- This topic has 6,414 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 2 months, 1 week ago by
.
- Posts
But Gene, it is the same scientists that are telling you that what the Bible says about the earth and our universe is not true.
I’m glad that you do not subscribe to evolution but evolution does include the earth and universe and that is what is being taught now.
You do realize that the majority of scientists believes in evolution. So it is Ok to go against the cultural trend in scientism with the greater truth of Scripture.
That is what myself and a growing number of truth seekers are doing. It’s fine if you’re not there yet. Perhaps you could take the advice of Gamaliel; “I say to you, stay away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or action is of men, it will be overthrown; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them; or else you may even be found fighting against God.”
Nick: “The theory of evolution is contrary to the teaching of scripture. Unbelievers had to deny the reality of God so gratefully followed Darwin. The fact that they got it wrong, however, does not justify the flat earth nonsense. Just another variation on the love of deception by men.”
The teaching of the evolution of the universe is also against Scripture. The Bible says that the earth was created before the sun. It says that the stars were created after the sun. It also says that the earth has a firmament.
Do the scientists that you are listening to believe in the evolution of the universe or the Bible?
There is a deception here, the question is who is perpetrating it; secular scientists or the Bible?
Mike said:
Are they suggesting that a flower doesn’t actually exist unless someone happens to be looking at it?
Imagine a flower on your TV set. Yes it exists in the context of the world on your TV screen, but is that flower real so that the flower flies through the atmosphere and appears on the screen or is it a wave signal that the TV converts into a flower.
Reality appears like that. When you are not observing protons or electrons, they are waves. When you observe, they are particles or real pixels. Thus, one way of interpreting these experiments is consciousness plays a big part in reality or at least the physical realm. And it stands to reason that this is the case, because we know that our brains use neural signals to create the picture and experience when we know as the universe which we know to be a realm of wave signals from an almost infinite or infinite range of frequencies.
Reality is subjective then. The brain gives us experience of a flat earth when we walk down the street, but we experience a different perspective in space. Just as a video game or a virtual world would do.
If the universe has a fundamental particle, then the physical world is made up of pixels too. In other words the universe is a digital construct, and by implication, it was programmed and that means there was a programmer. It might have been Newton who said: God made the universe with mathematics. It appears real enough to us, but how does it look from the one who made it. Surely to God, it is a product made from his own hands and he exists outside of it observing it, while experiencing it via his spirit which can pervade his own creation. He can see the construct just as I can see the code of this site and observe the server it sits on.
t8, it sounds a little bit like, “if a tree falls in the forest and there is no one to hear it does it make a sound?”. Whenever I hear this kind of mumbo-jumbo I always ask them “what is the sound of one hand clapping”? Then I illustrate it by smacking them across the cheek! ; )
I’ve always wondered how they know what anything does when it is not observed.
Dig4truth. Science is revealing a way more complex reality than the world view held in antiquity. The more we learn the more reasons we see the amazing handiwork of an eternal creator. Of course, some will ignore God regardless. Even DNA code shows his handiwork. No surprises. Satan believes in God and rebelled. So what of man who hasn’t seen him. They are without excuse. The more we learn about creation, the more it reveals an eternal God.
t8, it sounds a little bit like, “if a tree falls in the forest and there is no one to hear it does it make a sound?”. Whenever I hear this kind of mumbo-jumbo I always ask them “what is the sound of one hand clapping”? Then I illustrate it by smacking them across the cheek! ; )
Not mumbo jumbo because it fits basic observable facts. Take your eyes for example, they receive visible light rays which is but a tiny part of the whole spectrum. They are converted to electromagnetic radiation in the brain which are between 10-100 cycles per second (approx). The brain processes this data to create the visual effect of reality. Of course that is one sense. All senses combined input the total data to be processed which results in our physical world experience. So the processing of all signals of the physical realm take place in your computer which we call a brain.
It works like a camera, a TV, or a wireless Internet. Do you believe web pages exist? What if I told you they are merely data packets and it is your phone or computer with browser that processes that data to create the web page simulation as you know it. In other words, web pages don’t actually exist outside of the computer only raw data does. Reality works like that and it proves God’s existence, just as experiencing TV, photos, and the Web also proves they were created. Web pages are a product of a browser rather than web pages existing in themselves outside of a computer and observer. Do you think that Heaven Net exists as you know it outside of a browser of some kind? And even when you use a browser, your experience of it is different to mine. You might be on an iPhone and me on a Windows laptop. We visited different pages at different times.Your experience of it is not the only one. Point being, the universe is all data and we only receive a small fraction of it. Each day we receive more data and collectively, we make predictions and fill in our understanding of the universe from our own small experience of it.
