- This topic has 6,416 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 1 week, 3 days ago by
.
- Posts
Kathi: Mike,
Regarding the video of the student asking astronaut Chris Cassidy about his high school days, the student was in California. California was where the astronauts were on the call to, not from.
Yes, I am aware of where the school is. So then he would have said, “across the US from where YOU’RE talking to us right now“, not “across the US from where WE’RE talking to you right now”, right? Because clearly they weren’t in California at the time, right? And therefore it would ludicrous for him to say, from where WE ARE talking, right?
Imagine that you and your husband on the phone with one of your kids who is in California. And you ask them if they have tried La Rocco’s Pizza yet. They say they don’t know where it is. And you tell them it’s right down the street from where WE are talking to you right now. Would you ever say it that way, Kathi?
Kathi: See how things can get all twisted when taken out of context. If you realized that the student was located at the Riverside Preparatory Academy in Oro Grande, California, you could have stopped yourself from spreading foolish ideas.
I did realize it, and left it up to you to decide for yourself if he was orbiting the earth when he said those words. Did you watch his body language after he made the statement? How about the body language of the other two? Kathi, there are so many CGI glitches in the NASA ISS footage that it will take you hours to get through all of the wires, air bubbles, harnesses, and layered CGI trickery. But don’t worry, because hours of it is exactly what I will present on this thread before I’m done. Of course I’ll edit them down to bite size individual snippets, like I did this one, so nobody has to worry about investing more than a minute of their time on each one.
So I’ll leave you with your own decision to make on this one about whether or not Chris was orbiting the earth, and whether or not I was really “spreading foolish ideas”. I’m confident that after seeing a few others later on, you might just change your current opinion. But that’s up to you. I can only lead you to the water.
Hi Mike
Mike really let’s be real you can’t belive the earth is flat. Mike you don’t think we can understand the science of the creation .
We do not know how God did all this any more than we know how Jesus turned water into wine or raised Lazarus from the dead. The point is that we know it happened. The exact mechanism is not revealed, nor need it be. God needs no mechanism to accomplish anything. His will is sufficient to accomplish his purposes.
God inspired a skillful arrangement of words, phrases and sentences to express his satisfaction with the natural world. The physical creation is the stage for the great plan of redemption.Mike it’s all about the creation of man, the fall of man,and the redemption of man. mike you seem to try to trap people with there words,sort of a kind of trickery Mike you ought to try to keep it simple and try to study your way out of this non- scents, any ways what would be the different if the earth was flat or a round .that doesn’t change God true plan of the ages. For God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son, so that every one who believes in him shall not be lost, but should have eternal life. God bless you Mike let God have His way with you, let go and let God
Hi Mike,
You can only lead us to the water.
But the water is poisonous.
Paranoia on paranoia.
All others deceive.
Mike you start with falseness
Then you take it some where else you pick up on, something someone said or pasted and run with that which belittls the authority of the inspired word in most cases. It’s call trickery Mike. God bless
Kathi: About that ISS that Mike says doesn’t exist…it can be seen by the naked eye, apparently. How can a non-existent thing be seen during it’s orbit, Mike??
You guys just can’t stop messin’ up my flow, can you? I’m trying to do this from 2000 years ago UNTIL the 1970’s, when we started “going into outer space”. The plan was to show you that there were first 2000 years of lies and deceptions before the 70’s… after which we could go into NASA and all it’s fakery. So without going too deep into these alleged ISS sightings, let me point out the ISS is only slightly larger that a Boeing 747, with the living space reported to be equivalent to that of a 747. At the typical cruising altitude of 37,000 feet (7 miles), a 747 is barely discernible – if at all – to the naked eye. Yet they want us to believe that we can also see this similarly sized object – which is 36 times farther away from us – with the naked eye?
