- This topic has 6,414 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
Hi Mike,
I clearly gave Proclaimer the argument 113) from Eric’s book.
He blatantly ignored it. Intentionally?
I have posted it to him again.
How will Proclaimer respond? Is HE trapped?Downity vs Gravity (The Great Battle)
Ah, the old downity vs gravity argument. Obviously at this point I can assume that you guys flunked science. And that is not an issue. I basically flunked art (I didn’t take it because I’m useless). I am in the bottom 1% of the human population when it comes to sketching something. The thing is I admit I am useless at that subject and am not worried because I have other things that I am good at. That said, if I started debating with artists and saying that my work was good etc, then I would be delusional.
So now let’s talk about your understanding of science. You want me to explain why people in Australia don’t fall off the globe. Dude, that question is from the stone age. Lol. It’s fine to ask the question, but to think it is an intelligent question or that you are right is worse than me pretending to be Van Gogh.
The first thing I need establish is a word that describes your theory of down. To make things simple, let’s call it Downity. And the theory I subscribe to is called Gravity.
If you want to know about gravity, you can easily google it. I do not need to give you the answer. There is a ton of resources out there.
https://lmgtfy.app/?q=what+is+gravityGravity explains it all and it can be measured. It makes successful predictions 100 percent of the time. I can tell you from experience that only the truth is 100 percent true. Whether you can visualise it or not, the modern world relies on gravity. The Internet you are using right now relies on gravity to work if you are using wireless. So I do not need to prove gravity to you. It is part of every day life and many inventions exist because of our understanding of gravity.
What needs to happen is for you guys to prove Downity and why it is a better theory than gravity. Tell us what it is. Is it a force? Is the disc propelling upward or what? Once you have described it, then makes some predictions with math based on the theory. If you throw a tennis ball 6 feet up in the air, show how downity math can predict its path and time of contact with the surface. When you can do that and downity can make 100% predictions too, then and only then will the science community take notice and analyse the theory to see if it is superior to gravity.
The ball is in your court. How does the ball fall with downity? What is the math? Why is downity superior to gravity. All the best.
Hi Mike,
You: Did Moses make up the creation account on his own, Carmel? Or was he in direct communication with the Creator and
it was the Creator that told Moses about these events that occurred before Moses even existed?
Me: READ AGAIN HEREUNDER, SINCE YOU IGNORED IT IN THE SAME POST.
Jeremiah 4:23I beheld the earth, and, lo,
it was without form, and void;
and the heavens, and THEY had no light.
WASN’T ALSO GOD PERSONIFIED IN JEREMIAH AND SIMPLY REVEALED WHAT IN ACTUAL FACT DID OCCUR JUST MOMENTS BEFORE IT WAS UNDER THE WATER?
THE EARTH WAS IN EXISTENCE,
IT WAS ALSO FORMLESS AND VOID, AND
JEREMIAH/GOD DID BEHOLD THE EARTH.
THUS GOD, TO MOSES REVEALED THE STATE OF THE EARTH formless and void UNDER THE WATER AND
TO JEREMIAH HE REVEALED THE STATE OF THE EARTH formless and void JUST BEFORE ITS STATE UNDER THE WATER.
You: Here’s where my argument comes from: When God said let dry land appear, God named that dry land “earth”.
Genesis 1:9 God also said: Let the waters that are under the heaven, be gathered together into one place:
and let the dry land appear.
And it was so done.
GOT IT, Mike,
IF THE EARTH/LAND WAS NEVER IN EXISTENCE God would have said:
LET THE DRY LAND BE! NO?
BUT SINCE THE EARTH/LAND PRE-EXISTED UNDER THE WATER HE SAID
LET THE DRY LAND “APPEAR”!
You: So if darkness was over the great deep and God’s Holy Spirit was hovering over
the face of the waters…
where was the “dry land” that God eventually named “earth”?
OBVIOUS! THE EARTH Mike, pre-existed formless and void UNDER THE WATER
“THE WET LAND” NO?
AS IT IS ALSO TODAY!
You: It was non-existent at that point, since there was nothing but the waters from which the earth would be formed. (2 Pet 3:5)
2 Peter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of,
that by the word of God
THE HEAVENS WERE OF OLD,
and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
THE ABOVE Mike, IS AS CLEAR AS CRYSTAL!
