- This topic has 6,414 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 2 months, 1 week ago by
.
- Posts
Mike: I already gave you the perfect solution to prove that you are telling the truth… Quote my statement that was intentionally designed to deceive Berean into believing something that I know is a lie.
Proclaimer: I told you what you did. You intentionally left out the real reason why lower latitudes are colder and made out the reason was because the sun was ever so slightly further away.
Yes, we all know what you SAID that I did. Now you just need to SHOW us that you’re right – using direct quotes from what I said to Berean.
(Hint: I most certainly DIDN’T do what you claimed above, and so I believe this is another case of you simply misunderstanding something – like you misunderstood gravity to be an attractive AND repellant force.)
But all you have to do is post whatever parts of what I told Berean that were intentional lies, and expose me for the boldfaced liar that I am, right? So why do you just keep TALKING about it instead of SHOWING it to us? 🤔
Proclaimer: I see your cunning, because you ask me to quote the very words of your deception knowing full well that the deception is what you intentionally left out which is impossible for me to quote.
Well then it should be easy to quote what I DID say right before leaving the key part out – and expose me in that manner, right? So why do you just keep TALKING about it instead of SHOWING it to us? 🤔
Proclaimer: The words I can quote if that is what you really want are all the words where you are trying to convince Berean that the reason science says lower latitudes are colder is the sun is further away.
YES! These are exactly the words I want you to quote… the ones where I “tried to convince Berean that the reason science says the lower latitudes are colder is because the sun is further away”. Quote those words, Proclaimer. Show us the exact words I used to do what you are TELLING everyone I did. In other words, stop TALKING about it and SHOW it to us.
Proclaimer: And as mentioned before, you couple this with leaving out the real scientific reason.
Great! Now you just need to SHOW us where I left out the real scientific reason.
Proclaimer: You should feel ashamed of yourself Mike for engaging in such lies and peddling them here to other members. Imagine what God thinks about this.
If only there was some way for you to SHOW us these lies I peddled. Oh, I know! You could easily copy and paste the words that I actually DID say and expose me for the treacherous liar that I am!
But you won’t, will you? Why? Well for one, I didn’t actually DO these things you’ve accused me of. And for another, you much prefer to just post condescending and accusatory diatribes about things that you IMAGINE I said or think, instead of having a respectable adult conversation about our disagreements.
Hey Pretender! The people of HN demand that you SHOW US these lies that I told instead of just continually TALKING about them.
Tick tock…
Since Pretender will NEVER actually SHOW us any of the LIES he accuses me of perpetrating, let me explain what this is all about.
I showed Berean that the Scientism claim for seasons is the tiny tilt of the ball earth. This reason is ridiculous and nonsensical – especially when they explain it as being because the parallel rays from the sun hit directly on some parts of the ball, but indirectly on other parts (namely the top and bottom of the ball). Of course these same priests of Scientism also tell us that rays from the sun do NOT hit the earth as parallel rays, but from all over the sun all the time. And since rays from the very top and bottom of the sun MUST hit the earth at downward and upward angles to produce a shadow of the moon on earth during solar eclipses that is extremely smaller than the moon that’s causing the shadow (an impossibility, by the way), then those very same downward and upward rays from the sun (100 times larger than earth) also MUST hit the top and bottom of our ball as directly as rays from the middle of the sun hit the equator.
So okay, I clearly told Berean the truth that Scientism claims that the TILT of the earth is the reason for the seasons… and then DEBUNKED their explanation. But do you hear that, Pretender? I clearly told him the reason that “science” says we have seasons.
I then pointed out that the tilt of the earth would cause the North Pole to be 3 THOUSAND miles closer to the sun – while at that same time, the priests of Scientism say that the earth is actually 3 MILLION miles FARTHER AWAY from the sun!
I never claimed that “science says” the varying distance between the earth and the sun is the reason for the seasons. I was just pointing out the absurdity of claiming that a 3 THOUSAND mile tilt could somehow make the northern hemisphere warmer at the very time that the sun is 3 MILLION miles farther away.
