Scripture Based Flat Earth Proposition

You presume that I have not studied physics. Perhaps you should have also taken a course in logic.
Standing water is always level. Please provide an example to support your proposition that it it even possible for water to curve around an object while at rest. The only example you can provide is water curving around the earth, but you cannot prove this without an argument from authority, hence, your proposition cannot be proven. You presume you are on a spinning ball wrapped in water rocketing through space, not because you know this to be true through your own experimentation or even your own experience. In fact, you deny your very senses to embrace what you have been indoctrinated from childhood to believe.

Gravity remains a theory. You did not refute my statement. “Buoyancy is nothing without gravity”. Says whom? And again, please provide some example to support your proposition.

I understand that a lifetime of mental programming can be difficult to overcome. But it can be done.

It begins with a few simple questions. Who runs this Earth? Is the ruler of this realm known to be a truthful entity? Are his servants known to be truthful entities. Have you ever been lied to by these entities? Why would you believe anything a liar tells you? What lies have you knowingly been told by these entities to this point? What purpose do these lies serve? Why would I trust any servant of a lying entity on any question, particularly the big questions?

Science has provided some wonderful gadgets, it’s made life easier for a lot of people, but science and it’s practitioners are also responsible for most of the greatest evils of our time, and science will produce the means whereby apart from divine intervention, no humanity will survive.

Christ commanded us to judge righteously. Men as well as their institutions are to be judged by their fruits.

Yes, I do.

Look up "meniscus".

My senses tell me that "flat earth" has been refuted.

Gravity can be a theory and buoyancy still depends on it. Buoyancy is a derivative effect of the force of gravity. No gravity, no buoyancy. Period.

You go right ahead and ride the spinning ball through your constantly expanding universe. I’ll stay here on the foundations which God has firmly established and can never be moved and watch the same stars circle above my head that Adam and Abraham and Christ Himself observed thousands of years ago. They are the same you know. Not possible of course, if indeed we had spent the last thousands of years moving away from them at hundreds of thousands of miles per hour, as they simultaneously moved away from us. But whatever, trust the science. It’s not a salvational issue. Peace.

In other words, you have no rational argument against the facts I presented. Thanks for admitting it.

Guess again. (regarding buoyancy)

No - it is not.

Buoyancy is the effect of an upward force against an object caused by a fluid medium that is dense enough to support the object while being contained and not being able to be compressed by the object. It "does not care" what force may be acting on the object to push it into the medium. (It could be your hand.)

There is no direct association between 'gravity' (or any other 'force') and 'buoyancy'.

Buoyancy happens because the medium is contained while not being able to be compressed.

I think maybe you need to study a bit more physics...

What you presented were not facts.

So I can be brainwashed with ridiculously unscientific ideas? No thanks. I studied real-world physics and made observations myself.

I really don’t care what you believe about gravity, because it is a satisfactory explanation for observed phenomena. “Buoyancy” in the absence of gravity, is not. It cannot explain the identical fall rates of feathers and lead balls in a vacuum. Gravity does explain this.

In other words, you presented no facts to argue with, and ignored every argument I presented to you.

Or; good day sir, be blessed and at peace and perhaps we can discuss this again one day a little closer to the Throne.

I appreciate your respectful response, but I’m mildly disappointed that you haven’t addressed my points. Did you look up “meniscus”? Have you considered how buoyancy depends upon gravity?

Gen 1:14 says God made the stars to be used as signs. What stars you can/can't see in the Northern/Southern hemispheres, and the spin movement the stars make, either match a spinning spherical earth OR a flat earth. The observations have been made. And you can make these observations yourself. They prove the earth is a spinning sphere.

What do YOU say about Dr. Danny Faulkner (Answers in Genesis) own observations about only being able to see the North Star in the Northern Hemisphere and the Southern Cross stars only in the Southern Hemisphere? And what do YOU say about the time-lapse photography where you see the stars spinning counterclockwise around the North Star point, and clockwise around the southern star point (Sigma Octanis). This can only be observed if the earth is a spinning sphere. They are not possible on a flat earth.