The video you linked is from Red’s Rhetoric. He and another guy who calls himself Wolfie are NASA fanboys who have made it their mission in life to debunk the flat earth. So naturally, Red would be the one to just happen to catch the ISS transiting the moon, right? 🙂 At any rate, we can indeed see a black object in that video that kinda/sorta looks similar to the CGI images of the ISS we get from NASA. It’s not a definite match, but has some similarities. But how can you, Kathi, verify that this video is legit? How will you verify that the blurred image of a dark thing is the tin can they’ve told us has been orbiting earth in a hugely powerful vacuum for 20 years, with not a single rubber O-ring needing replaced and without a single micro-meteoroid hitting it in all that time? In that book by Wernher Von Braun (the “father of rocket space travel”) that I mentioned yesterday, Braun insisted that after landing on the moon, crews would have to find or dig a cave in which to shelter themselves from thousands of micrometeorites per hour hitting the moon’s surface traveling at speeds in excess of 20,000 miles per hour, which would inevitably puncture the spacecraft, as well as the astronaut’s spacesuit, causing catastrophic, and fatal, environmental decompression.
So while I’m not willing to stray off my plan and jump to the post-70’s NASA era yet, you can keep these things in the back of your mind until then. We’ll discuss many things about the ISS at that time. I’ll show you images of real satellites being launched, transiting the moon, and what they look like after crashing back to earth. You’ll learn about the real Hubble Space Telescope and Project Blue Beam. There’s a lot yet to come, but it’s such a HUGE topic that I simply cannot keep up following every single thing you guys are throwing at me. Plus, there’s a method to the madness, and it starts with you guys coming to the realization that before the 70’s, there wasn’t a single thing to support the heliocentric model, while there were dozens of real scientific experiments proving that the earth is stationary with stars and such moving around us overhead.
Hi Mike,
Messing up your flow?
You are a striving perfectionist who is driven to present all you know on this subject because that is your nature.
Have you not realised yet that the ground here sees the plants you offer as not being from the Father?
Your teachings are strange and we are trained to recognise them as such.
Desist from your selfish obsession and offer us good food.
Kathi: Hi Dig4truth,
You wrote this:
The text also makes it clear that it was a day and not a “stage”. Remember, He speaks to us in terms we can understand and He doesn’t lie. If He said it is a day then it cannot be two days or a thousand years.
Please notice the use of the word day that you claim must mean one day:
4This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven.
The Hebrew word “yom” is just like the English word “day”. Just like we can say, “Back in the day of Abraham Lincoln”, the Hebrews can say, “In the day of the Lord” or whatever. Likewise, just like we can give a chronological order of Lincoln’s presidency, saying he did this on day one, and that on day two, the Hebrews can give a chronological order of creation, saying God created this on day one, and that on day two. And just like we can use “day” to indicate only the daylight hours or the entire 24 hour period, the Hebrews could do the same. The words are interchangeable. Any imaginable way we can use “day”, the Hebrews could also use “yom”.
But the context of Genesis 1 verifies that they are 24 hour periods, because any time “yom” is used with a number (one, two, first, third, etc.) in the Bible, it always refers to a literal day. And anytime “yom” is used in conjunction with the phrase “evening and morning”, it refers to a literal 24 hour day. And finally, I will repeat so we can stop trying to force the scriptures in Genesis 1 to conform to our own preconceived understanding…
Exodus 20
9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work… 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day.
- How many days do we work before resting on the seventh?
- How many days then did God work before resting on the seventh?
- What are the things God made during those days?
See? An honest reading of the scriptures makes it undeniably clear that we work six and rest on the seventh BECAUSE God worked six and rested on the seventh. And we don’t work six “long time periods” before resting, we work six “days”. Likewise God didn’t work six “long time periods” before resting on the seventh, but worked six “days”. And during those six days, God didn’t make a few things here and there and place them or “fatten” them on an earth that already existed. No, during those six days God MADE the heaven AND the earth AND the sea AND everything that is in them, ie: plants, animals, people, stars, sun, moon, etc.
These are the words God Himself spoke. We either believe that God knows what He’s talking about… or that godless men of scientism know more than Him. It’s really that simple.
