- This topic has 6,414 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
Danny: Thanks, Mike. You hit the nail on the head.
I’m glad that you are here.Danny, go outside tonight and look at the moon. Then look at a distant streetlight. Notice that they are equally bright. Now picture in your mind what it would look like if we landed a mosquito astronaut on that streetlight. Would the surface of the streetlight look anything like this?
😆 Notice also the footprints. That only happens in dirt that is exposed to moisture. For instance, you’ll never see clear footprints like that in the middle of the extremely dry Sahara Desert, right? Yet the moon is supposedly VOID of any moisture. Now let’s take a closer look at that moon lander that was withstanding 10 to the negative 11 air pressure – the most powerful vacuum ever imagined by man.
😄🤣 It’s like a homeless tweaker shelter built from construction paper, mylar, scotch tape, and curtain rods. Just look at those seals between the sheets of construction paper. You could put your finger in the gaps – yet it was keeping out the extreme vacuum of space!
Oh, and since the moon temp ranged from 392°F to -328°F, that piece of crap with zero insulation had to have the best AC and heater imaginable – which could run for 3 days on the 3 12-volt car batteries that were also powering the lights, cameras, navigation, and everything else!
Oh, and notice the upside down tin bucket underneath it. Yep, that’s the 10,000 pound thruster that didn’t even make a mark on the loose moon dust when it landed – let alone blow a huge crater into it!
But, you know… Gene saw it on TV, so therefore it MUST be real, right? 😎
Proclaimer: Danny, it’s sad that you can’t understand simple basic things like “up” and “down”.
Instead, you believe in uppity and downity.
What does that even mean? Please try to do better in the future. Or at the very least, post things that have some resemblance to a cognitive thought. Thanks.
Thank you Proclaimer! I was just explaining to Gene about the logical fallacy known as a “strawman argument”, and you were so kind to follow his comment up with a visual image of the one he was using. Well done!
Mike: Hey Proclaimer, why do you suppose that after thousands of space missions, nobody has thought to strap a simple forward facing GoPro camera to any of those rockets so we could see a real-time live stream of them exiting the atmosphere and entering space, or arriving at the ISS or the Moon or Mars or Pluto or whatever?
A little logical thinking is all that is required.
Proclaimer: A little logical SEARCH is all that is required.
You posted 3 videos. Please time stamp or screenshot the exact moments in ANY of them where the forward facing camera records the moment the rocket leaves earth’s atmosphere and enters outer space.
Or, you could just be HONEST and admit that there is no such moment for ANY rocket in the history of the world. There is a video where a rocket hits the dome though. Would you like to see it?
Also, regarding your meme of the rocket launch making a curve instead of going up into space – can you produce footage from a camera on the ground of a rocket that actually does just keep going up into space? And since you can’t, what does it mean to you that they ALL go up for a while, then sideways, and then back down towards the ground? 🤔
NASA: Going sideways into space for 70 years! 🤣
Proclaimer: Why is a rocket trajectory curved after launch?
I doubt you even watched the video you posted – as usual. But I know what their answer is. Do you?
Okay, go find their answer and then apply a little logical thinking to it. Keep in mind this axiom: The shortest distance between two points is a straight line.
Now, does their explanation truly make sense?
Let’s talk about it.
Mike: Anyway, I’m still waiting for your and Gene’s next answer for what the waters above the raqia are. Remember that God stretched out the heavens like a tent. So just translate raqia as “tent”. The sun, moon, stars, and clouds are IN the tent. But what are the waters ABOVE the tent?
Proclaimer: Already answered, but you can’t grasp it.
Yes, you and Gene answered “clouds”. But clouds are not “waters”. Nor are clouds ABOVE the place that the sun, moon, and stars are IN.
Your answer was debunked. I’m currently asking if you have a NEW answer that hasn’t yet been debunked.
Well? Do you?
See, here are your choices at this point…
1. Try to un-debunk your first answer.
2. Produce a different option for what the waters above the sun, moon, and stars might be in your worldview.
3. Acknowledge that your worldview does not align with scripture.
Do you see “Keep repeating the claim that you already answered the question, knowing full well that your original answer has been scripturally debunked” on that list above? No? Well then stop doing that, okay? Do one of the 3 valid choices instead. Thanks.
Proclaimer: So I’ll ask you a question based on your current understanding of one raqia / heaven. God is in the raqia / heaven.
You have erred once again. God is most definitely NOT “in the raqia”. But the sun, moon and stars are.
Proclaimer: So answer this please and we’ll go from there:
What are the waters above God?
God sits UPON the waters that are ABOVE the firmament that the sun, moon and stars are IN, and that the clouds are UNDER.
