- This topic has 6,414 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 2 months, 1 week ago by
.
- Posts
Danny: @t8
proClaimer, you are a deCeiver.
It’s not hard to C…Proclaimer: @dannyd
Provide one example of me deceiving someone please.
Here’s one that is only one post above Danny’s undeniable and easily verifiable statement of fact…
Proclaimer: @berean, Mike is trying to con you…
Mike is trying to deceive you berean as he mentions something that is correct… 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.
That right there is a very deceptive statement, as it implies that I know that what I’m telling Berean is untrue, but that I’m telling it to him anyway in an attempt to purposely trick him into believing something I already know is false.
Of course in reality, I am doing no such thing. Nor would it be possible for you to know that I was even if I was. I’ve spent hours trying to educate you on this for years, Tate. We don’t take “True or LIE” tests at school. We take “True or FALSE” tests. So you are welcome to your opinion that the explanation I gave to Berean is FALSE – but you are not welcome to make false accusations against me by implying (and often just outright asserting) that I am INTENTIONALLY trying to lie to or “con” someone into believing something I know isn’t true.
Not only that, but I SPECIFICALLY TALKED ABOUT the very thing that you said I “deliberately left out” in order to “con” and “deceive” Berean! 😳😅
As for your absurd arguments…
Proclaimer: 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.
This is almost a word for word copy and paste from Scientism. It’s clear that Proclaimer Googled the answer, and just parroted whatever explanation he could find – without even taking one second to THINK it out for himself.
But YOU can think it out for yourself if you want to, Berean. The Scientism model says the sun is 100 TIMES LARGER than the earth – as shown in this NASA image…
Now look at this next NASA image, showing their explanation for eclipses…
Notice how the umbra and penumbra are said to be caused by sunlight hitting the earth or moon at the angles they’ve drawn on the image. Consider that very top ray of light and that very bottom ray – and the angle at which they hit the earth. Now, consider that their illustration shows a sun that is less than 10 times larger than the earth… not the 100 times larger they say (and show in the top image) that it really is.
How would it look at 100 times larger? I’ve edited that top NASA image to give you an idea. I moved the earth from the center of the sun and made it that tiny white dot to the right. Then I added those very top and bottom sun rays from the image above…
How’s that little “tilt” of the earth looking now? What if we did the same with the very deceptive image Proclaimer used (which makes it appear as if the sun is actually SMALLER than the earth)? Let’s see…
Of course my sun is only twice the size of Proclaimer’s earth – not 100 times larger. But that should be enough for anyone to get the point. But take special notice of the perfectly horizontal sun rays that Proclaimer’s original image shows so they can make their point. Now compare that with the ANGLED sun rays that the same source shows when they’re trying to explain how a huge moon can cast such a tiny eclipse shadow. (A shadow made by a single light source is the SAME SIZE as the object that makes it – not hundreds of times smaller.)
But anyway, do you see how they trick you? To make Point A, the sun rays are perfectly parallel. But to make Point B, the sun rays are extremely angled.
The priests of Scientism know that seasons are a huge problem for their model. They can’t very well just say, “Um… I don’t know”, right? So they come up with a completely irrational explanation and hope that gullible people will believe it just because a “person in authority” says it. That’s how they address ALL of the MANY problems with the helical model.
But yeah… there’s no way in the world that a sun which DWARFS the earth would not heat the ENTIRE half of the earth equally. And don’t forget that during summer in the north (as shown in Proclaimer’s image), the north is tilted 3 THOUSAND miles towards the sun, but the sun itself is 3 MILLION miles farther away from us according to Scientism.
And don’t forget the contrasts between the north and south as far as plants and animals go. On a tilted ball, there would be equal flora and fauna at the same latitude line south as there is north. But that’s not even close to the case.
Proclaimer: 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.
So the temperature on the beach is cooler at one end of the towel than at the other end of it? I can’t even with you… 🙄
How about you hold the towel horizontally and have a heat lamp edge on, one on the ground pointing upwards, and one up high pointing downwards? Then we’d have a better comparison of how sunlight allegedly hits the earth in your model.
