- This topic has 6,414 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 2 months, 1 week ago by
.
- Posts
Proclaimer………Amen, to that,…….One reason people leave is because their arguments have been defeated. And surely Mike, this applies to you perhaps more than any other member here.
Your gospel is debunked.
Romans 16:18
For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people.It is very selfish and evil to deceive simpletons and naïve people.
Mike focus is indeed his “self”, he has nothing to do with “honest” dialog. He ignores clearly presented sound facts, presented to him by others, but deverts around them as if they were never said to him. In that way he trys to control the debate, so the person debating with him has to continualy represent their words in an endless cycle, as in the case of him and Jodi, and you , me and others. He hunts for any little thing he can us to devert from the main thrust of what your saying. Like i told him any person can with a cheap par of benoclours can see the ISS, as it passes and can go to the internet 24/7 and see what it is seeing as it travels “around” this earth. He never has dealt with that as far as i can remember, why ?, because it totally destorys his “flat earth” BS , not to even mention the hundred of other things you have posted, as well as other SOUND AND SOLID, vidios presented here by you.
I would say to him , Just as Jesus said to Peter, “get behind me, Satan, you know not whereof you speak”.
Peace and love to you and yours……….gene
Proclaimer: One reason people leave is because their arguments have been defeated.
Perhaps, although I doubt you can give a specific example and show the last posts of a person who admitted he was leaving because of defeated arguments.
In any case, we don’t have to guess about Danny’s reason, since his parting letter told you exactly why he was leaving, right? And the record retained on the pages of this thread don’t show a man whose arguments were defeated, but a man who was chastised, insulted, and IGNORED by you. Here is just one example. By the way, the post in the image below was the 3rd or 4th time that Danny posted this same info for you, and even used your @t8 handle to draw your attention to it and get your answer to it…
Sadly, you can’t ever seem to find, let alone rationally and honorably respond to, our arguments. You only have time to post fluff memes, proclaim victory based on unscientific nonsense you spout, and call names. Too bad. If you and Gene were open to an actual serious DISCUSSION on any topic (yours or ours), you guys would be well on your way to scriptural (and scientific) truth by now.
But in honor of Danny, how about you and Gene read, understand, and offer a direct, honest and respectable rebuttal to the information Danny provided in that image above?
For example, God named the light “day”, right? Do “light” and “day” actually mean the same thing? Does every mention of “light” in scripture mean “day”?
Was God homeless before creating the raqia to divide the waters below it and the waters above it?
And if raqia and shamayim are synonymous, what does the phrase “the raqia OF shamayim” mean?
These are very easy to understand rebuttals to your lame, “If the waters are above the raqia, then they are above God Himself” crap. But you can’t bring yourself to even SEE those rebuttals, let alone address them, can you? That’s because you and Gene are both very far from honest, fair, respectable and honorable men.
Gene: Mike focus is indeed his “self”, he has nothing to do with “honest” dialog. He ignores clearly presented sound facts…
What you done above is called “projection”, Gene. It refers to one party projecting the very things THEY are guilty of onto another party. It is straight from Saul Alinsky’s book, “Rules for Radicals”.
Here, I’ll prove it to you…
Proclaimer and Gene:
IF YOU GUYS ARE TRULY TRUTH SEEKERS, AND THERE’S NO REASON TO HIDE FROM THE TRUTH, PROVE IT BY ANSWERING ALL 3 OF THESE QUESTIONS DIRECTLY, WITH A YES OR A NO.
1. ARE THE SUN, MOON, AND STARS IN THE RAQIA? YES OR NO?
2. ARE THE WATERS ABOVE THE RAQIA? YES OR NO?
3. DOES THIS REQUIRE THE WATERS TO BE ABOVE THE SUN, MOON, AND STARS? YES OR NO?
Now Gene, I have just “presented sound facts” and have offered you the chance for “honest dialogue”. Will you accept that offer, or just “ignore” these facts?
(See how I used your own words that you PROJECTED onto me to show that YOU are indeed projecting the crap you do onto me? And do you understand that by refusing to directly and honestly address these 3 points above (as you have done multiple times and as I know you will continue to do), you will only be proving ME right once again? 😉)
Pretender: You have been given dozens of proofs but you simply ignore them… Let’s start with the fact that the sun sets. The heliocentric model predicts it, but not the flat earth.
A model that came thousands of years AFTER a phenomenon that had already been witnessed by BILLIONS of people cannot possibly be said to “PREDICT” that phenomenon. 🙄
Proclaimer: You then come up with a low quality BS excuse that is is obscured by distance or moisture or whatever. So I simply ask you to bring back the biggest light in the sky which should be way easier to do than a small boat.