So you see, Pretender, I DID point out the TILT of the earth as the reason “science” says we have seasons. I didn’t “leave that out”. And while I did mention the 3 million miles difference in distance between the earth and sun, I never once claimed that “science” says this is the REASON that we have different seasons.
Like I said, you have once again simply MISUNDERSTOOD something you read, and went off on a defamatory and accusatory rampage against someone who was completely innocent of the things you accused him of.
Apology forthcoming? (I’ll hold my breath.)
Btw Pretender, what did you think about my solar eclipse image that showed the rays coming from the very top and bottom of the HUGE sun and hitting the poles straight on? Quite a difference from your seasons image that implied a sun that is smaller than the earth, huh?
Why do you think NASA would promote one thing to make one claim and a very different thing to promote another claim?
Since Pretender will NEVER actually SHOW us any of the LIES he accuses me of perpetrating, let me explain what this is all about.
Mike, this is another lie. I clearly pointed out how you lied about the reason why science says there are sharp temperature differences. You need to stop lying because you need to tell more lies to cover the previous lies.
Fact. Liars cannot enter the kingdom of God.
Repent!
When you lie, you are doing the bidding of the father of lies.
YES! These are exactly the words I want you to quote… the ones where I “tried to convince Berean that the reason science says the lower latitudes are colder is because the sun is further away”.
Here is the proof
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…
Pretender, first of all, I didn’t say those words above. That was a copy/paste from Eric Dubay’s “200 Proofs”.
Secondly, there is nothing within Eric’s statement that says anything whatsoever about what “science says” about the reason for the seasons on earth.
I fail to understand how a rational person can read this…
Mike: YES! These are exactly the words I want you to quote… the ones where I “tried to convince Berean that the reason science says the lower latitudes are colder is because the sun is further away”.
… and then post a statement that I didn’t even make, and that doesn’t mention a single word about what “science says” anyway, under a big heading that reads: HERE IS THE PROOF.
As with most of the crap you post, it’s hard for me to determine if you’re really that stupid, or if you’re just a serial liar who thinks the members of this forum are so stupid that you can get away with your lies.
Anyway, I made a dumbed down cartoon for you and Gene about clouds being the waters above the raqia that the sun, moon and stars are in. Did my cartoon help you to see how ludicrous your “clouds” theory is – or do you still believe that clouds are the waters above the sun, moon, and stars?
Also, I’m still waiting for an explanation as to why your interpretation of Genesis 1 has God creating light after light already existed, creating heaven after heaven already existed, creating earth after earth already existed, and creating the luminaries after the luminaries already existed.
That interpretation seems bizarre to me – and to most rational people. Perhaps you could shed some light on it for us. Thanks in advance for your explanation and your apology for once again accusing me of something I never did.
Mike……No you “didn’t dumb it down good enough for us”, but it does show how really dumb you are though? The sun and moon are not under the coulds as your stupid drawing shows, they exist in space, a long way outside of the earths five atmospheres, which are layers that exist on and over our earth.
1….toposphere
2….Stratosphere
3….Mesosphere
4….Thermosphere
5….Exosphere
Your “flat earth” mentality really has you screw up Mike, your conspericy theorist mentality, has really done a job on your brain Mike.
Peace and love to you and yours Mike……..gene
Mike: Btw Pretender, what did you think about my solar eclipse image that showed the rays coming from the very top and bottom of the HUGE sun and hitting the poles straight on? Quite a difference from your seasons image that implied a sun that is smaller than the earth, huh?
Why do you think NASA would promote one thing to make one claim and a very different thing to promote another claim?
Here are the images I was talking about, Proclaimer…
Notice the HUGE sun that casts rays on the earth from all different angles (like all lights do)… including rays that hit the north and south poles straight on.
Now compare that with the image you posted that implies a tiny sun that couldn’t possibly cast rays that hit the north and south poles straight on…
My question is very simple, Pretender…
Why do you suppose that NASA and Scientism would produce an image that makes it look like sunlight can barely even hit the poles to demonstrate how a 3000 mile tilt (towards or away from a sun that is 93 MILLION miles away!) could cause distinct seasons, but then produce an image where sunlight hits the poles straight on when they are trying to explain the reason for the tiny moon shadow on the earth during solar eclipses?
