- This topic has 6,414 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 2 months, 1 week ago by
.
- Posts
52) Iceland at 65 degrees North latitude is home to 870 species of native plants and abundant various animal life. Compare this with the Isle of Georgia at just 54 degrees South latitude where there are only 18 species of native plants and animal life is almost non-existent. The same latitude as Canada or England in the North where dense forests of various tall trees abound, the infamous Captain Cook wrote of Georgia that he was unable to find a single shrub large enough to make a toothpick! Cook wrote, “Not a tree was to be seen. The lands which lie to the south are doomed by nature to perpetual frigidness – never to feel the warmth of the sun’s rays; whose horrible and savage aspect I have not words to describe. Even marine life is sparse in certain tracts of vast extent, and the sea-bird is seldom observed flying over such lonely wastes. The contrasts between the limits of organic life in Arctic and Antarctic zones is very remarkable and significant.”
Why should there be any contrast at all for two equal but opposite points on a ball that is heated from the same distant sun?
Okay Berean, for these last 3 entries, think back to the YouTube animation of how seasons work on a flat earth…
53) At places of comparable latitude North and South, the Sun behaves very differently than it would on a spinning ball Earth but precisely how it should on a flat Earth. For example, the longest summer days North of the equator are much longer than those South of the equator, and the shortest winter days North of the equator are much shorter than the shortest South of the equator. This is inexplicable on a uniformly spinning, wobbling ball Earth but fits exactly on the flat model with the Sun traveling circles over and around the Earth from Tropic to Tropic.
54) At places of comparable latitude North and South, dawn and dusk happen very differently than they would on a spinning ball, but precisely how they should on a flat Earth. In the North dawn and dusk come slowly and last far longer than in the South where they come and go very quickly. Certain places in the North twilight can last for over an hour while at comparable Southern latitudes within a few minutes the sunlight completely disappears. This is inexplicable on a uniformly spinning, wobbling ball Earth but is exactly what is expected on a flat Earth with the Sun traveling faster, wider circles over the South and slower, narrower circles over the North.
55) If the Sun circles over and around the Earth every 24 hours, steadily travelling from Tropic to Tropic every 6 months, it follows that the Northern, central region would annually receive far more heat and sunlight than the Southern circumferential region. Since the Sun must sweep over the larger Southern region in the same 24 hours it has to pass over the smaller Northern region, its passage must necessarily be proportionally faster as well. This perfectly explains the differences in Arctic/Antarctic temperatures, seasons, length of daylight, plant and animal life; this is why the Antarctic morning dawn and evening twilight are very abrupt compared with the North; and this explains why many midsummer Arctic nights the Sun does not set at all!
I hope that at least gets you questioning some of this stuff. And remember to always keep in mind that God’s written world is the ultimate authority on the world He created for us. And God’s written word clearly says that it is the sun that moves over the earth – not the earth that orbits around the sun.
If you have the time, read the entire list at “200 Proofs the Earth is Not a Spinning Ball”.
The entire thing is just 200 little paragraphs like the ones I just posted for you here. It doesn’t take a lot of time to read through it. Maybe something will jump out at you like it did for Danny. For him, it was the idea that huge ocean liners are being held upside down on a ball. For me, it was the simple fact that we can see much farther away than we could on a ball. Maybe it’ll be something else that makes it click for you.
Give it a shot. What have you got to lose?
Cheers.
Proclaimer: TRUTH BOMB 1
…flat earthers are not wise…
Wow, you really got us on that one. We’re devastated, and there’s just no coming back from such an authoritative claim from a person who thinks gravity’s attractive force pulls masses together up to the point that its repellant force takes over, and just holds the two masses in limbo at a certain distance from each other.
How are you and Gene coming along with your next explanation for the waters that are above the sun, moon and stars – now that your first explanation was thoroughly debunked?
Proclaimer: 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.
Wait… are you saying that if the light source moves behind the cloud/haze layer that you can clearly see in your photo (or even behind a mountain or some other tangible obstruction) we should still be able to see the reflections from that light source on the water?
Maybe you could shine a flashlight on your floor from a low angle. Notice the light pattern on your carpet. Now block the light with your hand and see if the carpet is still lit up.
Yes, the reflections go away when the light source does. The only difference between us in this matter is that you are still indoctrinated into believing that the physical obstruction the light source disappears behind is the curve of a ball, while some of us understand that the light source is actually disappearing behind a cloud/haze wall.