Psalm 29:3… The voice of the LORD is upon the waters: the God of glory thundereth: the LORD is upon many waters.
Revelation 4:6… Before the throne there was what looked like a sea of glass, clear as crystal. In the center, around the throne, were four living creatures, and they were covered with eyes, in front and in back.
Also see Danny’s latest posts, which include illustrations of the world the Bible describes.
Any more questions? If so, please ask away. If not, please perform one of the 3 valid acts listed for you above. Thanks.
Berean: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. (Genesis 1:15)
GOD DOES NOT Dwell IN THE FIRMAMENT(raquiya) OF THE HEAVEN( BUT IN HEAVEN (shamayim)
1Kings 8:49
Then hear thou their prayer and their supplication in heaven thy dwelling place, and maintain their cause,…
It is certainly the seventh Heaven that Paul tells us about.
I do not see that Danny’s painting is false,
So there is God in Heaven (Shamayim) Not the Firmament (Raqiya)
AND
Lights in Firmament (Raqiya) of Heaven (Shamayim)Well put, Berean. @t8 , can you dig what B is laying down for you? Or is it too hard for you? Which one, please? Thanks.
Proclaimer: @dannyd
Also explain why the sun goes down, which is possible in the heliocentric model, but not the flat earth model. Thank you in advance.
The sun rises, and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises.
The word translated as “rises” means “comes forth”. The word translated as “goes down” means “goes in”. But it’s great to see YOU posting scriptures that make it abundantly clear that it is the SUN that hurries back to the place from which it went forth. Let’s add YOUR scripture to these other ones, and see what conclusion a rational person might draw…
Psalm 19:4-6… In the heavens He has pitched a tent for the sun. Like a bridegroom emerging from his chamber, like a champion rejoicing to run his course, it comes forth at one end of the heavens and runs its circuit to the other; nothing is deprived of its warmth.
Habakkuk 3:11… The sun and moon stood still in their places at the flash of Your flying arrows, at the brightness of Your shining spear.
Joshua 10:13… So the sun stood still and the moon stopped until the nation took vengeance upon its enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? “So the sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going in about a full day.”
Proclaimer, it almost seems as if the Bible teaches that it is the sun and moon that move over the earth, and not the earth that moves around the sun, huh? What do you think about those BIBLE teachings? Are they all WRONG?
Proclaimer: Danny, using the bible, there appears to be a number of errors with your diagram above. Let’s start with this one:
And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
And God called the firmament (raqia) Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
So where does God dwell according to your model? In heaven which is the raqia and the raqia is below the waters.
Oh… so NOW you are willing to use the proper translation of raqia, huh? 😉
Are you PURPOSELY trying to distort the reality of the situation for some kind of evil and dishonest gain you think it’ll give you?
Or are you truly incapable of understanding these things…
1. In the beginning, God created the RAQIA and called it heaven. At that time, it was the ONLY heaven. It supports waters above it. And God created the sun, moon and stars and placed them IN the RAQIA.
2. As time went by, people began calling the sky where the birds flew the 1st heaven. They called the RAQIA (the original heaven) the 2nd heaven. And they called God’s abode (which is above the waters that are above the RAQIA) the 3rd heaven.
3. There are now considered to be 3 heavens – but still only one RAQIA of heaven.
4. Birds fly in heaven, but not in the RAQIA of heaven.
5. God dwells in heaven, but not in the RAQIA of heaven.
6. The sun, moon and stars run their appointed circuits IN the RAQIA of heaven.
7. The “waters above” are above the RAQIA of heaven – the 2nd heaven where the sun, moon and stars are. These waters are not above the 1st heaven where birds fly. They are not above the 3rd heaven where God dwells. They are only above the 2nd heaven, where the sun, moon and stars move over the earth.
So Proclaimer, what are the waters above the 2nd heaven in your heliocentric worldview?
Salut Mike
Can you explain the seasons in the flat earth model because I only understand in the case of a globe earth. thank you.
Operation Shock and Awe
Time for the usual crush the flat earth arguments coming up.
Undebunkable because these are true.
Enjoy!
Truth Bomb 1
Flat earthers have cognitive disabilities and personality disorders in which they think the entire world has lied to them. Many also have low IQs. That said, God gave us all the ability to be wise regardless of IQ. But flat earthers are not wise and that is the real reason why they are flat earthers.
Truth Bomb 2
Flatties claim that the sun doesn’t disappear behind the horizon, but that it gets so far away that it escapes our range of view. However , if that were the case, the reflection would remain on the waters since it’s still there and the reflection stretches all the way from the horizon. So how come it doesn’t remain, and why does it disappear simultaneously with the sun? It’s as if the earth was a globe and the sun was setting below the horizon.