Which of the two is the TRUTH of the matter? Is the sun small like in your image? Or huge like in mine? Does the light come to the earth in perfectly parallel rays like in your image? Or does it hit the earth from all different angles like in mine?
Do you understand their problem? If they used my image with the HUGE sun to explain the seasons, it wouldn’t be very effective because people could visualize the sunlight hitting the poles straight on – which would nullify their claim that it’s the angle at which the sun hits the earth that makes the difference, right?
On the other hand, if they used your image that implies a tiny sun shining parallel rays, it wouldn’t be effective because people would see light hitting the earth straight on and barely even lighting the poles – which would nullify their claim that sunlight shoots past the earth at extreme angles to produce the conical shadow required for eclipses, right?
Why don’t you and Gene stop for just a minute and really THINK about this stuff? Surely you can see that the two graphics show two different sunlight effects, right? And surely you can see that they intentionally use one to justify their explanation for one phenomenon, while using a different one that shows a completely different sunlight effect to justify their explanation for a different phenomenon, right?
But both can’t be right, can they. A little logical thinking is all that is required.
Gene: Mike……No you “didn’t dumb it down good enough for us”…
Well that’s unfortunate Gene, because I can’t think of any way to dumb it down even further.
Gene: …but it does show how really dumb you are though?
I just drew what you two describe, Gene.
Gene: The sun and moon are not under the clouds as your stupid drawing shows…
That was my point, Gene. The waters above the firmament are ABOVE the sun, moon, and stars. And so if the sun, moon and stars are NOT under the clouds, then clouds can’t possibly be the waters that are ABOVE the sun, moon, and stars.
I feel as if it’s almost ready to click for you. I feel as if my cartoon might have been the very thing needed to get you over the hump. 🙏
That was my point, Gene. The waters above the firmament are ABOVE the sun, moon, and stars.
Hi Mike,
Biblically that is correct.
AND clouds are BELOW THE SUN, MOON AND STARS…RIGHT?🙏
@danny
Danny God called the raqia heaven and scripture is clear that God is in heaven. So you need to place God below the waters if you are sticking to your definition of raqia / dome. Please amend. If not,then you do not really believe this and you should be honest about that.
Pretender, first of all, I didn’t say those words above. That was a copy/paste from Eric Dubay’s “200 Proofs”.
Which you are using as YOUR argument to convince berean. So take responsibility.
Secondly, there is nothing within Eric’s statement that says anything whatsoever about what “science says” about the reason for the seasons on earth.
I see. So it is addessing Eric Dubay’s gandmother’s personal view point then? If not the scientific consensus, then who exactly is Eric and yourself trying to debunk in this 200 BS proofs?
This is a real question Mike. Who is he and yourself trying to debunk exactly if not the scientific consensus?
Mike: That was my point, Gene. The waters above the firmament are ABOVE the sun, moon, and stars.
Berean: Hi Mike,
Biblically that is correct.
AND clouds are BELOW THE SUN, MOON AND STARS…RIGHT?Yes Berean… that is Biblically and scientifically correct. The Bible doesn’t lie about the age of our world or the shape of it. Real science confirms the Bible on both, while Scientism contradicts the Bible on both.
Cheers
Proclaimer: Which you are using as YOUR argument to convince berean. So take responsibility.
Yes, I clearly used a few paragraphs from Eric Dubay’s “200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball”.
Proclaimer: If not the scientific consensus, then who exactly is Eric and yourself trying to debunk in this 200 BS proofs?
This is a real question Mike. Who is he and yourself trying to debunk exactly if not the scientific consensus?
We are debunking (not TRYING to debunk) Scientism – which you call “scientific consensus”. But what does any of this have to do with your accusation?
You accused me of misrepresenting (actually “lying about”) what “scientific consensus” says is the reason for our seasons. I never did any such thing. I told Berean that the “scientific consensus” says it is the tilt of the earth. (Although I then pointed out to Berean just how ludicrous that claim was.)