I’ve offered many rebuttals to your, “I proclaim VICTORY because I spouted some stupid nonsense based on my own IGNORANCE” crap already. I am hereby respectfully inviting you to a sensible dialogue about this issue. Will you accept? Or just keep FALSELY claiming victory based on your FEAR of actually discussing the matter?
Proclaimer: Suddenly you want to ignore this way of disproving the flat earth because deep down you know that you cannot bring the sun back after it sets.
No… I actually want to DISCUSS the matter at great length so you can recognize your ignorance and correct it. You willing?
Proclaimer: You see, you are not interested in the truth. You want to remain in the delusion and this explains why you ignore truth and proof.
On the contrary, I willing to openly DISCUSS anything that you consider “truth and proof” concerning your imaginary ball earth.
Proclaimer: If the earth was flat you would always see its light. Ignoring that and pretending that it is too far away is BS enough, but you won’t even prove that it is too far away from eye sight range by zooming in using your quality and expensive camera gear.
That first line is just another example of your ignorance. The rest of that paragraph is just pure nonsense. I have already addressed your ignorance on this matter MANY times, but hereby invite you participate in a respectable dialogue with me on the matter. Will you accept? Or keep hiding?
Gene and Proclaimer:
In the interest of opening up a respectful and honest dialogue about the sun “setting” (which it doesn’t actually do on a flat earth OR on a ball earth), I offer you two a simple thought experiment to start things off…
Can you see an airplane above you at cruising altitude (about 7 miles up)? Yes, we’ve all seen that.
Question: Have you ever seen such a plane disappear over the horizon? Yes or No?
Mike, this is not a question is it.
And I agree with much of it anyway. So I am not sure of the point being made.
I cannot addresses every point ever made here can I.
So I am not sure exactly what you expect me to do with this.
Lol.
Regardless, I have debunked your arguments and you have ignored the vast majority of the points I made or repeated that disprove the flat earth and prove the heliocentric model. And these good points were simply ignored because you know you can always come with a snake oil salesman lame explanation like CGI, holograms, staged environments, lizard people in on the conspiracy, etc, but perhapd are as a bit too embarrassed to give your explanation. So you just ignore them. This means you were defeated Mike.
In short, like the Trinitarians before, you start with your doctrine and bend everything toward it. This is why you are deceived and why you deceive others. When you ignore truth, evidence, and proof, God hands you over to deception. and when we expose the deception, you draw upon more deceptions to bolster the previous deception. then once you are on the path of lies, they will never stop until you repent or you are judged.
A model that came thousands of years AFTER a phenomenon that had already been witnessed by BILLIONS of people cannot possibly be said to “PREDICT” that phenomenon.
Reality check.
Tomorrow, the sun will set according to the heliocentric model so yes it predicts.
The heliocentric model explains it and the flat earth model doesn’t. Further, the setting sun disproves the flat earth model.
Tomorrow the the flat earth model predicts the sun will go so far away from the viewer that it will simply disappear out of view and be obscured by clouds or mountains. So demonstrate this Mike by bringing back the sun over a flat plain, lake, or sea using your expensive camera gear in the same way that you supposedly bring back boats that have disappeared.
But you can’t do it can you? And you cannot be honest about this so you are lying to yourself. But we can see your lies. Ask yourself why a small boat can be brought back but not the biggest and brightest light from our perspective.
#bringbackthesunmike
Mike……Lets boil this down to a simple experment anyone here can do ok? , let all take a pair of cheep benouclars and and see for “ourselve” The ISS, “INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION”, and then go to the internet and find it, and the pictures it is transmitting to us 24 hours a day 365 days a year, and all see for ourselves if the earth is flat or round.
There you go, problem easily solved for everyone. “RIGHT NOW”. Why have you never dealt with this simple and easy answer to the question OF A, “FLAT EARTH” . Is it because you know anyone cane easily do it, and prove for themselves that the earth is indeed round?
Lets be honest Mike you are not interest in the truth at all. You have been proven wrong a thousand different ways here, and never admitted to even one of them. You are indeed a snake in a brier patch, who simply can not be caught, because you simply slither off in another direction, a complete waste of time IMO. And that is truly, SAD to me.
peace and love to you and your ………gene
Gene: Mike……Lets boil this down to a simple experment anyone here can do ok? , let all take a pair of cheep benouclars and and see for “ourselve” The ISS, “INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION”, and then go to the internet and find it, and the pictures it is transmitting to us 24 hours a day 365 days a year, and all see for ourselves if the earth is flat or round.