Proclaimer, your photo has offered me the opportunity to make two points that you will undoubtedly ignore.
1. Notice the clouds in your photo. They are all about the same height above the sea. Yet the further your distance to the clouds, the lower in the sky they appear to be, right? Are the more distant clouds really lower than the ones closer to the camera? Of course not. It’s just a matter of perspective, and you can see the same effect in this photo…
The telephone poles are not actually shorter in the distance… it’s a matter of perspective.
The road and canal are not really narrower in the distance… it’s a matter of perspective.
The water is not really higher in the distance… it’s a matter of perspective.
And the clouds are not really closer to the ground in the distance… it’s a matter of perspective.
Now imagine that the tip of each telephone pole is a position of the sun over time – like you put the camera on a tripod and clicked a picture of the sun every half hour. You’ll note that the sun is “lower” in the sky with each subsequent photo, right? But is the sun REALLY getting lower in the sky? Or it is just moving farther away from us, and PERSPECTIVE makes it APPEAR as if it’s getting lower in the sky?
The telephone poles give you the answer, since you KNOW that THEY are NOT actually getting shorter in the distance, right? But they certainly APPEAR to be getting lower in the sky the farther away from the observer that they are, right?
Now imagine that the hill in the distance is the cloud/haze bank that shrouds the surface of the earth at all times. If we added just a couple more telephone poles to that photo, they would appear as if they were “setting” into (and eventually BEHIND) the hill. And it wouldn’t have a dang thing to due with any curvature… just perspective.
Dude, just Google “how to draw perspective”. You’ll find tons of images like this one…
The hallway is not really getting narrower. The floor is not really rising up. And the ceiling lights are not really “setting” as they move away from you. But there will come a point in the distance where you’ll no longer be able to discern the ceiling lights. There will also come a point that a remote controlled car being driven down the hallway will disappear in the distance from the bottom up. Those things have to do with a combination of perspective and visual acuity – but we can get into that later if you show any valid interest in learning about this stuff.
To be continued…
Proclaimer:
Point #2…
If the earth was a ball, we wouldn’t be able to see that sun reflection from the horizon to our feet in the first place. I’ll use an image for this one…
If I am the little red arrow standing at the shoreline, my eyes would be able to see the sun in the sky (blue dashed line), but the reflection from the sun could NOT follow the sea all the way to my feet because the curve would prohibit it. The reflection cannot possibly curve around the ball like the yellow curved line I drew.
Does that make sense? Think about the same kind of reflection over a rough sea with a bunch of waves. You can even see this in your own photo above. Do you see the dark ripples in the water that cut through the sun reflection? Those lines are dark because the light cannot go through (or over) the little waves to make a continual reflection. Here’s a better example…
Do you see how the reflection can’t wrap around those little swells and make a continuous line from the sun to the observer’s feet? Now imagine a 6-10 foot high bulge of curved earth between the sun and the observer’s feet. Would the reflection be able to wrap around that bulge?
Anyway, time’s a wastin’, dude. What is your new explanation for the waters above the sun, moon and stars? And what is your explanation for why your interpretation of Genesis has God creating heaven after it already existed, the luminaries after they already existed, earth after it already existed, and light after it already existed?
Chop, chop. We don’t have all day.
You’re welcome, Berean. Keep the questions coming. I certainly don’t know everything about how our world works, but I know enough to conclude that it certainly isn’t a spinning ball orbiting the sun in an elliptical pattern.
As for the sun reflection post I just made for Proclaimer, I messed the graphic up. Here it is again – the right way. This image is just the graphic from an online Earth Curve Calculator that I added a yellow circle to (to be the sun)…
The blue arrow is the height of the observer, and the dotted horizontal line is his line of sight looking out to the horizon. On the right I put the sun where it would be half set over the horizon from the observer’s view. My point was that the sunlight could not jump over the bulge in the middle and then light up a reflection on the water from the middle bulge to the observer’s feet (represented by the green curved line – which itself represents the curve of the earth).
Understand? Light from the sun would make it to the upside down black arrow (horizon), and could even go past that to my eyes (the actual point of the blue arrow). But it could not curve around that green line to my FEET, lighting a clear reflection line from the sun to my toes.
