NASA and Facebook tricked you

Stravinsk

Composer and Artist on Flat Earth
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
4,562
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Deist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Widow/Widower
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
No
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Looking at the relative scale of the tower against the boat and the car, and the explanation of refraction lopping off the bottom of the city, I can see the notion of the atmosphere as a lens. But that still doesn't explain why a sun moving away from me but still up in the sky looks exactly like a disc sliding under a cover.



If you wanted to claim that the earth is flat and the sun rotates around the earth (i.e. for a time it is under the earth and the whole world is in darkness) that would at least be consistent with what we can observe from the ground. It's just not clear to me how an effect whereby the atmosphere acts as a giant lens explains any of the phenomena relating to sunrise and sunset if the sun is actually high above the earth and rotating in a circle above a flat circular earth. Even considering the issue of refraction I wouldn't expect the sun to steadily drop before apparently disappearing below the horizon unless it were dropping low enough to cause major problems for wherever it was. The key issue comparing the sun with the city is the altitude - the city is on the ground so a bit of refraction can cause it to apparently dip below the horizon. Something presumably thousands of feet in the air would need a huge amount of refraction to cause it to appear to slide neatly below the horizon.

Not only that, but if the sunlight did gradually fade away based on the sun moving out of sight above the earth then I'd expect to see shadows getting longer and longer, and still see the sun even after its light was insufficient to illuminate anything around me (much the way someone in the distance holding a flashlight is visible - I can see the spot of their flashlight even though it doesn't cast enough light to illuminate my feet). With the round earth model because there is no direct light once the sun has gone below the horizon I'd expect to see shadows getting longer and longer and then more or less disappearing as soon as the sun had set, given that residual light from refraction and scatter wouldn't be sufficiently directional to cast shadows. And from what I recall of watching sunsets that's what I observe.

Sigh. You have a lot of expectations based on assumptions.

And you also keep inserting straw man arguments. You've said before what you think I believe, and when I negated it - you bring it up again as if that is what I believe. No - I do not believe the Sun is under the earth when it is dark. I've stated this emphatically already but you keep acting as if that's what I believe.

As for the video - it's not clear to me based on your statement whether you even watched the entirety of it. You keep saying to me "it doesn't explain why the sun slips below the horizon."

Actually - yes it does. With binoculars and zoom lenses we can pull boats back into view that have moved over the supposed curve - proving that they aren't going over a curve at all.

The sun, however - is further away and the video adequately explains why different atmospheric conditions show it shrinking or not shrinking.
 

Sword7

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2017
Messages
158
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
This just grows in entertainment . im getting worried some one actually believes it
 

Stravinsk

Composer and Artist on Flat Earth
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
4,562
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Deist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Widow/Widower
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
No
This just grows in entertainment . im getting worried some one actually believes it

Welcome to the edge of the Matrix, Sword7.

In this thread are many wonders. One of those wonders is revealing the herd/brainwashing that people believe that comes straight from the T.V. and entertainment - reinforcing something they were taught in kindergarten.

That brainwashing programming includes :

- The belief that everyone who believes in flat earth died out long ago
- Everything that is honored and exalted as "intelligent" (including people you were told are intelligent, like Einstein) trumps flat earth as the most stupid, ignorant paradigm ever.
- Everything that is considered retarded and stupid is likened to flat earth
- Mankind has trumped all the ancient belief systems (including Biblical ones) with his "proof" that the earth is a spinning ball in outer space.
- These of course include fake NASA pics and CGI video which are proven frauds but the faithful just believe.
- When discussing any fundamental truth, the absurdity of any position is compared to flat earth - complete with laughter at the very idea. Yes, you are programmed to laugh at it.
- The mantra "everyone knows" the earth is round (meaning Globe) in their minds.
- The enforcement of the Heliocentric model with Entertainment that could not be possible if it were flat - movies like Star Wars, movies/T.V like Star Trek - and any other science fiction entertainment dealing with outer space that cannot be possible or remotely believable if the earth is flat and the universe spins around us.