What we can conclude is consciousness is not a product of the universe as Atheists have argued all along, rather the universe is a product of consciousness. Boom, science is pointing back to a creator and Dawkins and the like have no answer to this. Atheists have way more reasons to not believe in a God if the physical universe is but a simple flat earth disk. There is way more chance that could happen without a creator than the current universe that we understand. And the universe is so mathematically wired that if it were off by the smallest of margins, it could not exist.
This deviation on topic does relate to the flat earth debate because reality is subjective and always slightly different to radically different depending on parameters of the observer. My ultimate point is, you cannot rule out scientific data just because you observe one thing and it doesn’t match your experience. There is a whole lot of data outside what your brain is processing including experience from other humans who claim to have been in space and mathematicians and astronomers who dedicate way more time on such things than you and I.
T8: The Earth easily wins the gravitational tug of war. The moon still has an influence and the fact that there are different tides depending on where the moon is backs up this up.
- According to the theory of gravity, the earth would indeed win the tug of war, and the moon would have come crashing to the earth in no time.
- Tides occur with no relation to the position of the moon.
- Only oceans have tides. If the moon were really what causes them, lakes, rivers, marshes, and even swimming pools would have tides.
It isn’t hard t understand that everything on Earth is attracted to the centre of the Earth while a big object like the moon passing close would cause a disturbance or tug a bit harder than when it is further away.
An elephant has more mass than I do, so when it jumps of a three foot platform, gravity influences it more than if I jumped off that same platform. I would come out unscathed while the elephant would need to be rushed to elephant hospital.
The Flat Webpage Society
Webpages appears as two dimensional pages, but some smart arse programmers and mathematicians say that webpages are data packets that travel wirelessly through the atmosphere and are received by browsers in phones and computers to appear as two dimensional digital pages. Who are these guys kidding. We should just trust our own observation right. Some mathematicians imagine that these pages are actually data and code stored on a machine they call a server and look nothing like what we observe with our own browsers. I mean, I trust my browser more than these IT morons. What do you think?
T8: The ISS is technically still within the atmosphere (in a layer called the thermosphere), but the air is so rarefied at that altitude that it is for all practical purposes a vacuum.
Temperatures in the upper thermosphere can range from about 500° C (932° F) to 2,000° C (3,632° F) or higher. Aluminum melts at 660.3°C (1,221°F). Anyone else seeing a problem here? And what about those space suits? They can withstand 2,000° C (3,632° F)? They’re laughing at us, as these “photos” of Pluto and Saturn’s moon Mimas make clear…
T8: So now we have what is possibly a correct difference in pressure. It seems obvious to me at least that the ISS is built to withstand that force. Car tyres for example withstand higher pressure than this, so if there are billions of inflated tyres in the world, then why couldn’t we build the ISS to withstand a much less pressure difference?
Car tires exist in a 14.7 psi environment. Take them to space and they would balloon up and then explode. Here’s an aluminum soda can in a very small vacuum chamber… which reaches 17 orders of magnitude less than the alleged vacuum in space.
Perhaps our local math expert can explain what 17 orders of magnitude difference amount to in plain English. Suffice it to say that we’ve all seen the video of a comparatively tiny vacuum on earth crush a railway car made of thick, heavy steel. The ISS needs to be made of something 17 orders of magnitude stronger than that railway car.
And we haven’t even taken into account the millions of micrometeoroids supposedly whipping around all over up there at speeds of 10 kilometers per second (22,500 mph)! A single one hitting the ISS (let alone someone on a space walk) would obliterate it. And it’s been up there for 20 years with no problems? There is so much more to say about this, but time will not permit.
Now imagine a virtual world where AI exists. To them, their virtual world is real, but to the creator it is a virtual construct. If I being the creator of that virtual world talked about that world to the created AI, that in no way negates that the virtual world is actually way more complex than their limited experience of it. The creator would certainly talk about that world in the AI’s language and from their experience just as God does to us. But if one of the AIs worked out that it was actually a simulation and worked out the code that makes it work, then that would not negate any revelation the creator gave to the AI about the world they experience because it would be from their perspective and why would the creator want the AI to know everything about the server and processor. While other AI may think the AI that worked out mathematically the simulation as crazy, it doesn’t mean that it is not true. Perhaps as the virtual world is modernised by the AI, this crazy notion of being digital will become mainstream when they can test the idea when they are technologically advanced enough to do so.