Dude, stand outside on a cool morning and wait for the sun to barely rise. You can feel its heat as soon as you see it. (Or hold your hand up so that it is the only part of you in the sun, and notice that your hand is warmer than your elbow and the rest of you.) That’s heat from the sun warming your hand as it it crossing the “ball atmosphere” at the most extreme angle possible! Yet your hand is still getting warmer, right?
Of course, the longer you’re IN that sunlight, the warmer it will get – not to mention the land around you is getting heated up and throwing residual heat off of it too. But that’s one of the points I made to Berean. In the northern summer (as shown in your image), the North Pole is IN that sunlight 24 hours a day! And now that we know that the light/heat from that HUGE sun of yours is hitting the North Pole ALL THE TIME as straight on as it’s hitting Arizona HALF of the time, the completely irrational argument you copied and pasted has no legs to stand on. Why SHOULD AZ be so much hotter than the North Pole, when the sunlight is hitting them both virtually straight on, but AZ is only getting hit HALF as much?
A little logical thinking is all that is required.
Okay… hurry up with the answer to that newest question, seeing how you have already answered the previous one by default. (Or ask your son to answer it for you.) Thanks.
Correcting Mike again
Mike
Not only that, but I SPECIFICALLY TALKED ABOUT the very thing that you said I “deliberately left out” in order to “con” and “deceive” Berean!Mike, the scientific explanation for temperature differences has nothing to do with the false argument you talked about regarding distance. You were wrong to make out that this was a scientific argument or viewpoint.
You should have just mentioned the angle of light or more specifically ‘the angle of the globe to the sun’ explanation and tried to debunk that instead.
Tell the truth next time. Don’t make out that the scientific explanation is the distance argument because that isn’t true. Rather, that is a common misconception which you took advantage of.
Be honest as all children of God should be.
Another Correction for Mike
Proclaimer:
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.Mike:
This is almost a word for word copy and paste from Scientism. It’s clear that Proclaimer Googled the answer, and just parroted whatever explanation he could findWrong. I wrote this myself, as I understand this argument fully.
I did google the image however. I did that after typing my words.
Argument 49 is completely and utterly debunked.
Private Debate question
Mike
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?The only reason I haven’t been there is because you keep jumping the gun with extra questions and I’ve lost track of the question.
Post the post number where the question is please and I’ll reply. However I strongly suspect I have already answered it multiple times. And that’s when I realise you are being dishonest and wasting my time.
I actually want this discussion to proceed because I really want answers from you about bringing back the sun and why does the light across the sea dissapear. Clearly you are dodging such questions in this topic, so the Hot Seat will either provide results or result a penalty.
More corrections for Mike
Mike:
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?Nope.
Here in NZ we are surrounded by thousands of miles of ocean and have some of the clearest and cleanest air on earth. Arguably, NZ is also the most isolated country on earth. There are no mountains for thousands of miles obstructing such a view when I look out to the Pacific Ocean, Southern Ocean, or Tasman Sea. Simple as that.
When the sun disappears, the light trail should not disappear on a flat earth. Simple. You cannot pretend that in every single case, when the light trail disappears which is every day, that the sun went behind a mountain or became obscured by clouds. You can supposedly bring back a small boat when it disappears, but you cannot bring back the sun. What a joke that is.
Argument 50 debunked
Mike:
50) If the Earth were truly a globe, the Arctic and Antarctic polar regions and areas of comparable latitude North and South of the equator should share similar conditions and characteristics such as comparable temperatures, seasonal changes, length of daylight, plant and animal life. In reality, however, the Arctic/Antarctic regions and areas of comparable latitude North/South of the equator differ greatly in many ways entirely inconsistent with the ball model and entirely consistent with the flat model.While this one is easy to debunk, it is a bit more complex too.