That is what Flat Earther's are up against. Your NEED to be lied to to sustain your world view. That's also why we are hated.

You watch television, you enjoy movies - you will see that this programming is very prevalent.
 

Sword7

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2017
Messages
158
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Ouch stop stop it hurts to laugh so ;)
 

Sword7

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2017
Messages
158
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married

Stravinsk

Composer and Artist on Flat Earth
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
4,562
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Deist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Widow/Widower
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
No
Ouch stop stop it hurts to laugh so ;)

:smirk:

When you stop laughing and get your head out of space for a minute perhaps you can answer a simple question for me. Actually 4 are coming to mind.

Question 1: A flight from Cape Town, South Africa to Buenos Aires, Argentina is a straight shot over the South Atlantic. It should be a short flight too - as the direction is from an Eastern location to a Westward one. The earth is supposed to spin 1000mph at the equator toward sunrise (East).

Can you tell me in all seriousness why this flight has stops in London, Madrid, Amsterdam which are way out of the way?



Question 2: A flight from Perth, Australia to Johannesburg, South Africa is a straight shot over the Indian Ocean. Why are stops in places like Dubai, Hong Kong and Malaysia?

Further, if one looks up flight times from these 2 locations (Perth to Johannesburg) on DIRECT FLIGHTS there is only about a 1 hour difference between the two - and the return trip (Johannesburg to Perth) takes an hour less. A direct flight across the ocean to this location is below the tropic of Capricorn,and the earth spin at that location would be somewhere between 750-900mph (in the same direction that the plane travels - West to East to get back to Perth from Cape Town). Therefore, it should take the plane LONGER on the return flight to catch up to the destination point of Perth -

and yet - it takes an hour less.


Question: 3: The Jet speed of a 747 is 570mph at cruising altitude. How can it even reach Perth from Johannesburg without massively exceeding it's top speed to overcome the earth spin of 750-900mph in the same direction, much less, making it in an hour shorter than the other direction?


Question 4: According to https://www.flightradar24.com/13.18,168.92/2

which tracks airplane flights - the shortest routes for both these flights across these oceans are not even used. Why not?

Should be easy enough for a spinning globe believer to figure out. Please, educate me.
 
Last edited:

tango

... and you shall live ...
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
14,695
Location
Realms of chaos
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Sigh. You have a lot of expectations based on assumptions.

And you also keep inserting straw man arguments. You've said before what you think I believe, and when I negated it - you bring it up again as if that is what I believe. No - I do not believe the Sun is under the earth when it is dark. I've stated this emphatically already but you keep acting as if that's what I believe.

As for the video - it's not clear to me based on your statement whether you even watched the entirety of it. You keep saying to me "it doesn't explain why the sun slips below the horizon."

Actually - yes it does. With binoculars and zoom lenses we can pull boats back into view that have moved over the supposed curve - proving that they aren't going over a curve at all.

The sun, however - is further away and the video adequately explains why different atmospheric conditions show it shrinking or not shrinking.


You're clearing misrepresenting what I'm saying over and over and over again.

I really wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt. I am disinclined to believe the flat earth theory but at least wanted to consider it on its merits, but if I'm going to have to keep restating what should have been pretty clear because you're interpreting things like "I haven't observed this" as being synonymous with "this cannot happen" then there's little point continuing.

If you want to have a discussion that involves presenting a case and actually listening to objections then I'm happy to discuss, even with an idea I'm inclined to disbelieve. But frankly I've got better things to do than keep clarifying a position that seems to have been made perfectly clear already.

So on that note I'm going to unsubscribe from the thread and leave you to it. Good luck persuading other people, some of your points are food for thought but I don't see that the thread overall is going anywhere useful.
 

JSales

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2016
Messages
78
Age
34
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
I seen flat earthers complain about photos of the horizon not having a curve and then complaining how it's all a trick when high altitude balloons show proof with photos containing curvature of the earth, so yeah, it's like wasting your breath with these guys.
 

Sword7

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2017
Messages
158
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
:smirk:

When you stop laughing and get your head out of space for a minute perhaps you can answer a simple question for me. Actually 4 are coming to mind.