(Btw Kathi, I’ve been enjoying your contributions here. We don’t agree right now, but your arguments are thought-provoking, and I know your iron will continue to sharpen mine if you stick around.)
Hi Mike,
You speak legalese and deny Ps 90.4 and 2 peter 3.8
You have no solid foundation to make your pronouncements about time.
Evening and morning cannot be claimed as proving a 24 hr period.
Hey guys, if the scriptures can say anything then they say nothing.
Obviously if the word “day” is used with “evening and morning” it is in a literal sense. If it includes “day 1, 2, 3”, etc. it also is in a literal sense. If ANYONE has a problem with this reasoning please speak up.
I am picking up some very progressive vibes in this forum. From evolution to God knows what!
Hi Dig4,
And if the day can be 1000 years long what of your personal interpretation of morning and evening?
Kathi: Here Mike and all,
This video should help learn about the ISS:
Oh I’ve got some real good videos to help you learn about the ISS. But all in good time.
Hi Dig4,
Good point.
Should we appoint meaning to the words of God?
2 peter 1
So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shine in a dark place, until the morning star rises in your hearts. But knowthis first of all, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
We need the morning Star to teach our minds, the Spirit of Christ.
1 Jn 2.2
Rev 22.16
T8: Obviously you have way more than that…
Of course I do. I’ve only shown you four things out of literally hundreds. But here’s something you need to keep in mind: We don’t have to disprove every single claim made by every single ball earther who has ever lived. All we need is one single piece of conclusive and verifiable evidence to bring the entire house of cards crashing down. Your own photo of the volcano is just one of many thousands of similar pieces of evidence. All just normal pictures taken by normal people of normal things from normal places that anyone can visit and take their own photos. And if only one of them shows an object that would be impossible to be seen on a ball with a 25,000 mile circumference, the entire paradigm is kaput. Because if the earth isn’t hiding the distant object, then the earth isn’t curved. And if it isn’t curved, then it can’t be a ball. And if it can’t be a ball, then it can’t be spinning 1000+ mph and orbiting the sun at 66,000 mph and so on. So can you see how just your one humble picture of a distant mountain collapsed the entire heliocentric paradigm already… without even bringing up the thousands of other photos, videos and laser tests, or the shadows on the moon, or the impossibility of a pressurized atmosphere existing adjacent to the most powerful vacuum one could imagine, the impossibility of aluminum spacecraft and satellites existing in a thermosphere that is twice the temperature needed to melt them, or the scriptures that clearly belie the heliocentric model? You guys have been so busy presenting anything you can think of to prove to me (and yourselves) the earth really is a globe that you haven’t stopped to realize that it has already been disproved by one little photo you took just because you liked the view. 🙂 But that’s okay, we’ll go through all the other stuff anyway.
T8: I remember seeing the moon conspiracy for the first time and it seriously raised questions because it did seem with the evidence given that the moon landing could have been fabricated. But a few debunk videos later and it everything was sufficiently answered in my view.
I have to say that this has been an eye-opening discussion so far. It never dawned on me that so many of you would turn out to be theistic evolutionists, believing in the big bang, deep time, and evolution as God’s way of creating our world in six huge time periods that are not to be confused with 24 hour days. 🙂 And I didn’t think anyone under the age of 65 believed in the moon landings anymore. It shocked me when Gene said it, and I’m double shocked that you not only believe it, but say you have had your doubts “sufficiently answered”. May I suggest two things?
- Look a little deeper.