The answer is basically the difference between a maritime and continental climate. Read to learn more.
Here is a question for you. In Winter, Alice Spring in the centre of Australia is colder at night than Hobart in Tasmania. Google it. Hobart is way closer to the south pole than Alice Springs. So why is this. Because where there is a continent, you tend to get hotter summers and colder winters than over the ocean or an island that is sufficiently distant from a continent.
Another case in point. Where I live, it rarely hits zero and only once did we ever get snow in the city where I live that I can remember, (excluding the peaks of tall hills or mountains). An American tourist once commented to me that our summers must be amazing because our winter is so mild. I told him that our summers are not hot, just warm. The reason is because we are a group of islands meaning we have a maritime climate. So temperatures are less extreme.
If you take any country within a continent on a similar altitude and latitude as NZ, you will generally find that they get hotter summers and colder winters than us.
Now to clinch the argument. The Arctic is basically a sea which is maritime, thus is not as extreme as the Antarctica which is continental. Further, ice is colder than sea which is not frozen because sea water comes from warmer climes. So Antarctic ice on the continent doesn’t move or come from warm climates like sea water from the Gulf Stream and other currents can.
Antarctica also has many high peaks and obviously that brings the average temperature down too compared with the air over the Arctic Ocean.
DEBUNBK STATUS: Successful.
DEBUNK DIFFICULTY: Medium.
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.”
Lol, is that the question I need to answer? Already done it mate. And multiple times. But feel free to quote the post number and I will copy the answer from a previous post and then you can answer questions about bringing back the sun etc, which you are avoiding here.
Question 52 debunked too
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?
This one is pretty easy, the answer is winds, isolation, and ocean currents.
Islands have plants and animals that originate from nearby continents. In NZ for example, our flora is reminiscent of tropical Polynesia with palms and ferns despite being a temperate and not tropical land. The reason is NZ has no close temperate continents for which to get seeds and animals from. Australia is distant, but some plants were able to be colonized here via the wind or birds who carried seeds. Same with animals. We have an abundance of birds because they can fly here. But no native mammals or snakes because NZ was too isolated. In fact, birds were so safe here, that many lost their ability to fly.
South Georgia is extremely isolated and is near Antarctica which hosts little life. Where exactly are these islands going to get plants or animals from? Yes birds have found their way there and carry seeds from other locations. But by and large, there is simply not a large enough repository of plants and animals close by to match Britain and it’s close proximity to Europe.
As for ocean currents, if I remember correctly, Britain has a warm ocean current (Gulf Stream) meaning it is warm for it’s latitude. And I’m guessing that Georgia is bathed in the cold ocean current that prevails the Southern Ocean. This has a huge impact on rainfall, climate, and temperatures. Take a look at a map of ocean currents and you will see that land near warm ocean currents are generally warmer than land surrounded by cold ocean currents. This isn’t a coincidence Mike.
Once again, you show your lack of scientific knowledge and further cement in our minds your ignorance coupled with your desire for something to be true as the main reason for believing the earth is flat. You have zero proof of a flat earth and do not understand the science of the natural world and the cosmos.
@t8
Proclaimer, you said to Berean: “Mike is trying to deceive you…”
Mike said:
“That right there is a very deceptive statement…”I totally agree with Mike.
Deception?
@dannyd, what else do you call saying this is globe argument for sharp temperature differences when it is not actually the argument at all. There are two options:- He made a mistake, but never apologised, in which case an apology is outstanding;
- He intenionally left out the reason and intentionally used the common misconception to deceive Berean.
Now consider that Mike was given the correct argument on more than one occasion, that leaves one option.
What other explanation is there?
Proclaimer: You should have just mentioned the angle of light or more specifically ‘the angle of the globe to the sun’ explanation and tried to debunk that instead.
Tell the truth next time. Don’t make out that the scientific explanation is the distance argument because that isn’t true. Rather, that is a common misconception which you took advantage of.