Question 1: A flight from Cape Town, South Africa to Buenos Aires, Argentina is a straight shot over the South Atlantic. It should be a short flight too - as the direction is from an Eastern location to a Westward one. The earth is supposed to spin 1000mph at the equator toward sunrise (East).

Can you tell me in all seriousness why this flight has stops in London, Madrid, Amsterdam which are way out of the way?



Question 2: A flight from Perth, Australia to Johannesburg, South Africa is a straight shot over the Indian Ocean. Why are stops in places like Dubai, Hong Kong and Malaysia?

Further, if one looks up flight times from these 2 locations (Perth to Johannesburg) on DIRECT FLIGHTS there is only about a 1 hour difference between the two - and the return trip (Johannesburg to Perth) takes an hour less. A direct flight across the ocean to this location is below the tropic of Capricorn,and the earth spin at that location would be somewhere between 750-900mph (in the same direction that the plane travels - West to East to get back to Perth from Cape Town). Therefore, it should take the plane LONGER on the return flight to catch up to the destination point of Perth -

and yet - it takes an hour less.


Question: 3: The Jet speed of a 747 is 570mph at cruising altitude. How can it even reach Perth from Johannesburg without massively exceeding it's top speed to overcome the earth spin of 750-900mph in the same direction, much less, making it in an hour shorter than the other direction?


Question 4: According to https://www.flightradar24.com/13.18,168.92/2

which tracks airplane flights - the shortest routes for both these flights across these oceans are not even used. Why not?

Should be easy enough for a spinning globe believer to figure out. Please, educate me.

i dont know im no mathematician . But in the case of the aeroplane i would say it has something to do with aviation fuel and the fact they use a heck of a lot more fuel getting up to altitude and gave to come down and get some more because there is no gas station in the clouds .-yet AND the most obvious reason which i have seen happen .its called TRADE WINDS . :)

what i really want to see if some photos the underside of the flat earth ,funny how they have kep those hidden ;) .. how come the moon isn't a flat disc also ?
 

Stravinsk

Composer and Artist on Flat Earth
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
4,562
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Deist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Widow/Widower
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
No
i dont know im no mathematician . But in the case of the aeroplane i would say it has something to do with aviation fuel and the fact they use a heck of a lot more fuel getting up to altitude and gave to come down and get some more because there is no gas station in the clouds .-yet AND the most obvious reason which i have seen happen .its called TRADE WINDS . :)

So easily some crap excuse that doesn't hold up come into your head. And you believe it?

This is simple math. But if you cannot handle simple math -

Go to your globe and trace the distances. With a piece of string, if you like. Then use the string to trace the distances (on the globe) to the places I mentioned.

About those trade winds. They sure are strangely consistent - I mean - everywhere you can trace direct flights from A--->B and from B--->A - the time it takes is within an hour or so on both flights. That doesn't work when one factors in spin of the globe.

what i really want to see if some photos the underside of the flat earth ,funny how they have kep those hidden ;) .. how come the moon isn't a flat disc also ?

Because no one has been there. The earth is not a disc floating in space.

What does Job 26:7 say?


"He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing."

In case this isn't clear to you, as someone flying a Christian symbol who would say that the Bible is the Word of God - this means that the Earth (flat or Globe) - is not floating in space that is filled with millions of stars and galaxies with their own suns and planets - such things are definitely something.

;)
 

Stravinsk

Composer and Artist on Flat Earth
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
4,562
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Deist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Widow/Widower
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
No
I wanted to bump this thread, which started out as a critique of "space footage" to a full blown discussion of the flat earth with this excellent video by Rob Skiba - which in my estimation just doesn't have enough views. :)

 

Rens

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 11, 2015
Messages
4,754
Age
54
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Pentecostal
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
In Relationship

Stravinsk

Composer and Artist on Flat Earth
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
4,562
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Deist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Widow/Widower
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
No
[MENTION=378]Imalive[/MENTION]

 

JRT

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 30, 2016
Messages
780
Age
81
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
No
Modern or ancient, every culture operates within a certain cosmology or understanding of the universe. This cosmology sets the context of how a people understand their world and their place in it. With very few exceptions our modern day cosmology is shaped by the scientific discoveries of the past 500 years. Some of these discoveries have greatly upset religious understandings and it sometimes takes centuries to reconcile the differences. However, since we live in a culture that has been greatly shaped by the bible and Christian beliefs, it is worthwhile to ask about biblical cosmology.

