the pronoun to use is still 'He' unless you call the Holy Spirit "Mama" (another name for the Holy Spirit), for that you may use 'She.'

There are galaxies and things but they aren't gigantic collections of huge "stars" in a large void of "space." The Bible also says on the day of the Lord the stars will fall, so how could they fall to a globe earth? Why would God make a universe when we're just walking up and down on the earth and moving through the waters with submarines etc.?

[Krom]

If it wasn't so expensive I'd suggest just launching you into space on a spacex rocket (preferably one that will not return to the surface) just to prove how wrong you are.

It should be the goal of commercial space flight to become cheap enough that we can load all the flat earthers on to rockets and then launch them into the sun.

[Tunnelcat]

Ooooooh Kay. Answer me this Burlyman. Why do most artists depict God as a male? Here's one of many images that can be found in literature from the past. And why are most religions in this world, past and present, male centric, depicting their God as a male? Oh and Krom, we should tell Burlyman to just ask William Shatner. He's actually flown in a rocket to space and described what he saw, a round earth with a curvature.