But t8, mathematics says that a sphere with a circumference of our earth would curve at 8″ per mile squared. However, that is not what is observed. It is testable and repeatable. Unless math can take on the esoteric properties that you’ve been talking about then it seems pretty cut and dry. This is true even when you take into account all the possible influences on our perception like refraction, height of observer, etc.
Remember the photo of the Chicago skyline that the weatherman said was a mirage? Well, one FE guy chartered a boat and sailed across the lake with the skyline in view the whole time. It is on video so you see it for yourself. Guess what – it wasn’t a mirage even though the weatherman said that you could not see the skyline from that distance without it being a mirage.
There are more examples of testable repeatable experiments that contradict the globe earth theory. Some are even historical. These are not esoteric things that can be waved off by suggesting that what one person “senses” might not be what another person senses. Hence, the “testable and repeatable” part.
I can appreciate that you are trying to come to terms with some evidence that is starting to get uncomfortable. I’ve been there. Take the slow roll, think about things, do some research and use your God given senses to help along the way. If we don’t see eye to eye that’s Ok. As others have pointed out there are more important things in life than to gain more knowledge. Gain more love and faith, now there is something that will always benefit us!
T8: …they would have to blast a concentrated jet of material down through the soil and have it push the soil up from underneath.
That’s an idiotic claim.
T8: In a vacuum, rocket exhaust expands perpendicular to thrust much faster then in an atmosphere.
Rockets can’t work in a vacuum at all, because there is nothing to push against – so this entire thing is moot.
T8: The LEM descent engine only had 10,000 pounds of thrust at full power and was only running at abut 20% of that during the last moments of descent.
They try to make it sound as if 2000 pounds of thrust is a gentle breeze. 🙂 Anyway, you can see all the dust flying everywhere in the official NASA footage…
… so it is impossible that not one speck of it landed on the gold mylar feet of the lander.
T8: The engine was cut off early to minimize soil disturbance and prevent debris from bouncing up and causing damage, and the LEM fell the last few feet.
The footage above starts at more than 50 feet above the surface, so it’s clear that cutting the engines for “the last few feet” didn’t eliminate dust. T8, you will be able to find an “answer” to everything D4T and I bring up here. You will have to use your own discernment to decide whether these official-sounding answers actually make any sense.
t8: “Now imagine a virtual world where AI exists. To them, their virtual world is real, but to the creator it is a virtual construct. If I being the creator of that virtual world talked about that world to the created AI, that in no way negates that the virtual world is actually way more complex than their limited experience of it. The creator would certainly talk about that world in the AI’s language and from their experience just as God does to us. But if one of the AIs worked out that it was actually a simulation and worked out the code that makes it work, then that would not negate any revelation the creator gave to the AI about the world they experience because it would be from their perspective and why would the creator want the AI to know everything about the server and processor. While other AI may think the AI that worked out mathematically the simulation as crazy, it doesn’t mean that it is not true. Perhaps as the virtual world is modernised by the AI, this crazy notion of being digital will become mainstream when they can test the idea when they are technologically advanced enough to do so.”
Yes, but God cannot lie. He has told us certain things about the earth, sun, moon and stars that contradict what the “science” of today is trying to tell us. No one is arguing that God knows more than us and that He has revealed this knowledge to us in a way that we can understand. But if He says the earth was created before the sun then it cannot be the other way around.
Science says many things that are against Scripture; sun before earth, no global flood, man was not created but evolved, etc.
We don’t seem to have a problem rejecting these claims but the same scientists tells us that our universe has evolved from an explosion and they have all the data and pictures to prove it – and somehow it is a heresy to question them? Hmm.
T8: In your video Mike you say where was the third well that Eratosthenes end up finding for his experiments. I didn’t think Neil was saying he used 3 wells, but that 3 wells gives the proof.
You misunderstood the video. It was meant to point out that in 1980, the most famous scientist of the day, Carl Sagan, told the Eratosthenes story on his series Cosmos, and millions of people believed him when he said the ONLY way it would work is on a ball earth. Flash forward 38 years, and we’ve got today’s most famous scientist, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, clearly saying that Eratosthenes’ results were possible on either a flat or a ball earth. Understand? How could the brilliant Sagan have told millions of people that it could only work on a ball earth if that wasn’t even true? So for 40 years, people have been saying, “Educated people have known the earth was a ball for over 2000 years, because of Eratosthenes.” But it was all a lie, because the shadows also work on a flat earth… as DeGrasse Tyson finally admitted to the mainstream 38 years later. (Of course flat earthers have shown this with their own experiments for years, but what ball earther would believe them over the expert Carl Sagan?)
