Even those temps are somewhat different in both places I think it’s colder in the south pole than north, one having more land mass around it.
The question no flat-earther can answer
- Thread starter Chester
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Even those temps are somewhat different in both places I think it’s colder in the south pole than north, one having more land mass around it.
You need to expain better what you are trying to say. What you say is "your reasoning" is what flat-earthers say . . . not my reasoning . . .?
P
Poinsetta
Guest
For once, i rapidly go with the crowd and say the earth is round....i don’t ask any questions.
The length of daylight is not determined by the speed of the sun; rather, it is determined by the distance and arc of its movement along its circuit path from first-light to last-light.
On any day of the year, the sun moves 15 degrees per hour. The 'rate' factor is constant; therefore, length of daylight will be approximately the same for every day of the year - different only due to changes in the arc of the path of the movement of the sun.
You have to consider the arc of the sun as it moves along its circuit path - relative to the point-in-question.
What is significant is the speed at which first-light "comes" and last-light "goes" --- it is well-reported that in "southern" areas, it is much faster than it is in "northern" areas.
On any day of the year, the sun moves 15 degrees per hour. The 'rate' factor is constant; therefore, length of daylight will be approximately the same for every day of the year - different only due to changes in the arc of the path of the movement of the sun.
You have to consider the arc of the sun as it moves along its circuit path - relative to the point-in-question.
What is significant is the speed at which first-light "comes" and last-light "goes" --- it is well-reported that in "southern" areas, it is much faster than it is in "northern" areas.
The North is always much warmer than [the same relative position in] the South - in varying degree according to season. This fact alone denies the ball-earth model.
I'm wondering where the evidence for this is. You seem quite confident of your assertion.
Recorded in the journals of people who have explored those regions and described what they found there.
This doesn't square with your assertion at all. Supporting evidence must be relevant to your assertion, not simply loosely related to it.
You did not ask me to give you supporting evidence "on a silver platter" -- you said you wondered where the evidence could be found -- so, I told you...
It is up to you to do some research of/on your own.
You did not ask me to give you supporting evidence "on a silver platter" -- you said you wondered where the evidence could be found -- so, I told you...
It is up to you to do some research of/on your own.
"It is up to you to do some research of/on your own"
Hey Gary, this statement of yours really depends on the context.
You DO need to provide research and proof it you're in a debate, and you're trying to prove your case.
Under those circumstance, you need to provide the research, and show the proof.
That's how debate works.
If you and I were in a debate, and I was taking the affirmative of some proposition, it would be reasonable and expected for you to ask me for proof of my assertions, and to demand to see whatever research and evidence I claimed supported that proof.
If I fail to provide the proof and research to support my claims, it is reasonable for you to claim a "win by default", under the principle that I cannot support my claims.
* In a debate, if you're trying to prove your position, then you need to provide the proof.
* If it's not a debate, and you're not really trying to prove anything... then it doesn't matter.
..
I really don't mind trying to help others better understand the flat earth model - IF they convince me that they truly want to understand it - as opposed to purposely just wasting my time and effort while they really have no true interest in it at all.
And, right now, it is proving to be quite an effort to write posts on a smartphone...
I think people understand if you're working from a phone, and having trouble with long posts.
Just let people know.
Even your opponents will cut you a break, lol.
I know, max. I know.
The thing is - even though for centuries everyone has been taught from birth that the earth is a spinning ball flying through space, no one has ever actually shown any [real] scientific proof that it is true.
Modern science assumes the ball-earth model as fact instead of requiring proof of it. Not very scientific - is it?
Rather than debate the flat-earth model -- why doesn't someone take the affirmative of the proposition that the ball-earth model is true - and support it with some actual bona fide proof...???
Here is your previous assertion:You did not ask me to give you supporting evidence "on a silver platter" -- you said you wondered where the evidence could be found -- so, I told you...
It is up to you to do some research of/on your own.
"The North is always much warmer than [the same relative position in] the South - in varying degree according to season. This fact alone denies the ball-earth model."
Here is your "pointer" to the evidence:
"Recorded in the journals of people who have explored those regions and described what they found there."
Think about it for a moment: explorers who kept journals while they explored polar regions would likely have no idea what the concurrent temperature was at the opposite end of the world. They would have been making assumptions. So your evidence doesn't support your assertion. Perhaps a different phrasing would make your assertion valid.
GaryA, consider this evidence:
Sydney, Australia, is at about 33 degrees south, ten degrees south of the Tropic of Capricorn. The sun is never directly overhead in Sydney. In the North-centric flat earth model, the sun could never appear directly east, directly west, or south of either. Yet in southern summer, the sun rises to the southeast of Sydney, and sets to the southwest. This is easily explained on a ball earth, and impossible on a north-centric flat earth.
It is reasonable to ignore evidence for the impossible and to assume what is possible, plausible and testable.