DEAL… immediately AFTER you answer these three questions that I’ve asked you a dozen times…
1. ARE THE SUN, MOON, AND STARS IN THE RAQIA? YES OR NO?
2. ARE THE WATERS ABOVE THE RAQIA? YES OR NO?
3. DOES THIS REQUIRE THE WATERS TO BE ABOVE THE SUN, MOON, AND STARS? YES OR NO?
Mike: 1. ARE THE SUN, MOON, AND STARS IN THE RAQIA? YES OR NO?
2. ARE THE WATERS ABOVE THE RAQIA? YES OR NO?
3. DOES THIS REQUIRE THE WATERS TO BE ABOVE THE SUN, MOON, AND STARS? YES OR NO?
Proclaimer: 1. Not sure. If the bible absolutely says IN then it is yes.
2. Not sure. If the bible absolutely says ABOVE then it is yes.
3. No.
Yes, the Bible absolutely says IN. Yes, the Bible absolutely says ABOVE. So your actual direct answers to my questions (after asking too many times to count) are…
1. YES, THE SUN, MOON, AND STARS ARE IN THE RAQIA.
2. YES, THE WATERS ARE ABOVE THE RAQIA.
3. NO, THIS DOESN’T REQUIRE THE WATERS TO BE ABOVE THE SUN, MOON, AND STARS.
This last answer proves your dishonesty. Here’s an analogy…
1. Is the furniture IN your house? YES.
2. Are the stars ABOVE your house? YES.
3. Does this require the stars to be ABOVE your furniture? NO.
It’s nothing but pure dishonesty, Pretender. You are from your father – the father of lies.
Pretender: Now pay attention please. No3 is NO and the first two questions are irrelevant for the point you are making. Why?
Because raqia is expanse or space.
It’s not, but I accept calling the raqia “expanse” for argument’s sake…
Pretender: Yes waters are above and below the raquia. There is space or an expanse between the waters.
I agree that there are waters both below the “expanse” and above the “expanse”.
Pretender: Yes stars are in space. We refer to that as outerspace. But expanse also defines it.
I agree that stars are in the “expanse”.
Pretender: No, there is no requirement for waters to be above the sun and stars.
This is where you have a disconnect with logic and reality. Please explain to us HOW the waters can be ABOVE the “expanse”, but not also ABOVE the things that are IN that same “expanse”.
Pretender: BTW I have answered this multiple times. Maybe it is simple enough for you now to understand? If not then I guess you have nearly no hope of grasping this truth. It may well be beyond your understanding to fathom and there may not be anything we can do to help.
You can answer “NO” to the last question a billion times, Pretender. It will only make that answer be incorrect a billion times. And there’s nothing wrong with my understanding. If object A is ABOVE object B, and object C is IN object B, then object A must also be above object C.
I already gave you the furniture in the house analogy. Let me now apply different objects to my lesson above…
Object A is an airplane.
Object B is a cloud.
Object C is rain in the cloud.
If the rain is IN the cloud, and the airplane is ABOVE the cloud, then the airplane has no choice but to also be ABOVE the rain that is IN the cloud. But you are saying, NO – the airplane that is ABOVE the cloud is NOT above the rain that is IN the cloud. It’s pure dishonesty and you know it.
Pretender: So the raqia in your point 1 and 2 could simply match the first and second heavens respectively.
And since clouds are in the first heaven, and the luminaries are in the second heaven, then it STILL MEANS that the waters are ABOVE the luminaries – which means they can’t be the clouds.
Great job there, Einstein. 🙄 I haven’t seen footwork that fancy since some idiot tried to tell me how gravity both attracts and repels. 😂
Pretender: The answer is in this post Mike. Take your time. Read it over and over. One point at a time.
I not only read your dishonest nonsense, but directly addressed everything you said in that horrific post. Now it’s time for YOU to address how I thoroughly DEBUNKED your dishonest nonsense. You can do that by answering this analogy directly and honestly…
1. The apple is IN the fox.
2. The eagle is ABOVE the fox.
3. Does this require the eagle to also be ABOVE the apple that is IN the fox? Yes or No?
See, you will answer the furniture in the house question honestly. You will answer the airplane above the cloud question honestly. You will answer the A, B and C question honestly. And you will answer the eagle and fox question honestly. But you won’t answer the luminaries/water question honestly. And all I’ve done is swap out other objects for my original questions.