Be honest as all children of God should be…
@dannyd, what else do you call saying this is globe argument for sharp temperature differences when it is not actually the argument at all. There are two options:
1. He made a mistake, but never apologised, in which case an apology is outstanding;
2. He intenionally left out the reason and intentionally used the common misconception to deceive Berean.Now consider that Mike was given the correct argument on more than one occasion, that leaves one option.
What other explanation is there?
I don’t know about the rest of you here, but I’m both baffled and lost. Proclaimer is posting words as if he is speaking from a position of knowledge/authority, but I can’t for the life of me decipher what he’s actually saying.
He does this a lot, like when he talked down to me like I was a child as he authoritatively explained how gravity will pull two things together up to a point, and then gravity’s repellant properties will take over and hold the two objects in a state of limbo at that distance from each other forever.
Of course he was spouting nonsense – but doing it as if he was some expert explaining to a slow-learning student how things work.
He is doing the same now, as far as I can tell. But let’s see…
Proclaimer, would you be so kind as to quote the particular statement I made to Berean in an attempt to purposely deceive him? Thanks.
Mike: 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?
Proclaimer: Post the post number where the question is please and I’ll reply.
You mean like I did in this PM to you 11 weeks ago?
Or maybe like I did here 10 weeks ago in a different PM?
Or maybe like I did here 8 weeks ago?
Or how about 2 months ago when I moved that ONE question to the VERY LAST post on the entire thread, just so you would be able to find it?
Proclaimer, save your breath. Nobody here considers you to be a man of integrity or honor. No one takes you seriously anymore. You are a clown. A joke. We laugh at and pity you.
Proclaimer: I actually want this discussion to proceed because I really want answers from you about bringing back the sun and why does the light across the sea dissapear. Clearly you are dodging such questions in this topic, so the Hot Seat will either provide results or result a penalty.
Like I said, save your breath. Do you really think that after all this dodging of direct questions, anyone here believes that you seriously want this Bible Vs Scientism discussion? It’s been the bane of your existence for the past year. It has exposed you as a very ignorant, deceptive, and petty juvenile delinquent.
And now YOU want answers or there’ll be penalties? 😅 How freaking rich, coming from the dude who stalled the debate for 6 weeks because he couldn’t find an answer that was one day and one post removed from his question, and hasn’t been able to find my question for 3 months (even after I provided the post number AND moved it to the very last post on the entire thread)!
Your own rules say that you weren’t allowed to post anything anywhere else on this site until you answered the Hot Seat question, right? Yet you kept right on posting this entire time – completely disregarding your own rules, right?
I told you two months ago that my question is the very last post on our private thread, right? Go answer it and ask one of your own if you really want this discussion to proceed. But remember that our private thread is not “Mike Vs Ball Earth”. It is the “BIBLE Vs Scientism” – so just make sure to include the scripture(s) that speak to any question you ask me there.
As for the two things from this thread that you say I’m dodging, perhaps you should actually READ the thread, and then you’d know that I addressed both of them DIRECTLY – one of them multiple times already. Where are your DIRECT rebuttals to my rebuttals (as in, quote a statement from me, show how it is wrong, then quote another statement from me, show how it is wrong, etc.)?
Mike: 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?
Proclaimer: Nope.
Well then, it seems as if I HAVE addressed the point you said I hadn’t, and that we are in agreement that if the sun disappears behind the cloud/haze layer, we WOULDN’T be able to see the reflections from it on the water.
See? Question asked. Question DIRECTLY answered. Issue is resolved by two party agreement. Then we move on. That’s how discussions work, man.
So, since you have acknowledged by default/silence that the “waters above” in the Biblical world contradict your heliocentric fantasy (thereby losing the entire debate already), I have moved on to this direct question which deserves a direct answer from you and Gene…
Proclaimer and Gene, please explain why your interpretation of Genesis 1 has God creating light after it already existed, creating heaven after it already existed, creating earth after it already existed, and creating the luminaries after they already existed.