WHILE THE HEAVENS WERE IN EXISTENCE FROM OLD,
THE WHOLE EARTH WAS
PART OF IT OUT OF THE WATER, THE DRY LAND AND
PART OF IT IN THE WATER, THE WET LAND!
AS IT IS TODAY!
You: The word often translated as “formless” also means “nothingness” according to Strong, and is actually translated as “nothing” in Isaiah 49:4. The word often translated as “void” also means “emptiness”, and is translated as that in Isaiah 34:11.
Gen 1:2… Now the earth was NOTHINGNESS and EMPTINESS, and darkness was over the surface of the deep…
All there was at that time was “the deep”, ie: the waters from which the earth would be formed.
What say you?
Now in view of the above, I already suggested going to “theexplanation.com” hereunder in my first post in this thread!
https://theexplanation.com/genesis-1-2-darkness-deep-correspond-tohu-bohu/
Peace and love in Jesus Christ
This video is about gravity
If you think it is wrong, then Mike, why not do a similar video about downity and explain the math.
But please come up with something a bit more sophisticated than the following calcs.
A is Upity and B is Downity.
A – B = 0 or stationary.
A + A = Floating x 2.
AA + B = Floating
A + BB = SinkingFlat Earther’s experiments are often wrong and their conclusions riddled with misunderstanding
But what happens when their experiments are done properly?
They prove the globe or in the least, do not disprove the globe.
Common sense tells every free-thinking person correctly that there truly is an “up” and “down” in nature
Up is away from the centre of mass and down is toward the centre of mass. Simple.
Where there is no mass, there is no gravity.
Carmel :TO JEREMIAH HE REVEALED THE STATE OF THE EARTH formless and void JUST BEFORE ITS STATE UNDER THE WATER.
Me
I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light. (Jeremiah 4:23)
Carmel, you are using this verse out of context…Jeremiah do not see the time of Genesis 1, but something similar that IS TO COME…
It is a time of anguish and darkness which precedes the return in glory of the Lord Jesus Christ.
the earth.
Jeremiah 9:10
On the mountains I want to weep and moan, On the plains of the desert I utter a lament; Because they are burnt, no one goes through them, We no longer hear the voice of the herds; The birds of the sky and the beasts fled, disappeared. –Isaiah 24:19-23
The earth is torn, The earth is breaking, The earth is rocking.…the heavens.
Isaiah 5:30
On that day there will be a roar near him, Like a storm on the sea; Looking at the earth, we will see only darkness, With alternations of anguish and hope; In heaven, darkness will reign.Isaiah 13:10
For the stars of the heavens and their celestial bodies Will no longer shine their light, The sun will be dark as soon as it rises, And the moon will no longer shine its light.Ezekiel 32:7,8
When I extinguish you, I will veil the heavens And darken their stars, I will cover the sun with clouds, And the moon will no longer give its light.…Joel 2:10,30,31
Before them the earth trembles, The heavens are shaken, The sun and the moon darken, And the stars withdraw their brightness.…Joel 3:15,16
The sun and the moon darken, And the stars take away their brilliance.…Amos 8:9
In that day, saith the Lord GOD, I will cause the sun to set at noon, And I will darken the earth in broad daylight;Matthew 24:29,35
Immediately after these days of trouble, the sun will be darkened, the moon will no longer give its light, the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.…Mark 13:25,25
the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers that are in the heavens will be shaken.…Luke 21:25,26
There will be signs in the sun, in the moon and in the stars. And on earth, there will be anguish among the nations who will not know what to do, at the noise of the sea and the waves,…Acts 2:19,20
I will show wonders in heaven above and signs on earth below, blood, fire, and a mist of smoke;…🙏
Mike: See Danny? Insults, not answers or explanations.
Proclaimer: I post explanations so you are clearly wrong. Hundreds of explanations actually.
So what you said is actually not true Mike.
Then put your money where your mouth is…
Joshua 6:2-15… Then Yahweh said to Joshua… March around the city once with all the armed men. Do this for six days… On the seventh day, march around the city seven times…
Is God talking to Joshua about six literal days followed by a seventh literal day? Yes or No?