Review this 5mins of the video: 49:39-55:02. I set it start at 49:39. What do you say about this? https://www.youtube.com/live/289cGJ7hOkM?feature=shared&t=2978

There is no such "upward force".

smh...

Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary -- Copyright 1986 by Merriam-Webster Inc. -- p. 188

buoyancy n (1713) 1 a : the tendency of a body to float or to rise when submerged in a fluid b : the power of a fluid to exert an upward force on a body placed in it 2 : the ability to recover quickly from depression or discouragement : RESILIENCE, VIVACITY

A dictionary is not a Physics textbook.

Neither is a thesaurus.

So what this really boils down to is that the common man cannot trust resources (dictionaries, encyclopedias, etc) at his disposal and cannot use his God-given brain to obtain his own understanding unless he's an "educated" man who's been "educated" by other "educated" men. Otherwise, he MUST accept whatever the "educated" man tells him because that "SPECIAL" knowlege that the "educated" man has is necessary for him to understand anything for himself.

The problem I have with this is simple. While God's thoughts and ways are so much higher than us, He made things simple for us because He knew that's what we needed. Man complicates things, but He makes them simple. He made the gospel of salvation so simple a little child can understand it. Man wants to make it a reward for his works, but God gave it by grace. I love the simplicity that is in Christ! And those with a child-like faith He blesses and uses in His kingdom work. When he inspired the New Testament, it was recorded in the common man's Greek.

I find the record in Genesis chapter one simple and sufficient for me to put my faith in, which is, by the way, even more important to God than us using the brains He gave us. If we'd use the brains He gave us more, we'd put more faith and trust in Him (Who always tells us the Truth) than what man tells us to believe.

You quote the word of man and then tell me that you can't trust the word of man.

A dictionary definition of a word does not give you the broad scientific understanding of related concepts. The definition in isolation is sound, but using a dictionary definition of the word as a basis for a scientific explanation in contradiction to the word's scientific context is utterly ridiculous. Buoyancy is dependent upon gravity, and no amount of red X's is going to change that. Without gravity, there is no buoyancy, because there is no force pushing down on the medium around the object that is "buoyant". That you and other FE-proponents claim buoyancy exists on its own is cause for laughter... and pity.

“He made the gospel of salvation so simple a little child can understand it”.
Truth.

And yet, unless a child is presented with this gospel, how can he believe in what he has not heard? And moreover, unless this gospel is evidenced before him, how shall he decide between the conflicting messages of the gospel and its presentation. How many who have heard the gospel, did not believe it or receive it, because of the gross contradiction in what they had been told, and what they had witnessed in the lives of those doing the telling?

Furthermore, the older, and dare I say, more indoctrinated into the world system a child becomes, this gospel in all its childlike simplicity becomes yet more difficult to understand and to believe. “For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.” and again “The sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so".

I want to be careful here not to insert into the text what was not intended, however, it occurs to me that all laws are given by God, this would include those of a physical variety as well as the spiritual. Gravity is not a law, and of all the physical theories, the least understood, but I digress.

Which leads me to the conclusion that, in the same way which the mind of a child can be corrupted to make the gospel almost impossible to comprehend (notwithstanding that apart from the influence of the Divine Spirit the gospel is veiled to even the most keen of minds) therefore, if the spiritual laws of the Creator and the Gospel (mystery) are understood with even greater difficulty in the passage of time and worldly influence, the same would hold true for the understanding of Gods physical laws as well.

“For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Neither are your ways My ways,” declares the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts.”

