The Earth is flat? It's a circular flat disk surrounded by a wall of ice?

I hope you realise that this diagram of the universe you included above is used by theistic evolutionists to make creationists look stupid. But the theistic evolutionists are the ones who are stupid. Because if they're read in context, anyone can tell that these verses and passages make use of figurative language to illustrate truths about God and His creation.

So, anyway.....

Actually, I didn't present any argument at all with my time lapse pic of Polaris (North Star), but all the additional pics added to this thread have been wonderful.

This is actually what a time lapse image of the night sky would look like with your very un-biblical and sci-fi-entific explanation of reality.



Ok, I admit, some sarcasm, yes, BUT it would NOT look like this next pic if the earth is a ball that spins, while simultaneously rotating around the sun, while simultaneously hurdling through space along with the rest of the entire solar system via our spinning Milky Way galaxy, etc., etc. It certainly would NOT look like this:



Here's why:

As modern science puts it, the average distance from the sun to the Earth is 150 million kilometers or 93.2 million miles. Multiplying by 2 Pi gives 585.6 million miles for the circumference of the Earth's rotation around the sun. Dividing this by 365.25 days/year gives 1.603 million miles per day.

Ok, SO.....if the Earth is rotating around the sun 1.603 million miles per day, the pics that we can find all over the internet of perfectly circular patterns of stars spinning in the night sky around Polaris would only POSSIBLY be useful to argue that the Earth is spinning in one place and NEVER moving in any of the other planes that I just described. It can-NOT demonstrate that the Earth is rotating around the sun and it does NOT provide ANY evidence that the solar system is moving at all.

If either of those additional movements were taking place, there would be an obvious blur and disruption of these perfectly concentric star patterns found with any time lapse picture taken of the sky in the northern direction, and would likely look like a garbled mess. Anyone who has ever played with time lapse photography will confirm this. These pics are beautiful if you have some objects that are perfectly static/still over a long period of time coupled with moving objects as a contrast within the picture. As you can see from this pic (above) even the slight movement of the tree limbs cause a fuzzy blur.

All we DO see is a perfectly circular pattern of motion, BY EITHER THE STARS OR THE EARTH, around the North Star Polaris. Those are the only two arguments that can be made in reference to the countless images of this kind.

Conclusion: You can't have it both ways, scientists. Either all of the movements of the Earth, planets, solar system and galaxy are taking place....OR.....the Earth or stars are spinning in one place and never moving any other way at all.

So which is it? 'Cause these types of pics only demonstrate the latter.

Next:

Whomever went to all the trouble to create those rainbows indoors, I gotta give ya props. Or maybe the person who got stuck cleaning it all up.

Either way, it wasn't very convincing. I only detect a small bit of arc at the top of the rainbows in either pic, about as much as is in the white semi-arch in the second pic. But it was a valiant effort, no doubt. You can easily see that the bottom portion of the rainbow is vertical just like the white arch prop that is being used to create it.

Nice job, either way.

Next up: Mt. Rainier from Mt. Brunswick

You guys won't even TOUCH this one.....

Don't be too hard on yourselves, though, nobody else on the plane has been able to disprove it, either.

Funny thing about Truth, isn't it?

So dang hard to disprove!!



Deep down y'all love me.

I keep you on your toes and keep you sharp.............and very BUSY.

Good luck and God bless!

So, anyway.....

Actually, I didn't present any argument at all with that time lapse pic of Polaris (North Star), but all the additional pics added to this thread have been wonderful.

This is actually what a time lapse image of the night sky would look like with your very un-biblical and sci-fi-entific explanation of reality.



Ok, I admit, some sarcasm, yes, BUT it would NOT look like this next pic if the earth is a ball that spins, while simultaneously rotating around the sun, while simultaneously hurdling through space along with the rest of the entire solar system via the arms of our supposedly spinning Milky Way galaxy, etc., etc.

It certainly would NOT look like this:



Here's why:

As modern science puts it, the average distance from the sun to the Earth is 150 million kilometers or 93.2 million miles. Multiplying by 2 Pi gives 585.6 million miles for the circumference of the Earth's rotation around the sun. Dividing this by 365.25 days/year gives 1.603 million miles per day.

Ok, SO.....if the Earth is rotating around the sun 1.603 million miles per day, the pics that we can find all over the internet of perfectly circular patterns of stars spinning in the night sky around Polaris would only POSSIBLY be useful to argue that the Earth is spinning in one place and NEVER wobbling at all OR moving in any of the other planes that I just described. It can-NOT demonstrate that the Earth is rotating around the sun and it does NOT provide ANY evidence that the solar system is moving at all.