And the fact that the reflection DOES go from the sun to our feet if we are standing on the edge of a lake or whatever proves that we don’t live on a ball.
Anyway, I’m very happy that you are at least reading some of this stuff and thinking about it.
Mike:
Anyway, time’s a wastin’, dude.It sure is, I’m waiting on 3 things Mike. So far it seems mostly one way traffic. Remember this:
- Bring back the sun. If the sun goes out of range (sunset) then bring it back like you bring back those small boats that are not over the horizon but go out of visual range.
- Explain why God is in heaven / raqia according to your understanding, meaning the waters are above.
- Start organising the experiment where we both take a photo of the full moon at the same time.
I feel like you are intentionally avoiding these because deep down you know that you will lose on all three points. Pity because if true, then it shows you are not a lover of truth and would explain why you are deceived regarding the earth and cosmos that the eternal God created.
because they refused the love of the truth that would have saved them. For this reason God will send them a powerful delusion…
Children of God are known by their fruit.
Interesting, Proclaimer, because I have DIRECTLY addressed all 3 of the points you listed. I guess that means all those condescending words you intended for me, God put right back onto your own head… just like the curse of Balaam.
Chop, chop, Tiger. The questions are NOT going away.
What is your NEW explanation for the waters above the sun, moon and stars?
Why does your interpretation of Gen 1 have God creating light, heaven, earth and the luminaries after all of those things had already been created?
Mike……Explaine how the seasons are different at the same time, in different places in your “flat earth” BS ? The earth tilted on its axes explanes it “perfectly,” as it travels around the Sun. How do you get the change of seasons “at the same time”? All over the world at the same time?
If anyone is truly interested , you can prove this earth is a round sphere for yourself, first buy a cheap telescope look up into the sky, see the International Space Station goubg around this earth in space for yourself. NEXT GO TO ANY COMPUTER AND YOU CAN SEE WHAT IT SEES 24/7 EVERY DAY OF THE YEAR, AS IT CIRCULES THIS EARTH, SEE IT FOR YOURSELF. Then you will know for yourself that yhis earth is indeed a sphere spinning around in space and going around our sun. You school teachers wern’t lying, the govenrnment is not tricking you , science has and is proving it better and better every single day, knowledge is indeed “increasing”, every day.
Don’t get caught up in all these conspericy theorist out there, there are many, like these “flat earth” idiots.
Peace and love to you all and yours………gene
Gene, Mike is not interested in the truth. He only supports that which feeds into his fantasy world. Thus, was prime to be sent a powerful delusion to which his mind is imprisoned. He has no desire to be set free. This is why I post simple truths in order to reveal the delusion that flat earthers are under.
It is shameful that a supposed servant of God is serving lies which originate with another god. I do not trust Mike and anything he says. He peddles lies.
Mike, my 12 year old thinks this is funny and told me you have lost the debate even on this one point. You refuse to perform the “bring back the sun experiment”. Even at his age, he can clearly see when a person is trying to avoid something because it is condemning. Shame on you. You are suppose to be an adult. Lol. Anyway, thanks for the laughs.
@berean, Mike is trying to con you.
Mike said:
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…
Mike is trying to deceive you berean as he mentions something that is correct, which is that the the distance on the globe to the sun from either the Sahara or the Antarctica is different, but negligible because it is only a tiny amount of extra or less distance when you factor in the distant sun. The con is not what he has said, but what he has deliberately left out. Remember, Mike is not interested in the truth. He simply wants you to buy into his fantasy pizza world. Here is what he deliberately left out.
The reason why the temperature is so different is because of the angle that light hits the earth. Light hitting the Sahara is more concentrated than the Antarctica because of the angle that light hits the earth from the sun. In other words, the same amount of energy from the sun has to heat up a larger area because of the shape of the earth.
Ask yourself this. If you had a wet towel and wanted to dry it using the sun, would you place the towel directly in front of the sun or angle the towel away so that the rays of the sun weren’t directly face on, but shone across the towel. Obviously direct is better and that is why the Sahara is hotter. Sunlight is more direct. Whereas, when the towel is facing away, the sunlight is less direct and that is why Antarctica is colder.
Take a look at this pic. Notice how the same amount of light has to heat up a larger surface area as you head toward the poles? Also notice how Mike neglected to mention this despite him being told many times the answer. See how he is trying to deceive you? As long as you are aware of the con, when you read his post, also try to think about the truth he is leaving out.