What does that tell you, Pretender? Because it clearly tells US that you are of your father – the father of lies.
Pretender: Please do not ask this question again because that will prove to me uou ste a time waster and God told me years ago to avoid such people and so far you have ticked that box.
When you answer the question HONESTLY, then I will stop asking it. So let’s try it again…
1. The luminaries/furniture/apple/rain are IN the raqia/house/fox/cloud.
2. The waters/stars/eagle/airplane are ABOVE the raqia/house/fox/cloud.
3. Does this require the waters/stars/eagle/airplane to also be ABOVE the luminaries/furniture/apple/rain? YES or NO?
See, it doesn’t matter how what I name the different objects in this exercise. It all comes down to the fact that if A is ABOVE B, and C is IN B, then A must also be ABOVE C. There is no exception.
@t8
You recently implied in 3 different posts that the writers of the Bible were lacking in knowledge about how our world really is.
Is that truly what you believe? Yes or No?
*Honest and respectful questions deserve honest and respectful answers from people who are sincerely seeking nothing but the truth.
Pretender: Moon cartoon clearly debunked.
Well, you certainly posted a lot of nonsensical words about it, but no, you didn’t debunk it. I don’t know if I can make it easier for you than a cartoon, but here’s an attempt…
Pretender, the next time the moon is DIRECTLY above you, look at it while facing east. Then turn around and look at it from facing west. Of course you’ll see that the face is rotated by the same 180° that you turned, right?
And turning around didn’t somehow transport you to the opposite side of a ball, did it?
Is that clear enough for you? 🙄
Pretender: I am not sure of the point being made.
Of course you’re not, because Danny didn’t take you by the hand and dumb things down for you, or make you a cartoon.
The point is that YOU keep thinking that the raqia OF heaven is the entirety of heaven when it’s not. The raqia OF heaven is NOT the first heaven where the clouds are. The raqia OF heaven is not the third heaven where God dwells – outside of the physical world He created for us. The raqia is ONLY the second heaven, where the sun, moon and stars run their God-appointed circuits over the earth and sea.
Another point was that just like God calling light “day” doesn’t mean that the word light actually MEANS “day”, God calling the raqia “heaven” doesn’t mean that the word raqia actually MEANS “the heavens”.
And the most important point was that God was not homeless before he created our physical world. So when God created the raqia, it doesn’t mean he moved His dwelling place into the raqia. And therefore, the Biblical teaching that there are waters above the raqia certainly doesn’t mean, nor even imply that the waters would be above God.
Pretender: Mike, [Danny’s post] is not a question is it.
It was clearly a request for comment by you – just like your statement above is a request to me – despite the lack of a question mark.
Please try to do better in the future. Thanks.
Mike: A model that came thousands of years AFTER a phenomenon that had already been witnessed by BILLIONS of people cannot possibly be said to “PREDICT” that phenomenon.
Pretender: Reality check.
Tomorrow, the sun will set according to the heliocentric model so yes it predicts.
I can’t quite tell if this one is a matter of your stupidity or your dishonesty. Sometimes it’s very hard to tell when someone is equally stupid and dishonest.
A scientific model is never said to “PREDICT” a phenomenon that is already known, often observed, and well studied. For example, the Big Bang model can predict that IF it is true, there will be background radiation. And then scientists can try to DISCOVER this background radiation that was, up until that time, NOT known, often observed, or well studied.
But no, a model cannot “predict” something that we already know about and have observed happening for thousands of years.
(Btw, according to the heliocentric model, the earth will rotate causing the sun to appear as if it’s disappearing behind the edge of the earth, but the sun itself isn’t actually “setting” – or even moving in relation to the earth at all.)
The point is that YOU keep thinking that the raqia OF heaven is the entirety of heaven when it’s not. The raqia OF heaven is NOT the first heaven where the clouds are. The raqia OF heaven is not the third heaven where God dwells – outside of the physical world He created for us. The raqia is ONLY the second heaven, where the sun, moon and stars run their God-appointed circuits over the earth and sea.
Another point was that just like God calling light “day” doesn’t mean that the word light actually MEANS “day”, God calling the raqia “heaven” doesn’t mean that the word raqia actually MEANS “the heavens”.
And the most important point was that God was not homeless before he created our physical world. So when God created the raqia, it doesn’t mean he moved His dwelling place into the raqia. And therefore, the Biblical teaching that there are waters above the raqia certainly doesn’t mean, nor even imply that the waters would be above God.