Neil mentioned that if Eratosthenes had used a third well, it would have confirmed the earth was a ball. Again, that is blatantly erroneous… as it would do no such thing. But my point was that Eratosthenes DIDN’T use a third location for his experiment. And two locations couldn’t prove anything one way or the other. The idea behind the video was to show how people shouldn’t just blindly believe everything a “scientist” says – because Sagan was wrong in his claim, and Neil is also wrong in his claim that three locations would do the trick. But for 40 years, people believed the lie because they heard it from a scientist and didn’t think to ask themselves if what he said was even logical.
T8: I guess that is something Flat Earthers could test.
The last point I made in the video was to ask why, in 2000 years, a ball earther hasn’t thought to do the test with three locations. You know why they haven’t? Because three locations wouldn’t prove the shape of the earth either. And they figured if they could lie about the two locations, and the gullible masses believed it, why push their luck by even bringing up a third location. So why did Neil bring it up a month ago? Hmm… I’m starting to think Neil is subtly trying to help us out. I’ve even thought of making a video about it. In the last few years, Neil has written a book explaining how stars couldn’t have formed the way the secularists say they must have. He’s said on a TV show that we don’t even know what gravity is. He’s told the world that we can’t get far enough away from earth to see the curve, thereby debunking all those airplane passengers and pilots who insist they’ve seen the curve. He’s told the world that we would be able to see stars from anywhere in space – even with the sun in full view – thereby debunking all those NASA photos that never show any stars… and the 50% of astronauts who say they couldn’t see them when the sun was in view. He’s told us that the earth isn’t a sphere, but instead a pear-shaped spheroid, thereby debunking all the NASA images of a perfectly round ball earth. And most recently, he utterly destroyed the Eratosthenes story that people have been blindly touting as proof for 40 years.
Anyway, at the time Eratosthenes did his experiment, every culture in the world believed in a flat earth with heavenly bodies moving over us in the sky. It was never a case of Eratosthenes looking at two shadows, making an absurd claim that we lived on a ball, and then telling everyone else in the world to go prove him wrong. The onus was on him (and all the scientists who came after him in the last 2000 years) to prove that the world we all observe every day as flat and motionless with lights moving around us in the sky was instead a spinning ball orbiting the sun. His experiment didn’t prove a ball then, and 20 shadows won’t prove it today. In fact there’s a video on YouTube of a guy doing it on a flat table with 10-20 sticks, measuring each angle precisely, and proving that the calculations which work on a ball earth with a sun very far away also on a flat surface with the light source close by.
So instead of telling us this is something WE should go do (like you keep doing), how about YOU go do it? And while you’re at it, you’ll have to also prove that the same results couldn’t possibly work on a flat earth. But the onus is clearly on you, since you are the one claiming something that goes against every grain of common sense, everyday personal observation, and centuries of irrefutable experimentation like Airy’s Failure, Sagnac, Michelson-Morley, the Bedford level, the 40 Km laser test FECore just completed, the thousands of citizen-scientist photos that clearly show objects much farther away than they could be, the moon eclipsing from the top down, full moons in the daytime, etc, etc, etc.
T8: Mike. There is an explanation for seeing mountains that should be hidden by the curvature of the Earth. I explained it before, but I am not convinced you understood what I was saying. I will; try and make it easier this time, so you or others don’t lose interest.
I caught what you were saying the first time, and so did the side by side comparisons to show you that isn’t the answer. I read where you have now seen those posts by me, and where I have permission to use your photo (thanks 🙂 ), but I haven’t read far enough to see what you thought about my side by side comparisons. Do you agree that we can see just as far down the mountain in your photo as we can in the close up? Can you see that certain boulders are the same size in both, and the distance between them and the base of the mountain is the same in both? In other words, what were your thoughts on my comparisons? If you find problems with them, let me know so I won’t make a fool of myself when I do it on YouTube.
T8: The point I make is nothing in the Bible rules out a globe Earth going around the sun.
Many scriptures do.
T8: Ruling it out only leads people to have to make a choice as to which is true, scientific observation or the Bible.