Exodus 20:9-11… Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath to Yahweh your God. On it you shall not do any work…
Is God talking to Moses and the Israelites about six literal days followed by a seventh literal day? Yes or No?
Exodus 20:11… For in six days Yahweh made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day.
Is God talking to Moses and the Israelites about six literal days followed by a seventh literal day? Yes or No?
Mike: How so? Why would a geologist need to know the shape of the earth to study plate tectonics?
Proclaimer: In particular, geologists would have to lie about the plates in the southern hemisphere as the shapes and area sizes on a flat earth would be wildly different… So geologists would have to lie when they provide this map of the plates.
First of all, what you call the flat earth map is actually the Azimuth Equidistant Map – or AE Map…
From Wiki…
The azimuthal equidistant projection is an azimuthal map projection. It has the useful properties that all points on the map are at proportionally correct distances from the center point, and that all points on the map are at the correct azimuth (direction) from the center point. A useful application for this type of projection is a polar projection which shows all meridians (lines of longitude) as straight, with distances from the pole represented correctly. The flag of the United Nations contains an example of a polar azimuthal equidistant projection.
The projection appears in many Renaissance maps, and Gerardus Mercator used it for an inset of the north polar regions in sheet 13 and legend 6 of his well-known 1569 map. In France and Russia this projection is named “Postel projection” after Guillaume Postel, who used it for a map in 1581. Many modern star chart planispheres use the polar azimuthal equidistant projection.
I just made this one minute clip from the TV show “The West Wing” about the many distortions in the Mercator Map…
https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxI5Ey4IpN2fM8-uZSjWhtKOMhkNWfsQIW
The point is that sailors have been navigating using both maps for centuries. Were these sailors able to find Africa on the Mercator Map – even though it’s drawn as the same size as Greenland, when it’s really 14 times larger than Greenland? Of course they were! Were they able to find Australia using the AE Map? Or course they were.
So your claim that a geologist needs to know the precise size of NZ, or the shape of the earth, in order to study rocks (or even cracks in the earth) is ludicrous.
And that goes for every single scientific discipline you listed in your post.
So your claim that “Mike believes all these people are lying” is debunked.
Proclaimer: Debunking Mike’s 90 second video.
My take? Big deal man. Different camera lenses, different zoom or different wide angle. Both show curvature.
That’s a “debunk”? 😂😅
Your own words say it all… “Both show curvature.”
Yep. A balloon at 20 miles up shows the SAME EXACT curvature that the ISS shows. And we know that you can’t see curvature at 20 (or even 65 miles) up, right? So how exactly is this balloon showing curvature from 20 miles up, Proclaimer?
Answer: Wide angle lenses that curve straight lines.
My question: How then do we know that the footage from the ISS – which shows the SAME EXACT curvature – isn’t just wide angle lens footage from a different balloon?
Only HONEST answer: We don’t.
Glad we were able to have this chat.
Mike :Joshua 6:2-15… Then Yahweh said to Joshua… March around the city once with all the armed men. Do this for six days… On the seventh day, march around the city seven times…
IS GOD TALKING TO JOSHUA ABOUT SIX LITERAL DAYS FOLLOWED BY A SEVENTH LITERAL DAY? YES OR NO?
Exodus 20:9-11… Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath to Yahweh your God. On it you shall not do any work…IS GOD TALKING TO MOSES AND THE ISRAELITES ABOUT SIX LITERAL DAYS FOLLOWED BY A SEVENTH LITERAL DAY? YES OR NO?
Exodus 20:11… For in six days Yahweh made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day.IS GOD TALKING TO MOSES AND THE ISRAELITES ABOUT SIX LITERAL DAYS FOLLOWED BY A SEVENTH LITERAL DAY? YES OR NO?
Me
Normally, everyone should be able to answer this crucial question, I hope ….
Proclaimer: So I guess you hold the view that God rested for 24 hours from creating the heavens and earth and since that day, he must be back at work creating other heavens. Is that what you believe?
Of course not.
Gen 2:1-2… Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array. And by the seventh day God had finished the work He had been doing, so on that day He rested from all His work.
Notice that on THAT DAY, God RESTED (past tense). Not, “God has been resting on that day ever since.”