BTW, this also perfectly explains the seasons. Why it can be hot one month and cold another. Because the tilt of the earth means that at different times of the year, the sun will be more direct than other times. You can even observe this when you look up into the sky. In summer, the sun is more overhead and in winter it is closer to the horizon as it makes its way from east to west.
Provide one example of me deceiving someone please.
Hi Proclaimer
The tilt of the earth in relation to the sun makes all the difference, that’s what I have always believed and still believe. It’s simple to understand.
Well, now, one has chosen that I find difficult to understand with the earth in a globe, it is that in fact, I always have difficulty in conceiving that it is in a Globe, and I better conceive that it is flat. But that is subjective. God made the earth and the heavens with his great wisdom and power and HE HAS NOT TOLD US WHAT FORM IT WAS IN THE BEGINNING.
FURTHERMORE, IF IT HAD BEEN A MATTER OF SALVATION (LIFE OR DEATH), HE WOULD HAVE TOLD US THROUGH HIS MESSENGER.MORE, LATER.
Gene: Mike……Explaine how the seasons are different at the same time, in different places in your “flat earth”…
I just did that for Berean. Go back and study, and THEN let me know if you have any questions about what I showed him. Thanks.
Gene: The earth tilted on its axes explanes it “perfectly,”…
The fact that it doesn’t was also just shown to Berean. Study the material, and get back to me with any particular QUESTIONS – (as opposed to your usual, “Mike, FE is stupid and only an idiot would believe it.”) Thanks.
Also Gene, since our discussion has made it undeniably clear that clouds are not water, and not above the sun, moon and stars, they can’t very well be the waters above the raqia that the sun, moon and stars are in.
You can either come up with a different answer for what these waters above the firmament/expanse/sky are… or you can just be honest and acknowledge that your worldview simply doesn’t align with the world described in the Bible. But please at least be man enough to do one of those things. Thanks.
Proclaimer: Mike, my 12 year old thinks this is funny and told me you have lost the debate even on this one point. You refuse to perform the “bring back the sun experiment”.
What is your son’s opinion on the fact that you stalled a Hot Seat debate for 6 weeks because you were “unable” to find an answer that was one day and one post removed from your question – despite me repeatedly drawing maps and sending screenshots and doing everything I could think of to show you where that answer was?
What is his opinion on the fact that there has been a question waiting for you in the Hot Seat for 3 months, and that you break your own forum rules each and every time you post something here without first answering that 3 month old question?
What are his thoughts about your claim that “clouds”, which aren’t even water, could be the waters ABOVE the sun, moon and stars? And how does he feel about the fact that you refuse to either admit defeat or offer a different explanation for these waters above – when you know full well that your bizarre “cloud” answer has been scripturally debunked?
Also, was it your son’s finger that went below your countertop horizon before you zoomed in on it in the experiment I suggested you do? Or did you refuse to do that experiment because you know it would take the wind right out of your “bring back the sun” sails?
What is your son’s response to the fact that, if the curved ball horizon is what is hiding the bottom of a distant object, then the horizon certainly couldn’t be visible far BEHIND the object that it’s supposedly blocking?
But bottom line, your son is 12 years old. We can forgive his ignorance and naivety – especially knowing about the lifetime of indoctrination he has received. But what is YOUR excuse? Because I’ve got to be honest with you… most times I feel like I AM discussing this subject with a 12 year old kid. Are you letting your son post your replies here? That’s a serious question.
Another serious question is: What is your new and different answer to what the waters above the sun, moon and stars are – now that you can no longer claim your first ludicrous answer of “clouds”?
As it stands by default, your answer is as follows: “There is NOTHING in the heliocentric model that can even come close to being even very liberally construed as ‘waters above the sun, moon and stars’. You are correct that the model to which I subscribe is NOT compatible with the world the Bible describes.”
And that, sonny, will remain YOUR answer by default until such time as you offer up your new and different answer – or decide to gird up your loins like a man and admit the above in your own words.
Okay, next up…
Gene and Proclaimer, please give a valid scripturally-backed explanation as to why your interpretation of Genesis 1 requires God to create light after it already existed, create heaven after it already existed, create earth after it already existed, and create the luminaries after they already existed.
Tick tock…
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