There is absolutely no discrepancy between the Bible and scientific observation, T8. Never has been, and never will be. As D4T and I were learning everything we could about deep time big bang evolution at break neck speed over the last 4 years, I felt so ashamed that I had ever taken the word of scientism (not to be confused with “science”) over the word of God. I have learned that there is indeed a choice to be made by everyone, and those who make the Bible conform to the latest stories scientism is telling us will be heartbroken in the end for ever trusting godless men over their Creator. I won’t do it again. Not on the origins of our world, the origins of life, the age of the earth, the historicity of Noah’s flood and the exodus, the shape of the earth, or anything else. I hope that we will be able to bring you to the place we finally arrived. When the choice arises, you’ll never be wrong choosing the Bible.
T8: As for stars falling from the sky, this is completely from our perspective. I have seen stars fall to the sky one at a time of course.
You have never seen a star – as described by secular cosmology – do anything at all, because they simply don’t exist. But ask yourself why nobody has ever seen a shooting star move from the horizon up into the sky. Because in the secular ball earth model, they should be shooting across our view in every conceivable direction… including up from the ground into space. But my point was scriptural, and has nothing to do with perspective. Your Lord and Savior said the stars will fall to the earth from the sky. The secular model says stars are huge nuclear fireballs, with the sun being one of the smallest. It is impossible for even one of their stars to come anywhere close to the earth without burning it to a cinder, and so it is impossible for one to fall to the earth – let alone many of them. There would be no earth left for the following ones to fall to. 🙂 I will align with the Bible on this, no matter what secular cosmology says, and no matter how great the signs and wonders Satan performs to persuade me otherwise. After all, it is written that he will go as far as calling fire down from heaven to deceive even the elect, if possible. I’m surprise he hasn’t concocted a sure-fire irrefutable missing link by now – or some irrefutable proof that the universe exists as we’ve been told. Many, even among the current flat earthers, will be deceived when that happens, but I will stand firm with exactly what the scriptures say.
T8: As for the moon giving its light, well that argument is like the one about Jesus creating the cosmos. Was it him or through him, I say the latter. Does the moon emit light, yes that is obvious. But it is not the source of that light. Is Jesus the truth, yes? But again, he is not the source of that truth, his Father is right?
Well fortunately, that’s one we don’t have to worry about, since even the observational evidence makes it abundantly clear that the sun is not what’s lighting the moon. Nor is the earth what’s eclipsing it.
T8: Not only do these boats take videos of their journey, but they sometimes sail as far south as possible to shorten the route. \
No private vessels of any kind are allowed beyond the 60 South parallel. And 60 South is still a long ways away from the alleged continent of Antarctica. Here is just one of the “200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball”, by Eric Dubay…
38) To quote Reverend Thomas Milner, “In the southern hemisphere, navigators to India have often fancied themselves east of the Cape when still west, and have been driven ashore on the African coast, which, according to their reckoning, lay behind them. This misfortune happened to a fine frigate, the Challenger, in 1845. How came Her Majesty’s Ship ‘Conqueror,’ to be lost? How have so many other noble vessels, perfectly sound, perfectly manned, perfectly navigated, been wrecked in calm weather, not only in dark night, or in a fog, but in broad daylight and sunshine – in the former case upon the coasts, in the latter, upon sunken rocks – from being ‘out of reckoning?’” The simple answer is that Earth is not a ball.
D4T has already linked this fantastic resource (the e-book that got me started) for miia, but here it is again…
http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html
For this specific topic, read numbers 34-42. You might be surprised at what you learn. They are all short snippets of information, like what I posted above, so it won’t take you long. You might even be compelled to read the entire thing.
Okay, I’m taking a break from chasing your “well what about this?” and “well what about that?” questions. I’ve been told today that we’ll be going back to 12-13 hour days for a while, and I just won’t have the time to answer every single thing you can think of. T8, if I were to present just one verifiable proof that the world isn’t what we’ve been told, it would be enough to destroy the entire heliocentric model, right? I have so far presented at least three of them – and you have shrugged them off in your haste to show me a million proofs of a ball earth – not one of which can actually be verified. I think it’s high time you and I slow down and actually discuss the things I’ve already presented. So enough of the “what about this and that” for a while, okay? Instead, let’s start with the Eratosthenes story. Do you agree that this experiment with two locations cannot possibly confirm the shape of the earth? That’s all I want to discuss with you for the moment. I just want a simple answer, now that you know the facts of the matter. Thanks.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