- Be prepared to find hundreds of just-so answers that appear on the surface to eliminate doubt, but are really nothing but whitewashed tombs if you really think about them. Because, although these guys have made many glaring mistakes through this entire outer space charade, they are also very adept at coming up with plausible-sounding explanations to cover those mistakes. Use discernment in these matters. For example, you need to really think about whether the explanation you found for why there isn’t one single speck of dust on the feet of the lander makes sense in the real world… or if you only accepted it as valid because someone who sounded authoritative told it to you. Also check the evidence. For example in this footage of the Apollo 13 moon landing, you can here an astronaut say “Engine stop” towards the end of the 4:51 mark, and then hear mission control in Houston say, “We copy you down, Eagle” at the 4:53 mark…
So within a second and a half from cutting the engine, Houston was able to know they had landed – which is quite a feat considering there was supposed to be a 1.5 – 3.5 second delay in communication between the earth and the moon. And forget that Houston copied them down a few seconds BEFORE Armstrong actually told Houston that the eagle had landed. Let’s just suffice it to say that your source, who made it sound as if 2000 pounds of thrust wouldn’t even blow a dust bunny around, and as if they had cut the engines way above the surface, doesn’t appear to be all that credible when you watch the actual footage that NASA provided to us.
So keep these things in mind, T8. You will always find “credible” answers to uncovered glitches in the deceptions they perpetrate. It will always be up to you to determine if the answer really is “credible” after all.
The rest of your post was well-written, but merely reiterated your already-posted philosophical views about flat earth and other conspiracies. And the only thing I can reiterate myself is that this deception is huge, has been in the works for centuries, and is overseen by those Paul mentioned here…
Ephesians 6:12
For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.
Ed: How do you boys explain the first three days with no sun?
Surely not by correcting God about which day He made the sun. 🙂 I can’t answer that, Eddy. I can only go by what we’ve been told in God’s written word. There was somehow light and 3 evenings and mornings before He created the sun. How that could be, I couldn’t say.
Credible answers and a format for debate
So keep these things in mind, T8. You will always find “credible” answers to uncovered glitches in the deceptions they perpetrate. It will always be up to you to determine if the answer really is “credible” after all.
Hi Mike. When I am given a video that has info on why the Earth is flat, it is obviously going to take more time than anyone of us have to test them via the scientific method. But some people do dedicate time to such things, so often my best response is someone else’s work on the subject debunking the claim. If I think the claim or claims have merit then I post that as my answer, so yes I have answered many of your questions and opposed many flat earth ideas with some substance. Of course, the debunking can be false and of course the original claim could be true, but obviously it can go the other way which is the camp I am in at the moment.
Each day I come here, there are 2 or 3 pages of posts and even one post would take ages to refute, so I liked your idea of visiting one point at a time. However, that endeavour has kinda been overtaken by the amount of other posts. So I have a proposal for working through this.
How about we continue this thread as it is, with the liberty to answer some and not others, I say this because of time constraints. But in order to avoid answering difficult or problematic questions and evidence regarding our views, how about we introduce the Yes / No rule here, (or start a debate). I think here would be better though.
So, you ask me a question again stipulating it requires a Yes / No answer and I dedicate a whole post to putting only that answer in the post (if it is a fair question). So in my reply, I put in Yes, No, or I don’t know. Then after that, I can make a post explaining why I answered as I did, but that goes in a following post. I like this format because it helps eliminate the devil in the details which many debaters engage in. And when a person cannot answer yes or no or refuses to do so, then you know you have won the debate. Of course that doesn’t mean you have the truth, but that you have stumped the other person on that point and they are too proud to acknowledge that.
If you are onboard with this, then start with a yes no question and I will focus on that. Once I have answered, then I get to ask you a yes no question, so we take turns. Each question can be a new category in the subject of Flat Earth or it can be a question regarding a point they made in explaining why they answered yes or no that you want to address.
I find this format gives good structure, encourages honesty, and makes sure that neither of us skip over points that are problematic for us. And as I said before, we can still continue this conversation as we have been doing and posting videos etc, outside of this yes / no component.
How about it?
Anthony: Mike really let’s be real you can’t belive the earth is flat.
I’m afraid so, Anthony.
Anthony: mike you seem to try to trap people with there words,sort of a kind of trickery
I’m sorry you see it that way. As I see it, if words of truth are the only things you speak, nobody – no matter how tricky they are – will be able to trap you with those words.
Anthony: …what would be the different if the earth was flat or a round…
The difference would be the difference between truth and deception. Wouldn’t you like to know the truth about the world God so lovingly created for us? Where do we go to find that truth? The first place would be the scriptures, right? And don’t the scriptures say God created a firmament and put the sun, moon and stars in it? Is that the truth… or a deception?