Truth Bomb 3
We all know flat earthers love photos of crepuscular rays. Is there a flattie that can tell me why the rays are going up?
I’m all ears. Could it be because the sun is setting below the horizon? It’s as if the earth was a globe.
Truth Bomb 4
That red mark indicates the location of Hawaii. There’s no evidence or indication that anyone has sailed from Hawaii to a ice wall going west. Please explain this flat earthers? Start a GoFund me page to raise funds for a boat trip from Hawaii. Set the compass to west, and keep going till you sight the ice wall and then take a photo. If the UN or NASA turns you around, video that as evidence. Otherwise the earth is still a globe till you prove otherwise.
Truth Bomb 5
If I travel north to south on a flat earth, I could end up anywhere. Same thing if I travel east to west. So no compass points and impossible to navigate. This doesn’t match reality. It’s as if the flat earth model was wrong and didn’t match reality.
Truth Bomb 6
This is a very simple proof that the Earth is a globe. There is no way with a flat earth that this could occur, because of what Danny preaches regarding what has become known as ‘uppity’. Of course everyone who is or has been south of the equator could be in on a giant con, including me. Joking aside, this is only possible on a globe. so let’s test this because it is an acid test for the globe or flat earth. Good luck with the results Mike regarding the planned joint experiment between Arizona and New Zealand. You are going to participate right Mike?
Mike, we need to do this experiment.
Berean: Salut Mike
Can you explain the seasons in the flat earth model because I only understand in the case of a globe earth. thank you.
Hi Berean. Here is an animation that attempts to address your question. (You don’t have to watch the whole thing play out. You can just grab the red dot on the time bar at the bottom and slide it to the right to play the year out in a few seconds.)
But think about the heliocentric reason for seasons. They say the tilt of the earth causes the seasons, right?
The claim is that during summer in the northern hemisphere, the north pole is tilted a few thousand miles closer to the sun (far left image). And during summer in the southern hemisphere, the south pole is tilted a few thousand miles closer to the sun (far right image).
But the same people also claim that because of the earth’s elliptical orbit around the sun, the earth itself is 3 million miles FARTHER from the sun during the northern hemisphere’s summer. So does it make sense to you that a tilt that brings the north a few thousand miles closer to the heat source would overcome being 3 million miles farther away from the heat source?
Let me post some food for thought from “200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball”…
49) If Earth were a spinning ball heated by a Sun 93 million miles away, it would be impossible to have simultaneously sweltering summers in Africa while just a few thousand miles away bone-chilling frozen Arctic/Antarctic winters experiencing little to no heat from the Sun whatsoever. If the heat from the Sun traveled 93,000,000 miles to the Sahara desert, it is absurd to assert that another 4,000 miles (0.00004%) further to Antarctica would completely negate such sweltering heat resulting in such drastic differences.
Think hard about that, Berean. Let’s look at the NASA image again…
Look at that far left image again. I’m out there working in 120° in the Arizona summer – but just a few thousand miles north of me, at the north pole, it’s freezing cold and the ice never melts. Why? Can you see from the image that the icy north pole is just as much in that sunlight (for 24 hours a day!) during our summer? So how can the sun be melting me all day at work, but not even melt the ice at the north pole – which is only a few thousand miles away from me?
50) If the Earth were truly a globe, the Arctic and Antarctic polar regions and areas of comparable latitude North and South of the equator should share similar conditions and characteristics such as comparable temperatures, seasonal changes, length of daylight, plant and animal life. In reality, however, the Arctic/Antarctic regions and areas of comparable latitude North/South of the equator differ greatly in many ways entirely inconsistent with the ball model and entirely consistent with the flat model.
51) Antarctica is by far the coldest place on Earth with an average annual temperature of approximately -57 degrees Fahrenheit, and a record low of -135.8! The average annual temperature at the North Pole, however, is a comparatively warm 4 degrees. Throughout the year, temperatures in the Antarctic vary less than half the amount at comparable Arctic latitudes. The Northern Arctic region enjoys moderately warm summers and manageable winters, whereas the Southern Antarctic region never even warms enough to melt the perpetual snow and ice. On a tilting, wobbling, ball-Earth spinning uniformly around the Sun, Arctic and Antarctic temperatures and seasons should not vary so greatly.
Again, just think about these facts for a while. Why should the south pole be SO MUCH colder than the north pole? They’re both at identical but opposite points on a ball, right? So if the 23.4° tilt does X to the northern point, then it MUST do identical X to the equal but opposite southern point, right?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