If either of those additional movements were taking place, there would be an obvious blur and disruption of these perfectly concentric star patterns found with any time lapse picture taken of the sky in the northern direction, and would likely look like a garbled mess. Anyone who has ever played with time lapse photography will confirm this.

These pics are beautiful if you have some objects that are perfectly static/still over a long period of time coupled with moving objects as a contrast within the picture. As you can see from this pic (above) even the slight movement of the tree limbs in the occasional wind will cause a fuzzy blur. We don't see that at all in the circular star patterns. They are PERFECT circles.

All we DO see is a perfectly circular pattern of motion, by either THE STARS around the North Star Polaris OR the Earth underneath them. Those are the only two arguments that can be made in reference to the countless images of this kind.

Conclusion: You can't have it both ways, scientists. Either all of the movements of the Earth, planets, solar system and galaxy are taking place....OR.....the Earth or stars are spinning in one place and never moving any other way at all.

So which is it? 'Cause these types of pics only demonstrate the latter.

Next:

Whomever went to all the trouble to create those rainbows indoors, I gotta give ya props. Or maybe the person who got stuck cleaning it all up.

Either way, it wasn't very convincing. I only detect a small bit of arc at the top of the rainbows in either pic, about as much as there is in the white semi-arch prop that is seen in the second pic. But it was a valiant effort, no doubt. You can easily see that the bottom portion of the rainbow is vertical just like the white arch prop that is being used to create it.

Nice job, either way.

Next:

So you want us all to believe that this:


and this:



and this:



...can all be explained by......THIS?:



Ok.........I'll be gentle.

First of all, there is one very huge problem with this explanation.

If you take a very, very close look at all 3 of these pictures of sun rays, you will eventually notice that the rays are shining DOWN onto very obvious areas on the water.

So, to say that it's some sort of optical illusion created by depth perception and a vanishing point, implying that the rays are coming straight at the camera/viewer and creating an 'ILLUSION', is just a little bit.........well, silly, ...to put it mildly.

These images are not "diffused Light caused by magical clouds." They're not "optical illusions caused by depth perception and vanishing points."

They're not UFOs shining beams of light, they're not atmospheric/chemical reactions caused by swamp gas and they're not any other wacky, silly, nonsensical scenario.

These are pictures of our sun above the clouds that any sane person on any given day with a similar cloud to sun scenario can see with their own eyes, 100 times out of 100, totally sober, with their bare naked eyes.

Ok? So YOUR explanations are now "DEBUNKED." End of that of the story.

Moving on.

And finally: Mt. Rainier from Mt. Brunswick

Almost 200 miles away with a clearly visible FLAT horizon of roughly 50-75 miles with NO visible curve.You guys won't even TOUCH this one.....

Don't be too hard on yourselves, though. To date, nobody else on the plane has been able to disprove it, either.

Funny thing about Truth, isn't it?

So dang hard to disprove!!



Good luck and God bless!


(OOPS, double post. Posthuman, delete that first one for me, please. Thanks. )

I have to say, PH, I think that you're a little bit confused about this whole concept.

First you say that my image of the time lapse shot of the constellations circling Polaris was clearly the Northern Sky when I didn't say anything about that at all.

Then you say this:

...which, by all accounts, looks exactly like all the other time lapse pics of stars circling Polaris.

Then this:

posthuman said:

and by the way, this proves the earth rotates. the argument that 'the north star can only exist if the earth is flat' is utter nonsense......

Click to expand...

I've never heard nor claimed this in my life. Doesn't really make any kinda sense to me.

Then there's this:

posthuman said:

...there happens to be a star sort-of close to the line the axis of the earth's rotation points towards in the northerly direction, but not in the south. that's all.

Click to expand...

I mean, you really sound confused, brother.

So now there's images of the southern sky with no star in the middle?

Because there's certainly a star in the very middle in the pic you're claiming is the southern sky.

Here's the pic:



Yeah, that's still Polaris. Kinda dim, but that's the way Polaris is. It's far from the brightest star in the sky.

And, uh, that's still the Northern sky.

Wait!..... Ok, I get it, I get it.

So this image above is the Southern sky? ^^^

And THIS image below is the NORTHERN sky!

Let's see:

(Isa. 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.

Yep, circles are still round, last I checked.

How many 'spherical' canopies or tents have you ever seen?

Right.

Now, DOME-shaped canopies and tents? Yes, many. I agree.

