It wasn't really just flat, but like a big square box- I saw a picture of it around here somewhere a few days ago.

Yes but despite the fact the majority of mankind believed those things at the time, the Bible itself refuted those claims. One of the evidences that its' inspiration came, not from humans who have their own bizarre theories, but from a more reliable source...

According to Terry Pratchett the earth is like this:





(Actually as I recall, that's based on an old myth that the earth was held up by giant elephants... as I said earlier, man has had many weird and wonderful theories, many of which have proved to be complete nonsense.

And modern-day science is just as susceptible to that as each decade that passes proves, with new discoveries made and different theories cobbled together to patch up the old ones... )

it's funny, but I think true.
At least in MY experience, that people that have ever taken a close look at the science
in the bible, always come out with the opinion that it is amazingly accurate,
and that there is a lot that was known , that could not have been known
at the time.
[[[[And modern-day science is just as susceptible to that as each decade that passes proves, with new discoveries made and different theories cobbled together to patch up the old ones...]]]]]]]]
yeah,it's been quite a busy last few years, but sadly, i think almost criminally negligently, school systems, natural history and science museums,public television, even the media over here keep displaying and referring to disproven science as if it were still more than theory and almost proven and still valid.
The scientific community has a hard time giving up it's icons, especially the ones that sell so well.
One that truly amazes me is that my nephews high school science textbook, and my
neighbors college natural history test book both refer to the "Laws of Evolution".
The college text even has footnotes with key points and a lead line that says-" how to defend evolution against creationist theorist."-- a state college at that.

Disproved science--example---yes we have gotten DNA from
what is referred to as "Neanderthal" and that DNA compared to other DNA has
lead scientist to have to commit to the fact that by their theories of evolution that
"Neanderthal" would have to have split from any possible genetic relation to modern man all the way back when man's ancestors would have been something comparable to a lemur
and that "Neanderthal" could not have possibly been in the theoretical family tree of man as an ancestor, but on a totally different branch descending from the theoretical lemur.
Another disproved bit that is kept quiet is that all, all of the "links"-
cro-magnun man, homo-habilis- so on have all been erased from the human family tree.
Many turned out to be modern men, others were just plane hoaxes,
If you don't like that conclusion, then go see the bones yourself at a museum, oh wait-- isn't that something, all those bones have been misplaced.
( to be fair- if anyone wants to refer to the "More recent finds"-
bare in mind that they are in the hands of "The Smithsonian" who have
diligently allowed access to the bones ONLY in their facilities under observation and that ONLY scientist who pass their 'screening' and are forefront
outspoken proponents for evolution are allowed to even see them.)

Less controversially-
They still teach the whole "nothing goes faster than light"
thing, even if a few pages later they need to discuss tachyons.
HA! and the whole, time and light-speed having anything to do with each-other,
I knew Einstein was wrong by time I was seven. I've had over thirty years waiting
for the world to catch up, and even now, it has barely begun.

ScionDude - like, we're having some fun here and then you go and type about 5 MILLION words!

NEW ReinRULE: if your thought/theory can NOT be communicated in 50 words or less then GO EDIT & SUMMARIZE that sucka!!!

Thanks for your attention to this detail!

(this is gonna hurt ME more than it does YOU! : )

Whatever if those bizarre theories were not considered in the Bible, my point is that I'm very skeptical to whatever human were able to believe in. Human still believed "the earth is the center of the universe" theory 1500 years later... it shows that we're able to keep believing any right or wrong theory or fact or something else...

Well, until somebody actually traveled all the way AROUND the earth,
wouldn't it stand to reason that there was no actual need to
even consider it being anything other than flat. It just didn't matter.
Since there is no definable 'center' of the universe, also then
describing Earth as the center of the universe just doesn't make any discernable
difference either.
What we really need right now is a good astrologist that isn't faking it.

jesus in a tree! even the astrologists are faking it now?

Er...tell that to Galileo or Giordano Bruno. Galileo was put under house arrest till his death and Burno burned at the stake for espousing Copernicus' theory that the sun--not the earth--was the center of the universe. In fact, the Roman Inquisition in 1616 declared Copernicanism to be heresy. So it did indeed make a discernable difference; the Church quite actively persecuted (and prosecuted) anyone who disagreed with their version.

Or in the words of Robert Bellarmine, now a saint and then the chief Vatican thelogian:
"But to affirm that the Sun is really fixed in the center of the heavens and that the Earth revolves very swiftly around the Sun is a dangerous thing, not only irritating the theologians and philosophers, but injuring our holy faith and making the sacred scriptures false."

Now this doesn't "prove" anything about whether God exists or any of the other stuff in this interminable thread. But at least we should be clear on what was actually going on in the 16th and 17th centuries. It was not a simple matter of "well whatever, since we can't figure it out, any explanation is okay." Instead, observed science was forcefully suppressed because it dared to challenge long-held beliefs. Unless, of course, someone wants to debate whether the earth actually does revolve around the sun or vice-versa.

Well, since we are all in a DEBATING mood, let's cut to the IMPORTANT STUFF:

Beer.

American vs. Canadian?


German vs. Irish?


HAVE AT IT!

wow 5 pages of something, have not got time to read it now, anyone care to give me the highlights of what this is on about?

True, but what you and Claf point out there merely proves that manmade dogma persists a heckuva long time despite evidence against it, or a lack of evidence to prove it. Now some may say that description fits the concept of the existence of a God, but it can just as equally be a description that fits the theory of evolution too. Anyone who dares to even begin to question the theory of evolution, or modern-day moral and social beliefs, as incontrovertible fact is regarded with the same kind of suspicion or patronising derision these days that anyone who dared to doubt church teaching used to get in years gone by.

Another interesting point about religious leaders who rigidly stick to their own manmade interpretations of matters, is that the Bible itself condemns men like that as forcefully, if not moreso, than it does those who refuse to recognise God at all. Jesus was always getting into arguments with the strict religious leaders of his day and warning people not to follow their example...