👍 This IS bliblical
🙏
Heliocentric model predicts a sunset this evening. Flat earth predict it won’t happen. Who will win. The Heliocentric model wins.
I can’t quite tell if this one is a matter of your stupidity or your dishonesty. Sometimes it’s very hard to tell when someone is equally stupid and dishonest.
A scientific model is never said to “PREDICT” a phenomenon that is already known, often observed, and well studied. For example, the Big Bang model can predict that IF it is true, there will be background radiation. And then scientists can try to DISCOVER this background radiation that was, up unto that time, NOT known, often observed, and well studied.
But no, a model cannot “predict” something that we already know about and have observed happening for thousands of years.
Well if there is stupidity anywhere Mike, it has to be coming from you.
The heliocentric model predicts by reason of its design that the sun will set.
The flat earth model predicts that the sun won’t set, rather it will just get too small or be obscured.
A prediction is simply knowing something in advance and the flat earth model doesn’t predict that the sun will set and rise like it does in reality.
Simple as that. The fact that people know the sun will set by observation doesn’t mean that a model or scientific theory cannot predict the future too. So you are the silly one Mike. Lol.
My advice is don’t be silly.
BTW, if a boat can be brought back after sunset, then please bring back the sun.
You can’t. Lol.
I never get tired of winning because the truth should always win. If you simply align with truth then you can be a winner too. If not, then you will continue to lose because you are backing the wrong horse.
Even the bible says the sun sets.
Another thorough flat earth debunk for all to see.
Mike ……Answer to you question is 1…yes, 2…yes, and 3… no. There you go, now that i have answered your question, Now go and tell us, your rendition of the truth about the ISS , “THE INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION , THAT EVERYONE CAN SEE GOING AROUND THE EARTH 24 HOURS A DAY, which we can, “all” see, with a cheap pair of benoclurs, everyday 24 hours a day , 365 days a year, and see the pictures it is taking of this “round” earth every second of every day as it travels “around it?
Any “simpleton”, can do this , so now tell us your answer, without your, “smoke and mirror” BS. Ok, Mike?
Peace and love to you and yours………..gene
Gene: Mike ……Answer to you question is 1…yes, 2…yes, and 3… no. There you go, now that i have answered your question…
Sorry Gene, but I’m going to need a valid REASON/EXPLANATION for your “No” answer on #3… or at least a DUPLICATION of the same answer for the following analogy so that we know you are being consistent, and not just flat out LYING.
1. The fox is IN the henhouse.
2. The eagle is flying ABOVE the henhouse.
3. Does this require the eagle to also be flying ABOVE the fox that is IN the henhouse? Yes or No?
If you and Pretender can also answer “No” to #3 in the analogy above, and give a valid reason for doing so, I will accept your “No” answer for my original #3 question as legit, and not a flat out LIE.
Do that, and I’m already prepared with an HONEST answer to your ISS question.
Berean: The point is that YOU keep thinking that the raqia OF heaven is the entirety of heaven when it’s not. The raqia OF heaven is NOT the first heaven where the clouds are. The raqia OF heaven is not the third heaven where God dwells – outside of the physical world He created for us. The raqia is ONLY the second heaven, where the sun, moon and stars run their God-appointed circuits over the earth and sea.
Another point was that just like God calling light “day” doesn’t mean that the word light actually MEANS “day”, God calling the raqia “heaven” doesn’t mean that the word raqia actually MEANS “the heavens”.
And the most important point was that God was not homeless before he created our physical world. So when God created the raqia, it doesn’t mean he moved His dwelling place into the raqia. And therefore, the Biblical teaching that there are waters above the raqia certainly doesn’t mean, nor even imply that the waters would be above God.
👍 This IS bliblical
🙏
It’s 100% Biblical. But Gene and Pretender have no interest in Biblical truth, and have shown to everyone that they have zero problem LYING in an attempt to prevent the Bible from saying what it clearly and undeniably says. Sorry guys, the Bible and truth will always win in the end. Your lies were unable to eliminate the FACT that there are waters above the raqia, and therefore also above the luminaries that are IN the raqia.
Yep, there are waters ABOVE the sun, moon, and stars. This is impossible in your unscientific and unscriptural model of our world, and therefore either your model is wrong, or the Bible is wrong.
You can either stand with God’s written word to us, or with the godless liars of Scientism. The choice is yours, but that’s really all there is to it.
Debate settled. Bible wins, Gene, Pretender, and Scientism lose. End of story.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