It seems to be an odd and bizarre interpretation, but I’m sure there is a rational explanation for it, right? Let’s hear it fellas. Thanks.
Mike: 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.”
Proclaimer: Lol, is that the question I need to answer? Already done it mate. And multiple times.
Yes, I know. You have repeated your answer “clouds” multiple times. That answer was thoroughly debunked by common sense and the scriptures, seeing that clouds are not “waters”, nor are they ABOVE the sun, moon and stars, which means they can’t be the “waters ABOVE” the raqia that the sun, moon and stars are IN.
Since then, I have repeatedly asked you and Gene for your NEW answer since the old one was debunked, and by default/silence, you have both answered: “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.”
You have lost the entire debate with that one answer. But there is still so much more I have to show you, and so the running and hiding from you and Gene will continue on.
Proclaimer: But feel free to quote the post number and I will copy the answer from a previous post and then you can answer questions about bringing back the sun etc, which you are avoiding here.
Sorry Sport, my days of jumping through hoops to navigate you directly to a certain post – just so you can STILL avoid answering it for 3 months or more – are over. Besides, why do you need a post number? I’m telling you right here and right now that your answer of “clouds” doesn’t work – and WHY it doesn’t work. Why would you need a different post in which I tell you the same thing? 🤔 (Of course I know why… it’s your stalling tactic.)
As for bringing back the sun, go find and read one of my posts about zooming a finger back up over a countertop horizon… and THEN get back to me. Until that time, you are bearing false testimony about me by saying that I have – and still am – avoiding the issue. Same goes for the “reflections on water” issue.
Danny: @t8
Proclaimer, you said to Berean: “Mike is trying to deceive you…”
Mike said:
“That right there is a very deceptive statement…”I totally agree with Mike.
Thanks Danny.
When the debate has been lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. – Socrates
Slander is defined as a lie that hurts a person’s reputation. I’m telling the truth. Deal with it. Truth is reality. Wake up! Chop chop. Bring back the sun.
South Pole Oriented Flat Earth map
This map makes way more sense to me in NZ if the earth was flat. That makes the arctic the ice wall.
But it gets the northern hemisphere severely wrong. The UN stolen flat earth map makes the same error as this map, but for the southern hemisphere. Let me think about this.
What if the earth was a globe. That would get both hemisphere right.
Just a thought.
Mike doesn’t believe that clouds are water
Yes, I know. You have repeated your answer “clouds” multiple times. That answer was thoroughly debunked by common sense and the scriptures, seeing that clouds are not “waters”,
Clouds are water. Everyone knows that. They are part of the water cycle. Ice is water. Clouds and steam are water. And water exists in liquid form. Basic stuff Mike. Water can exist in three states, possibly four. I guess science is not your thing. If you wish to understand it, I imagine there are some great into videos on the water cycle available on YouTube.
nor are they ABOVE the sun, moon and stars, which means they can’t be the “waters ABOVE” the raqia that the sun, moon and stars are IN.
And yet God exists in heaven / raqia. So the waters are above God? Your understanding is obviously broken.
Back to the drawing board Mike.
Proclaimer: Slander is defined as a lie that hurts a person’s reputation. I’m telling the truth.
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: Chop chop. Bring back the sun.
Already done… twice on video. Your turn now…
1. Can you zoom the fingertip back up over the countertop horizon?
2. Does the entire hand need to be behind the countertop horizon for the experiment to work?
Proclaimer: Clouds are water.
No they aren’t. God gathered the waters below into seas. Seas are water, clouds are not. Did anyone ever ask you to give them a drink of water and you handed them an icicle or shot some steam at them?
Proclaimer: And yet God exists in heaven / raqia. So the waters are above God? Your understanding is obviously broken.
God does not exist in the raqia, and so it is your understanding that is broken. But God did open the floodgates in the raqia and let these waters above the sun, moon, and stars fall to the earth and flood it.
What are these waters above the sun, moon, and stars that God allowed to flood the earth in your model?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