Here to me is a strange thing. We claim to know and understand Gods spiritual laws and His gospel. But our obvious differences of opinion belie this fact. Or as Paul plainly stated “For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away”. And yet, when it comes to Gods physical laws (or rather our understanding of them) we acknowledge no such partial understanding, no mystery, or His “higher ways”. Indeed, we are even more dogmatic in our assumptions. And while in spiritual matters, with all our varied opinions, at least we attempt to credit the Holy Spirit and Holy Writ with our conclusions, in physical matters we are almost entirely dependent not even upon our own personal observations, but the observations of others. Others whom, in most cases we would not trust for a single moment their conclusions or observations on spiritual matters, because generally speaking the scientific community on the whole is at enmity with God.

For all the wonderful advances made by science (not my personal belief but the general consensus), science has also given us the atom bomb, biological weapons, abortion, evolution, transhumanism, gender transition, et al. And of course, the theme of our current raging debate, Heliocentrism. Science would have us believe that from nothing, in a large bang, sprang all the known matter in the universe (a word which cannot be found in the Bible) and this bang placed the sun at the center of our solar system. A pretty miraculous event for a group that does not believe in the miraculous I would say. Or, “God said let there be light, and there was light”

in conclusion, for my part, I put no faith in the scientific community whatsoever. What began as an endeavor to understand the workings of Almighty God in creation and His natural laws, has devolved into a religion opposed to the Creator on nearly every substantial point. The purpose no longer being to explain the works of an infinite Mind, but to explain away the influence of this Mind into absolute obscurity.

I do not trust science. Judging by the fruits of this poisonous tree alone, any professed believer should be highly skeptical of anything that comes out of this religion, and a religion is exactly what it is, as dogmatic, deceptive and exclusive as any cult that’s ever been.

You're so intelligent and versed you missed the simple point that was being made.
GaryA stated, "Buoyancy is the effect of an upward force against an object caused by a fluid medium . . ."
You responded, "There is no such 'upward force'."
I copied Webster's definition of the word, ". . . the power of a fluid to exert an upward force . . ."

It doesn't matter that the dictionary doesn't explain with as much detail about buoyancy as a Physics textbook. The word is still defined with such phrases as "upward force". If we now question the definition of words because we don't like the way they are worded, then we may no longer be able to trust anything we read, even a Physics textbook. That's the problem with people tampering with the Word of God. Now they say it says something different then what it said before it was tampered with. So who can you trust? You might want to see what resources the Physics textbook uses. One might be a dictionary. Just sayin'

So if there's no upward force and there's no force pushing down, then everything's calm, right?

Here is a livestreamed "buoyancy without gravity experiment" completed on China's Tiangong space station 240 miles above the surface... proving there is no buoyancy with gravity. (Pingpong ball placed into a jar of water, does not float to surface.)

Hey @Dino246 , do you think these guys are even capable of admitting when they are mistaken?

Video here: Taikonauts teach class on water buoyancy in absence of gravity (youtube.com)

.

I’ll see your atheist communist Chinese fake video, and raise you three atheist communist Chinese fake videos.

I think it odd when people who will not even allow for the slightest possibility that they are mistaken, are so adamant that the rest of us admit that we are completely mistaken.

Another thing that really gets my attention, is how selective the heliocentric crowd are in which of our comments and observations they decide to challenge and attempt to debunk. I’ve seen quite a few very compelling arguments against the ball earth in this thread. What I have not seen, is any attempt whatsoever to refute our best arguments. Rather, you guys pick the lowest hanging fruit you can possibly find, such as this buoyancy gravity issue, and even when you’ve done so, the best evidence you can come up with is a video from a fake space agency.
Try harder.

I watched a video a few years ago where a magician made a 747 completely disappear. Did he actually make the jet disappear, well of course he did, it was right there on the video. I mean, I saw it with my own eyes right? Foolishness.

You guys don’t want a debate or even a discussion. I’m not even sure you are capable of polite discussion. What you want, and will settle for nothing less, is for us to come over to your side and jump head first into the shallow fluoridated waters of your confirmation bias. Nothing else will satisfy you. It’s not going to happen fellas.