Your logic is faulty. You’ve presented what’s called a non-sequitur…
The literal translation of non sequitur is, “It does not follow.” Therefore, a non sequitur fallacy is one in which the conclusion does not logically follow the premises of the argument. Examples can be as ridiculous as the argument, “Dogs are animals, and fish are animals; therefore, fish are dogs.”
Yours goes like this…
1. God created for six days.
2. God rested on the seventh day.
3. Therefore, either the seventh day is still ongoing, or God would have had to begin creating again on the eighth day.
But maybe your DIRECT and HONEST answer to the following will help you see the error in your argument…
If you spent six days building a house, and then rested on the seventh day because the house was completed, would it mean that on the eighth day you must start building a different house? Yes or No?
Danny: Hi Mike,
I clearly gave Proclaimer the argument 113) from Eric’s book.
He blatantly ignored it. Intentionally?
I have posted it to him again.
How will Proclaimer respond? Is HE trapped?Welcome to my world, Danny. I started this thread many years ago with good intentions. And it started off with some lively discussion. But eventually, it turned into Proclaimer just spouting nonsensical stuff in the most condescending, insulting and ridiculing manner he could muster. That’s why I walked away from it for so many years until you posted here.
And remember that your first post was something like, “Proclaimer, I can’t believe Mike thinks the earth is flat!”
I didn’t attack you. I just pointed you to some info, and encouraged you to at least look into it and come to your own conclusion. Berean currently believes what the Bible says about the age of the earth – but not what it says about the shape of it. I won’t attack him/her either. You can lead a horse to the water, but you can’t force him to drink it.
Proclaimer: Obviously at this point I can assume that you guys flunked science.
Let’s hear the basis for that insult…
Proclaimer: You want me to explain why people in Australia don’t fall off the globe. Dude, that question is from the stone age. Lol. It’s fine to ask the question, but to think it is an intelligent question or that you are right is worse than me pretending to be Van Gogh.
A second insult isn’t a basis. Let’s see what else you have…
Proclaimer: If you want to know about gravity, you can easily google it. I do not need to give you the answer.
I see. So YOU know science and ARE intelligent because you’ve read something on Google and blindly believed it? And if we question that thing which you blindly believe, we DON’T know science and AREN’T intelligent? Is that it? The difference between knowing science/being intelligent and NOT knowing science/being intelligent is based on whether or not someone blindly believes the things he read on Google? Really? Hmm… Let’s see what else you’ve got…
Proclaimer: Gravity explains it all and it can be measured. It makes successful predictions 100 percent of the time. I can tell you from experience that only the truth is 100 percent true.
What does that mean, exactly? Yes, the rate at which things fall DOWN to the earth can be measured, and appears to be consistent. What “successful predictions” are you referring to? And how does your claim that it’s true 100% of the time align with the fact that Einsteinian gravity, Newtonian gravity, and quantum gravity are at odds with each other?
Proclaimer: Whether you can visualise it or not, the modern world relies on gravity. The Internet you are using right now relies on gravity to work if you are using wireless. So I do not need to prove gravity to you. It is part of every day life and many inventions exist because of our understanding of gravity.
This isn’t a basis for your insults about science and intelligence, Proclaimer. This is just you saying words.
“X depends upon gravity to work, therefore gravity is real and you guys are dumb. Oh, and by the way, I don’t need to PROVE it to you!” 😂
Proclaimer: What needs to happen is for you guys to prove Downity and why it is a better theory than gravity.
Um… they would be the same exact thing – with the same exact measurements. You call things heavier than air falling to the earth “gravity”. Okay. We agree that things heavier than air do fall to the earth. And we agree that they do that at the rates you attribute to the force you call gravity. What else do you have?
Proclaimer: The ball is in your court. How does the ball fall with downity? What is the math? Why is downity superior to gravity. All the best.
Whether you call it gravity or “downity”, the math is the same. Neither is superior to the other because they are just two different words describing the same exact thing.
So your entire post has been nonsense. The thing you call gravity results in things that are lighter than air falling to the earth. Maybe you could now explain how it requires the earth to be a spinning ball – and how it couldn’t possibly work exactly the same way if the earth wasn’t a spinning ball.
Give us some examples – listing the tests and experiments that prove that we are talking about something different than you are.
The ball is now back in your court. All the best.
