- This topic has 6,414 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 2 months, 1 week ago by
.
- Posts
T8: Too easy. Because it is inhospitable.
The further south you go in NZ the colder it becomes (generally).
Which is more inhospitable… the zero Kelvin vacuum of space… or the south pole? We’ve supposedly sent dozens of people to the ISS, where human beings have been continually living for the past 20 years. Are you seriously saying that the arctic and antarctic tundras are more dangerous than outer space, and that’s why we can’t send balloons and planes equipped with hi-def cameras or expedition crews there to explore? Do you really think Antarctica is colder than than the air where commercial jets fly all day every day?
T8: Lack of funding, lack of population, and lack of reasons to spend the required money to get the imaging in such areas is my guess.
Are you flipping kidding me here? 🤣 The satellites are already up there everywhere in space, right? They’re already taking DIGITAL photos all the time (that don’t cost a cent), right? And NASA (who owns virtually all of the high altitude balloon satellites and governs the alleged space satellites) gets 60 million dollars A DAY! Every argument you come up with digs you deeper into the hole of nonsense you’ve created. It’s like you’re just saying crap now – without even thinking about it before you say it.
Like you said… “too easy”. 😁
Anyway, here’s my latest… only a minute and a half…
Great vid! Isn’t it funny how the evidence always supports the biblical cosmology!? And isn’t it equally as funny how hard some try to ignore it!?
Are you flipping kidding me here?
Read my posts slowly. It is already photographed in high def, just that Google uses a different service and Google probably doesn’t give high priority to areas with zero population for their mapping driving service.
A bit of common sense here would be appreciated as it would save time. I shouldn’t need to hold your hand through all the explanations I give. I am sure you could understand them if you tried.
Are you seriously saying that the arctic and antarctic tundras are more dangerous than outer space, and that’s why we can’t send balloons and planes equipped with hi-def cameras or expedition crews there to explore?
Nope. This is all created from your own faulty thought processes. If you read my posts properly, you would see this question did not need to be asked. Pay attention please. Start by reading my post above this one, which talks about another post that you displayed zero comprehension of. Your post here is based on a faulty understanding so your extended conclusion is likewise faulty.
Building anything including an argument on a faulty foundation is not recommended.
Great vid! Isn’t it funny how the evidence always supports the biblical cosmology!? And isn’t it equally as funny how hard some try to ignore it!?
WHAT? LOL. Don’t give up your day job and pursue science. Trust me, lol.
You guys are in a cult. You need to understand this before you can be set free. The truth includes admitting this to yourself. Sure, you will pass this off as redicilous, but when the time comes and the LORD calls you and gives you a moment of clarity, please do not harden your heart.
Thanks D! As usual, after reading the globers’ comments, I’ll now have to make another explanatory video. So sad when I have to continually explain THEIR model to them.
T8, please answer my question about the stars falling to the earth… and I’ll address your other most recent misunderstandings later.
IF you took Jesus’ claim that “the stars fell to the earth” LITERALLY, would you still say that there is no contradiction between scripture and the heliocentric model? YES or NO?
No.
A meteor shower for example is a literal view. Remember, before telescopes, all lights in the sky were stars including meteors. We classify these stars today as sun’s (which were fixed stars), meteors (falling stars), and planets (wandering stars).
Knowledge has increased as it is written. But for some reason, you assume they had more knowledge back which is opposite to that which is written.
If you had a vision of a fig tree and then saw that there were no figs on it, you would assume the figs that you saw had fallen to the ground. If you think of the stars as figs, then if there were no stars, you could think they too fell to earth.
The scripture says that the sky was rolled up like a scroll. In other words it seems that the stars have disappeared. An ancient could think they must have fallen to the ground. We see that a lot in scripture. God shows something and it is up to the person to describe what they saw in their own words.
Even I have had visions that I’ve written down and in some cases still do not understand. You just write it down the best way you know how.
Multiple possibilities and no flat earth needed. Requiring a flat earth is overreaching just as requiring a hollow earth would be.
Can you see how silly your teaching is? No one buys your leaven anymore because you have discredited yourself.
Thanks D! As usual, after reading the globers’ comments, I’ll now have to make another explanatory video. So sad when I have to continually explain THEIR model to them.
No, I didn’t watch your video. If my comments match theirs, then there just might be something to them.
Okay, I watched the video. So what. It doesn’t prove anything. Just questions from a doubtful mind.
All you have is denial in the end because there is way more than 2 or 3 witnesses that attest to the globe, whereas you guys have zero proof of your earth is pepperoni pizza theory.
You make fun of earth pics from space or high up in the atmosphere. How about posting your best shot of the flat earth and well make comparisons? Yeah, I didn’t think you would. Lol.
The point is when you see a curve you say fisheye and when you don’t, you say normal lense.
As a photographer myself, you use a wide angle lense even near sea level if you wish to capture a lot in your frame.
Regardless of the lense, the earth is still a globe and the lens won’t change that. It will either enhance it or not.
But higher up are satellites that beam down images of earth to us and you can clearly see the earth is a globe. Of course you will cry conspiracy.
You are in a cult Dig. I pray you realise that. All lies are of the Devil and good doesn’t come from a lie.
T8: Regardless of the lense, the earth is still a globe and the lens won’t change that. It will either enhance it or not.
What? Regardless of the lens? That’s what the point of the video was; when a regular lens is used it is flat!
Another example of “my mind is made up, don’t confuse me with the facts”.Silly.
The moon is a globe and you c an take a telescope and see that other planets and moons are globes. And photos from space show we are a globe planet too.
If you take a photo inside the atmosphere, you may not be far enough back to see the whole shape.
But feel free to show me a photo of the disk. Oh yeah, in the whole history of mankind, no one has ever photographed the flat earth. Only the globe is photographed.
You lose.
Why don’t you guys focus on debunking Evolution. At least that might be helpful. I am not confident that you would do a good job, but dedicating your life to Flat Earth is a waste of a life. You might as well try debunking the existence of human beings.
Mike: IF you took Jesus’ claim that “the stars fell to the earth” LITERALLY, would you still say that there is no contradiction between scripture and the heliocentric model? YES or NO?
T8: No.
Now was that so hard? So our difference is that we DO take Jesus at his word, and you don’t. Will you really ridicule us and call us names for believing our Lord – just because you choose to take the word of godless men over his? Does that really seem wise and prudent to you? Hmm…
T8: A meteor shower for example is a literal view. Remember, before telescopes, all lights in the sky were stars including meteors.
Says who? What empirical evidence do you have that the OT Hebrews and NT Jews confused so-called “meteor showers” with stars? And upon what, exactly, do you base your claim that Jesus himself was confused about which lights in the sky were which when he told us that the STARS would fall to the earth? Because that is what you’re saying, right? Jesus clearly said “stars”, but only because he was confusing them with “meteor showers”, right?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