The biblical understanding of the universe is much the same as that of the surrounding cultures in the ancient Middle East at the time when it was written. Unfortunately, nowhere does the bible attempt to present a comprehensive cosmology, so we are forced to rely upon individual passages and to attempt to understand them in the light of their culture and their history. To begin with, biblical cosmology can be characterized as a three-tiered universe. This strange phrase needs some explanation to make the concept clearer.

First, the surface of the earth is circular and flat except for geographical features like hills and valleys. This of course was the belief of the Sumerians. To these people it was theoretically possible to go high enough to see the entire earth, or to envision a tree tall enough that it could be seen from everywhere on the earth's surface, or even to build a tower to reach the sky. The sky was thought of as a solid bowl, called the firmament, that was upended over the circular earth to enclose a volume in the shape of a hemisphere. I should add that there are some bible verses that speak of the four corners of the earth. This was the view of the Babylonians. This would make the firmament look more like a tent than a bowl. The lights of the sky (sun, moon, planets and stars) were inside the firmament and were very much smaller than we presently understand. In fact they were very much smaller than the earth itself. The mechanism by which these celestial objects moved about is not really explained. The noncanonical Book of Enoch (mentioned in the bible as authoritive and part of the canon of Ethiopian Christians) speaks of gates in the east and west for the sun and the moon to enter and leave. Enoch also suggests that their movements are caused by winds.

What I have just described is the middle tier of the three. Above the firmament are waters. This region is described as heaven, the abode of God and the angels. There were also gates in the firmament to permit water to enter as rain. Below the earth are also waters. This region is described as sheol or hell. There were also gates in the earth to permit water to spring up from below. This three level universe is variously described as either hung on nothing or supported by pillars. Storehouses are also envisioned in heaven for the snow and hail.

How should a of Christian today react to this biblical cosmology? The vast majority of what might be described as 'mainline' Christians are actually quite comfortable with this seeming dichotomy. They recognize that the bible is the product of a relatively unsophisticated people with an entirely pre-scientific understanding of nature, who used poetic or metaphorical language to convey their spiritual understandings. On the other hand there is the minority point of view of those Christians who regard the bible to be inerrant and to be understood literally. This group has been forced into extreme apologetic efforts in order to reconcile the bible with modern scientific understandings.

Speaking personally, I find these apologetic attempts to be rather inventive and very strained. I believe that if the scripture writers and early target audience were to read these apologetics, they would find them extremely puzzling and entirely foreign. This is not to say that they were not intelligent people or not keen observers of nature but rather that that they lacked the intellectual basis to form scientific hypotheses and even the instrumentation to gather accurate data --- all that came about some 2,000 years later.

Isaiah 11:12And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH. (KJV)

Revelation 7:1And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. (KJV)

Job 38:13 That it might take hold of the ENDS OF THE EARTH, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? (KJV)

Jeremiah 16:19 O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ENDS OF THE EARTH, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit. (KJV)

Daniel 4:11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the ENDS OF ALL THE EARTH: (KJV)

Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; (KJV)

Psalm 104:5 "He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved."(NIV)

Psalm 93:1"The LORD reigns, he is robed in majesty; the LORD is robed in majesty and is armed with strength. The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved." (NIV)

Psalm 96:10 "Say among the nations, "The LORD reigns." The world is firmly established, it cannot be moved; he will judge the peoples with equity." (NIV)

Ecclesiastes 1:5 "The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises." (NIV)

Isaiah 40:22 "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in." (NIV)

Job 9:6 He shakes the earth from its place and makes its pillars tremble. (NIV)