And you accused me of claiming that the “scientific consensus” says that the distance between the earth and sun is the reason for the seasons. I never claimed any such thing. (Although I did point out to Berean just how ludicrous it was to think that a 3 THOUSAND mile tilt could cause seasonal temperature changes when a 3 MILLION mile difference in distance doesn’t affect our temperature at all.)
Like I said, your poor comprehension skills (that seem to get worse every day) have caused you to once again misunderstand something that someone else wrote. You have accused me of lying because YOU couldn’t comprehend what I told Berean. It got all twisted up in your mind somehow.
I’m truly sorry that your mental faculties are obviously rapidly slipping away, David. But should I have to bear the brunt of YOUR misunderstandings? Do the right thing and just apologize. I will accept, forgive, and we can move past it.
Hey, when are you going to respond about my cartoon showing your and Gene’s understanding of clouds being the waters ABOVE the raqia that the sun, moon and stars are IN?
When are you going to explain to us why your interpretation of Gen 1 has God creating light after light already existed, creating heaven after heaven already existed, creating earth after earth already existed, and creating the luminaries after the luminaries already existed?
(Btw, I responded to your partial answer in the private thread, asking you for the rest of the answer. Shall I expect that in another 3 months? Actually don’t even worry about it. The only reason I started that thread is so you’d HAVE TO answer my questions that you had been avoiding. But then you broke your own rules and avoided answering them over there too, so what’s the point? I might as well just track you down and hound you on this thread instead of on two different ones.)
Proclaimer: Danny God called the raqia heaven and scripture is clear that God is in heaven. So you need to place God below the waters if you are sticking to your definition of raqia / dome. Please amend. If not,then you do not really believe this and you should be honest about that.
The graphic Danny posted explains clearly what the scriptures teach – with the exception that the artist put the sun, moon and stars just below the raqia, when they are actually IN the raqia. Other than that, it shows the first heaven (where birds fly and clouds float), the second heaven (where the sun, moon and stars run their appointed circuits over the earth) and the third heaven (where God dwells atop the waters above the raqia) just as they are described in the scriptures.
No amendment is needed from us. From you and Gene, however… well, that is quite a different matter.
May God heal your mind, so we can go back to having respectable rational discussions like we did here 10 years ago. 🙏
No Danny and Mike, your model still has one other discrepancy besides your stars in the raqia.
No Mike, you are still lying about the temperature difference.
I will explain this in two posts.
Make sure to watch out for them guys.
I’ll tag you in.
You forgot one other point, your God is in the raqia
The graphic Danny posted explains clearly what the scriptures teach – with the exception that the artist put the sun, moon and stars just below the raqia, when they are actually IN the raqia.
God called the raqia heaven. And God dwells in heaven. So you and Danny also need to place God below the waters where the stars are, in your model. Both God and the stars are in the raqia / heaven according to scripture. Please acknowledge that scripture says this, then either make the correction and repost the model, or admit that your model must be wrong. Thank you!
And here are the scriptures that you need to adhere to:
Let there be a raqia in the midst of the waters [Heb. mayim], and let it separate the waters from the waters. And God made the raqia, and separated the waters which were below the raqia from the waters which were above the raqia; and it was so. And God called the raqia heaven.
Thus says the Lord: “Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool; what is the house that you would build for me, and what is the place of my rest?
Pray then like this: “Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name.
COMPREHENDO?
Stop lying @mikeboll64
Despite your protests and serpent like cunning to deny this, clearly you were misleading berean about the sun distance being the consensus on these varying temperatures. Grow up and own it Mike. You not only live in a fantasy pizza world where lies are truth and truth are lies, but now you are lying about the very statement you were clearly making. Look at what you said:
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.
Here you are asserting that a 0.00004% extra distance between the surface of the earth and sun doesn’t sufficiently explain the temperature difference between hot and cold areas of the world. And I imagine by extension, you are hoping he sees this explanation as debunking the heliocentric model and favouring flat earth.
All I can say Mike, is all lying (including this bogus argument) is done to deceive and hide truth. Indeed, you even hid the real reason for the temperature differences from berean, an argument that has been shown to you numerous times in this discussion. That is deception plain and simple. Own it, repent, and apologise like a real man.
Or choose to continue down this path of foolishness and deception and see where it gets you.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