Don’t scriptures say that Joshua commanded the sun and the moon to stand still in the sky – and even list the locations over which they stood still? Is that the truth… or a deception?
Don’t scriptures say the sun runs its appointed circuit from one end of the heavens to the other, and that nothing is hidden from its heat? Is that the truth… or a deception.
Because the heliocentric model goes directly against all of these scriptures… and many more. So who is telling us the truth of the matter? And who is the one practicing deception? I say God is the one telling the truth, while men guided by evil forces of darkness are telling the deceptions. What do you say?
Oh, and what do you say about the first “proof” offered up by your source? Do you understand now that, no matter how many sticks we use, there is no way to determine the shape of the earth with shadows? Because I’d kind of like to move on to his next “proof” – but would like some closure on the first one before I do. Is there anything you still don’t understand about the Eratosthenes experiment, and how it couldn’t possibly prove a ball earth?
Addressing the order of creation regarding the Earth, sun, and stars
Ed. While the sun could have been created on day one when the heavens and earth were created, the sun appeared in the firmament on day 4 after the atmosphere cleared up and allowed light and thus animal life to flourish after day 4. That would mean plants existed in a primeval earth while the sun was directly invisible because of clouds or gases in the atmosphere.
Another view is to look at creation as similar to us creating a virtual world. Yes you can work on things in any order and put them together as you see fit. The virtual world model also explains how the universe came from nothing. A virtual world boots up from nothing or a zero point (like the Big Bang). So what is the universe expanding into has an answer. And how something came from nothing has an answer. What is the virtual world of say Fortnight (which my kids play) expand into? Nothing. Cyberspace perhaps like real space is not there unless God creates or adds on a new area of the world. Nothing there before in other words. So to repeat the point, the virtual world idea explains some fundamental difficulties with the Big Bang, and so it this idea is true, then whilst the Earth was under construction, God could have been doing things independant of the sun.
Then there is the idea that scientists believe about rogue planets. It has been widely viewed that planets were created from their respective suns, but now that is being challenged. While it may or may not be the case that earth had its origin in the sun, scientists believe that rogue planets roam the galaxy and get caught up in orbits of larger bodies like bigger planets and become moons, or caught up in the gravitational force of a sun and thus becomes a planet. If this is possible, then the Earth could actually be older than the sun, but we will ignore what scientists say on the age of both for the sake of making this point.
We read in scripture that the new earth will not need the sun for God will be its light, so it is possible that God created the Earth without the sun like a programmer creating a planet in his coding of a virtual world, and once it was at a certain point of development, he moved it with his hand to orbit the sun.
God is the creator, and we cannot apply our limitations and logic on him. We can certainly explore the possibilities, but we cannot say for certain how he did it all.
Perspective and context can be everything
Don’t scriptures say the sun runs its appointed circuit from one end of the heavens to the other, and that nothing is hidden from its heat? Is that the truth… or a deception.
Mike, that is obviously addressing the view we get of the atmosphere and what is visible through it.
The Bible also calls the Middle East and Europe, the world or earth.
The fourth beast will be a fourth kingdom on the earth, different from all the other kingdoms. It will devour the whole earth, trample it down…
Mike, context is everything. Rome didn’t conquer or trample on China or Australia that I know of at least. Do we create a conspiracy theory about the Roman Empire conquering China, Ecuador, South Africa, etc, just to make that verse fit our current understanding of the whole earth or world? Likewise, with the sun and the firmament I would say. From the perspective of the person being addressed seems to be the rule in scripture. You cannot always apply it to everyone and for all time. The known world gets bigger and so does the universe we live in.
Nick: Hi Mike,
You can only lead us to the water.
But the water is poisonous.
I would ask you how you know the water is poisonous, you know, like what evidence you have to offer as support of your claim. But I know my honest question will only be met with more snarky tripe. Being a troll is hard work, but someone’s gotta do it, right?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
