Scripture Based Flat Earth Proposition

[GaryA]

I've heard of those puzzles. I've tried to probe that with live chat "individuals" as a fun mental exercise, trying to find those parameters. I've seen some good AI, but I haven't researched what those puzzles are. Do you know anything about it, or have any links to them?

All I really know about them is that they are used to try to prevent the use of bots on certain pages of some websites. I have not looked into them that much.

 

[tourist]

IF ONLY y'all could "escape the MATRIX" and see what I see...

That would require taking of the Red pill.

 

[GaryA]

That would require taking of the Red pill.

Yes - and, the Red Pill represents the desire to know [the] truth above all else - "even if it hurts"...

If anyone wants to know the real truth about this world that we all live in - they must consider:

"Truth is available only to those who have the courage to question whatever they have been taught."

 

[GaryA]

I believe the Bible shows us in no uncertain terms that the earth is not a spinning ball flying through space - and, 'flat' is the "default" observation.

Yet you refuse to make the necessary examinations for yourself that will completely and irrefutably disprove your North-centric flat Earth model.

Please see post #599.

 

[GaryA]

So-called “satellite” phones have been found to have reception problems in countries like Kazakhstan with very few cell phone towers. If the Earth were a ball with 20,000+ satellites surrounding, such blackouts should not regularly occur in any rural countryside areas.

- or, anywhere on any ocean.

Hmmmm - I wonder why "satellite" communication systems do not work out in the middle of the ocean...???

Red Herring.

Red Herring.

Nope - there is some actual truth in what he said - "Do the Research!" - start with LORAN.

 

[GaryA]

You would do well to escape to the far Southern Hemisphere for Christmas and see for yourself.

You would do well to pay more attention to what the Bible says about the earth - and believe it.

 

[NightTwister]

mmm - I wonder why "satellite" communication systems do not work out in the middle of the ocean...???

Iridium phones have planetary coverage, including the oceans and poles.

 

[Sculpt]

Consider the possibility that he is a human who is not interested in answering your question(s) if you are not willing to first address his question.

Right, wrong, or otherwise - consider the possibility.

It never asked me a question, Gary.

Gary, why is it you believe that satellites can't exist? Is it they'd hit the hard dome or something?

 

[Romans34]

As a matter of historical record, a small group of ships did exactly that a few hundred years ago - took two or three years and came up with a trip total distance of somewhere over 60,000 miles. (I do not remember the actual numbers reported.)

Look it up...

The circumference of Antarctica at 60 degrees latitude is 12,438 miles. However, early explorers like Captain James Cook and James Clark Ross, in attempting to circumnavigate Antarctica, took 3 to 4 years to do so, clocking distance traveled at 50,000 – 60,000 miles (over twice the circumference of the equator).

 

[Romans34]

The circumference of Antarctica at 60 degrees latitude is 12,438 miles. However, early explorers like Captain James Cook and James Clark Ross, in attempting to circumnavigate Antarctica, took 3 to 4 years to do so, clocking distance traveled at 50,000 – 60,000 miles (over twice the circumference of the equator).

View attachment 265170

 

[Romans34]

The circumference of Antarctica at 60 degrees latitude is 12,438 miles. However, early explorers like Captain James Cook and James Clark Ross, in attempting to circumnavigate Antarctica, took 3 to 4 years to do so, clocking distance traveled at 50,000 – 60,000 miles (over twice the circumference of the equator).

View attachment 265170

 

[Dino246]

If I were to go and make careful observations - and [somehow] show you that the real truth was something other than what you [think you] see in the pictures - you would reject it.

So then - I am perfectly happy with you believing whatever you want to believe - I am quite certain that it will change when God shows you the truth - at which point, you will not be able to deny it.

The majority reason that I believe what I believe is because of what the Bible says about the earth - with personal observation added over-and-above that.

Believing what the Bible says is first - the personal observation is second.

Please do not ever forget this. If you want to change my mind, you must show me absolutely-beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt just-exactly-and-precisely how scripture actually "does not mean what it says" in the verses/passages where it describes [something] about the earth.

You and some others seem to dismiss out-of-hand what the Bible says about the earth - believing and trusting the opinions of man more than the Bible.

I am more readily inclined to question the opinions of man (even - and, especially - 'authority') rather than the Word of God.

I know you are going to say that it is a matter of interpretation. And, indeed - so it is - I most certainly agree.

However, I believe my interpretation to be correct and must stick to what I believe the Bible says.

I reject your interpretation of English translations of the Bible.

 

[GaryA]

Iridium phones have planetary coverage, including the oceans and poles.

If such of a thing exists, then they have achieved one of the following:

1) stable balloon-satellite positioning and coverage (high up - but, not "outer-space" distances)
2) floating repeater stations set up on the oceans (essentially, cell towers set up on the oceans)
3) some combination of #1 and #2 and/or some other similar technology with the same results

 

[NightTwister]

If such of a thing exists, then they have achieved one of the following:

1) stable balloon-satellite positioning and coverage (high up - but, not "outer-space" distances)
2) floating repeater stations set up on the oceans (essentially, cell towers set up on the oceans)
3) some combination of #1 and #2 and/or some other similar technology with the same results

You have proof of this? Because they say it's satellites. It's up to you to prove it's not and how it works without them.

 

[GaryA]

Gary, why is it you believe that satellites can't exist? Is it they'd hit the hard dome or something?

Well, it can be said that they do exist - hanging from balloons high up in the sky - but, not "floating in outer space"...

 

[NightTwister]

Well, it can be said that they do exist - hanging from balloons high up in the sky - but, not "floating in outer space"...

No, that doesn't do it. You have to prove that these balloons exist in sufficient quantity in the ocean and have the technology on them to do what you suggest. You haven't done that.

 

[GaryA]

Iridium phones have planetary coverage, including the oceans and poles.

If such of a thing exists, then they have achieved one of the following:

1) stable balloon-satellite positioning and coverage (high up - but, not "outer-space" distances)
2) floating repeater stations set up on the oceans (essentially, cell towers set up on the oceans)
3) some combination of #1 and #2 and/or some other similar technology with the same results

You have proof of this? Because they say it's satellites. It's up to you to prove it's not and how it works without them.

No - I don't have to prove anything - I merely inferred from your statement that - if your statement is true (if the stated coverage is real) - then, one of the three things in the list I posted must be true.

No, that doesn't do it. You have to prove that these balloons exist in sufficient quantity in the ocean and have the technology on them to do what you suggest. You haven't done that.

Nor do I need to...

I know of no one on earth who has ever proven the existence of "outer space" satellites - how about you prove that they actually exist.

And - because some "authority" says so is not proof.

Also - not-a-true-photograph "artist-rendering"/"cartoon" images of "satellites" are not proof.

Just because they [have been made to] appear to exist does not mean it is real-and-true.

 

[NightTwister]

No - I don't have to prove anything

You're right. You can just continue on with your conspiracy theories.

 

[MerSee]

You're right. You can just continue on with your conspiracy theories.

 

[Gideon300]

No - I don't have to prove anything - I merely inferred from your statement that - if your statement is true (if the stated coverage is real) - then, one of the three things in the list I posted must be true.


Nor do I need to...

I know of no one on earth who has ever proven the existence of "outer space" satellites - how about you prove that they actually exist.

And - because some "authority" says so is not proof.

Also - not-a-true-photograph "artist-rendering"/"cartoon" images of "satellites" are not proof.

Just because they [have been made to] appear to exist does not mean it is real-and-true.

Plenty of people have seen satellites reenter earth's atmosphere. It's quite a spectacle. And debris has been found, the remains of such satellites.