Job 26:11 The pillars of the heavens quake, aghast at his rebuke. (NIV)

Job 38:22 "Have you entered the storehouses of the snow or seen the storehouses of the hail," (NIV)

Amos 9:6 The One who builds His upper chambers in the heavens and has founded His VAULTED DOME over the earth, He who calls for the waters of the sea and pours them out on the face of the earth, The LORD is His name. (NASB)

The biblical flat earth cosmology persisted into New Testament times. However by the mid second century Christianity had largely lost its Jewish roots and understandings and had become a gentile Greek speaking movement. Of course the Greeks knew that the earth was a sphere thanks to Eratosthenes who actually was able to calculate the circumference around 240 BC. This knowledge gradually percolated into Jewish and Christian thought especially after Ptolemy introduced his cosmology in the mid second century. The earth became the center of the universe with the moon and then the sun and then the planets, with complicated epicycles, and then the “fixed” stars all in orbit around it. This was the cosmology accepted by Christianity until the revolution of Copernicus, Kepler. Galileo and Newton. This was resisted by Christianity largely on the basis that the earth was not the center of God’s creation. In a relatively short time even this scientific insight was not only accepted but accepted to the extent that the biblical cosmology of a flat earth was rejected. The flat earth was not only rejected but ridiculous arguments were even invented to suggest that the bible was not even suggesting a flat earth at all. Such, all too often, is the way some Christians react to new understandings and insights.

Even having said all this, the belief in a flat earth persisted for a very long time, even in educated circles, as is evidenced in this comment by Ferdinand Magellan, the first person to circumnavigate the globe: “The church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the church.” It took time but the modern cosmology took root in society at large, so much so that some Christians even return to the bible and attempt to reinterpret it in such a way as to “prove” that it was speaking of a spherical earth orbiting the sun all along.

Any theory that makes any sort of pretense to be scientific must also make predictions that if shown to be false would invalidate the theory. For example when I in Canada observe the night sky i see the stars moving in a circle around the pole star (aka Polaris or the North Star). For us this rotation is clockwise. However people in southern countries cannot even see the pole star but they do observe a counterclockwise rotation. If our world is flat then the stars will move over it all in the same direction at every point on the surface because wherever you are on the surface you are always looking at the same stars. Australians not only observe the stars rotating in an opposite direction to Canadians, but, moreover, they see entirely different stars, hence the flat earth theory is invalidated.
 

Stravinsk

Composer and Artist on Flat Earth
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
4,562
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Deist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Widow/Widower
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
No
I do not like making summary statements on complicated topics, but after this thread and what I have said on this board I need to make one.

My flat earth stance has not changed. No one has yet proven curvature or that the earth spins. The Globe model can be proven false on multiple levels, and for various reasons. In addition, nearly all the images and popular footage by the various space agencies is provably fabricated in one way or another.

That being said, the map that is the most popular at this time among the Flat earth community is also provably wrong on multiple levels. The map I refer to is the AE or Azimuthal Equidistant map. It fails on sunset/sunrise angles (especially for Southern hemiplane during our summer), it fails in adequately giving consistent and adequate sunlight hours across the Earth without changing the sun's reach/shape, it fails in certain distance calculations, it fails in explaining how various Southern areas are all lit at once leaving the north in the dark.

Unfortunately, like the "accelerating plane flying upwards" it is a Trojan horse in the Flat Earth community, and it's eventual exposure is going to leave a lot of people jaded. I cannot stand behind it.
 

Andrew

Matt 18:15
Joined
Aug 25, 2017
Messages
6,645
Age
40
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I was hearing something on the radio a few months ago that had me thinking. Someone was at some presentation like "Ted" or something, and the speaker asked individuals to "prove" without blind regurgitation, just with words, how we "know" that the earth revolves around the sun.... everyone was dumbfounded, its a matter of perspective observance and allowing others to explain away truth with no true words... or something like that

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk
 

kiwimac

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 8, 2016
Messages
187
Age
64
Location
Deepest, darkest NZ
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Utrecht
Political Affiliation
Liberal
Marital Status
Married
Of course the world is a sphere. Flat-earthism is hooey.
 