Mike,
I sent you something about “Why Genesis”
Thanks for taking a look anyway, because you didn’t answer completely about the use of the word “earth”.Carmel: IF THE EARTH/LAND WAS NEVER IN EXISTENCE God would have said:
LET THE DRY LAND BE! NO?
BUT SINCE THE EARTH/LAND PRE-EXISTED UNDER THE WATER HE SAID LET THE DRY LAND “APPEAR”!
Okay, I hear your argument and acknowledge that the wording is different when it comes to the earth. But it’s also different when it comes to vegetation…
Gen 1… 11Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds.
Does this mean that God didn’t create these things at that time, just because of that wording? Apparently not, because it is similar here…
Gen 1… 24And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25God made the wild animals according to their kind…
So just as “Let the land produce living creatures” doesn’t mean that God didn’t MAKE them at that time, the wording, “Let the land produce vegetation” doesn’t mean that God didn’t MAKE it at that time.
It’s just that in one of the passages, it isn’t spelled out that God made the thing, while in the other passage with the same wording, it is spelled out.
So I hear your claim that earth already existed underneath “the deep”. I just disagree with it. I understand the words, “Let dry land appear” the same as I understand the words, “Let the land produce living creatures”. I understand the wording for land animals to imply that God then CREATED those land animals, and I understanding the wording for earth to imply that God then CREATED the earth…
Gen 1… 31God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.
I don’t take that to mean, “God saw all that He had made… and He also saw the earth that He didn’t make, because it had already been made a long time ago.” Also…
Exodus 20… 11For in six days Yahweh made the heaven and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day.
Notice how the earth is explicitly counted as one of the things Yahweh MADE during that six day period. You apparently think it should read, “In six days Yahweh MADE heaven and sea, and then populated the ALREADY MADE earth with things.”
But that’s clearly not what it says. The earth is included among the things that were MADE within that creation period.
Carmel, in your depiction of a previous earth that was flooded by Satan or whatever, was the heaven and the luminaries also destroyed? A simple Yes or No will suffice. Thanks.
Berean: Mike,
I sent you something about “Why Genesis”
Thanks for taking a look anyway, because you didn’t answer completely about the use of the word “earth”.I think you are wrong that “earth” sometimes refers to the entire world. I don’t think any of the scriptures you presented actually support your claim – and I even directly addressed at least one of them.
Berean, not only is “earth” (dry land) distinguished from “sea” all throughout scripture, it is also distinguished from “world”…
Psalm 77:18-19… Your thunder was heard in the whirlwind, your lightning lit up the world (tebel); the earth (erets) trembled and quaked. Your path led through the sea (yam), Your way through the mighty waters…
Earth (dry land) is distinct from both “world” and “sea”, Berean. Notice that while the lightning lit up both land and sea (the world), it was only the earth (dry land) that quaked.
I also thought the point that Proclaimer made (the word “earth” didn’t begin to be used to refer to the entire world until the 15th century) was very enlightening.
Danny: Common sense tells every free-thinking person correctly that there truly is an “up” and “down” in nature.
Proclaimer: Up is away from the centre of mass and down is toward the centre of mass. Simple.
Okay, we hear your claim. Now all you have to do is prove it. Keep in mind while you’re attempting to complete your task that God dwells from a throne that is surrounded by the thrones of 24 elders. And each and every one of us on earth looks UP to God’s dwelling place, while God looks DOWN on the inhabitants of the earth. (I learned these things from the scriptures.) So tell me how YOU’RE looking UP from NZ towards God and the 24 elders at the same time I’M looking UP from AZ towards the same God and same 24 elders.
Oh, and maybe you could tell us how New Jerusalem is going to come DOWN from heaven, and somehow land on an earth that is spinning 1000 miles per hour. 😉
Proclaimer: This video is about gravity
If you think it is wrong, then Mike, why not do a similar video about downity and explain the math.The math for ME knowing that things heavier than air fall DOWN to the earth is the same exact math you use for the same exact phenomena.
We all agree that heavier things fall DOWN to earth… and we even all call it falling DOWN. Now all you need to do is prove that the REASON for this thing we’ve all observed is a force that causes an attraction between all objects that have mass. List the experiments that you or your team has done to prove this claim.
The ball is still in your court. Godspeed.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