Stravinsk

Composer and Artist on Flat Earth
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
4,562
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Deist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Widow/Widower
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
No
Of course the world is a sphere. Flat-earthism is hooey.

I like the way you include convincing arguments.

You could try answering the points in the video of the OP or even the video linked on this page (by Rob Skiba). The earth is definitely not a sphere, stars aren't "suns" and the earth was proven not to move over 100 years ago. Those are all facts.

Any "christian" on this board who also disagrees with the relevant biblical passages is also "hooey" in my estimation. Not because you believe earth is a sphere spinning around the sun - but because Christians call the bible the "word of God" when clearly every part that refers to the earth (stationary, on pillars, sun moves around etc) is in conflict with that belief.

The earth is flat. That doesn't make the most popular flat earth map correct, because it is not.
 

kiwimac

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 8, 2016
Messages
187
Age
64
Location
Deepest, darkest NZ
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Utrecht
Political Affiliation
Liberal
Marital Status
Married
I like the way you include convincing arguments.

You could try answering the points in the video of the OP or even the video linked on this page (by Rob Skiba). The earth is definitely not a sphere, stars aren't "suns" and the earth was proven not to move over 100 years ago. Those are all facts.

Any "christian" on this board who also disagrees with the relevant biblical passages is also "hooey" in my estimation. Not because you believe earth is a sphere spinning around the sun - but because Christians call the bible the "word of God" when clearly every part that refers to the earth (stationary, on pillars, sun moves around etc) is in conflict with that belief.

The earth is flat. That doesn't make the most popular flat earth map correct, because it is not.
Nope, rot and bloody nonsense. The Bible also says God is like an expectant mother and has wings. Your assertion that it contains all scientific truth is dreck, it is not and Never has been a scientific tome.

Sent from my F8331 using Tapatalk
 

Stravinsk

Composer and Artist on Flat Earth
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
4,562
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Deist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Widow/Widower
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
No
Nope, rot and bloody nonsense. The Bible also says God is like an expectant mother and has wings. Your assertion that it contains all scientific truth is dreck, it is not and Never has been a scientific tome.

Sent from my F8331 using Tapatalk

:) If you are going to comment in this thread, then address the video in the OP, or even the video linked on this page of it by Rob Skiba.

I didn't assert that the bible contains "all scientific truth" but I did say that the biblical references to earth indicate it does not move, rather that the sun moves around it. The Hebrew words for "going down" and "risen" in reference to the sun are both verbs that mean to "proceed" or "go forth", "enter", "come" etc.

According to the bible, the sun definitely moves. Also according to the bible, the earth is stationary. You can cry "metaphor" all you like, but what metaphor is God trying to describe by saying the earth does not move and that the sun moves around it? Because for it to be a metaphor, there has to be a firm idea already presented in the text that it refers to. There is no such hint in the text that the earth revolves at all, or revolves around the sun. None. So lacking the reference, no metaphor is being used when the bible says the earth doesn't move and that the sun does - only that which you have been indoctrinated with outside the biblical text.

Why don't you explain to me something rather simple. Given a clear day with no rain, the hottest part of the day is when:

A) At sunrise
B) At sunset
C) At Midday

Midday is going to be what nearly everyone says. So tell me, if the sun is 93 million miles away, why such a tiny difference in relative distance covered by a rotating earth towards it (from morning to midday) or away from it (from midday to evening) accounts for such a large shift in temperature?

If that temperature to distance ratio is extrapolated out - none of the things you call "science" are even possible (trips to the moon, to Mars etc) simply based on the fact that temperature would prevent it (either on the hot side - melting men and space vessels) or so cold as to prevent equipment from working and men from freezing.

No planes fly over Antarctica (that is to say - fully across it). The modern man will say that this is because "it's too cold and dangerous". But at the same time they will say we can go to the moon which is supposedly much much further away or to Mars.

Are you of the latter bunch who believes such things? A man of science, or science fiction?
 
Top Bottom