No spherical ones, though. Hmm....go figure.

Ok, the earth is roughly shaped like a sphere.

_________________________________

Whomever went to all the trouble to create those rainbows indoors, I gotta give ya props. Or maybe the person who got stuck cleaning it all up.

Either way, it wasn't very convincing. I only detect a small bit of arc at the top of the rainbows in either pic, about as much as is in the white semi-arch in the second pic. But it was a valiant effort, no doubt. You can easily see that the bottom portion of the rainbow is vertical just like the white arch prop that is being used to create it.

Nice job, either way.

Haha! What is this I dont even.
AVoice, you must be a special kind of stupid.

Funny thing about Truth, isn't it?

So dang hard to disprove!!

This phrase does make me laugh, but as the picture above demonstrates
a flat earth with liquid ie the sea which will always find the lowest point
of equilibrium, demonstrates a globe with curvature rather than a level
surface. If you ever see what happens to the sea in a storm you know
you cannot fake this effect, just observe its reality.

Let me guess. An OBLATE SPHEROID, right?



Ok, Neil de Grasse.

All those 'supposed' photographs of Earth for the past 4-5 decades that clearly depict a perfectly spherical ball.....



...and NOW, all of a sudden, "NO, it's not perfectly spherical, it's ACTUALLY bulged at the equator and fatter in the southern hemisphere!"



.........Really?

Ok, Tommy, you win.

VERY special.

If you can't follow along with the thread to understand what's being discussed, there's really no need for comment.

From the pics posted with the 'INDOOR' rainbows being created, it was clear that somebody was spraying a dang HOSE of some kind....................'INDOORS.'

Yeah, that'd make a bit of a mess.

Hush up, now, Rin Tin Tin.

And you can call me AVW with your next ignorant comment.

If people want to twist the Bible, believe the traditions of men (Jewish/pharisee traditions that Jesus has already shown to be wrong concerning the Messiah) that falsely say that the earth is flat is necessary to believe the Bible. Its their choice.

The Bible is true but men often misrepresent God and what the Bible says.

The issue many flat eat there and geocentric universe believers is not just lack of scientific knowledge and logic but false understanding of the Bible, and scriptures based mostly of Jewish historic traditions and not the word of God itself.

It's been debated before how the Bible verses used to "support" the theory can be explained without a flat earth paradigm.

Personally I choice to follow Jesus advice.

Matthew 15:14 ►
New International Version
Leave them; they are blind guides. If the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit."

First of all, this image is NOT what happens in reality.

Anyone who has gone to the trouble to test this in the physical world will confirm that.

But let's use it to demonstrate MY point with your own example, here.

IF this is 39 miles away from camera to buildings, then the farthest point of the horizon that can be seen, there, is roughly 15-20 miles across, left to right.

If the Earth is 25,000 miles in circumference, that means for every mile there is roughly 8" of drop. At 15-20 miles of horizon, that would be 10-13 feet of drop.

That 15-20 miles is PERFECTLY FLAT showing zero curve/drop whatsoever and ultimately demonstrating proof that there is NO curvature to our world.

The yellow line emphasizing the horizon, there, gives a perfect point of reference to show how straight and flat it is.

So maybe now we live on a CYLINDER. Straight and flat along its length but curved as you go around it.





Hmm...something to think about.

Ok a 50 mile spread in a couple of inches wide photo huh, well let's take a look at this,, the earth curves at roughly 8 inches per 1 mile gradual. each mile is 5280 feet long 50 miles would be 264,000 feet long pictured in the photo. that my friend can't even be depicted in a couple of inches wide photo and be seen with the naked eye in the photo for that matter. even if you draw a line across the photo wouldn't prove a thing because the human eye can't see inch drops in a photo trying to depict the curve of earth in a photo that is inches wide that's complete nonsense. The earth is 3965 miles radius which equals 1,046,760,000 feet radius

Show me a photo that is life size of Mt. Rainier it would have to be 264,000 feet wide photo to be accurate. well to do that you first need a computer screen that is 264,000 feet wide too. When photos of nature are taken the actual item snapped shot is condensed down to inches.

Ariel,

I have spoken to many Christians like yourself and do you know what the one common factor is among them?

They DO NOT READ THEIR BIBLE.

They let 'OTHERS' tell them what it says and what it means.

THAT is relying on MAN to teach us God's Word.

All these verses, here, tell us we don't have to do that. (And we SHOULDN'T)

Psalm 32:8-9, Isa. 54:13, Jer. 31:34, Jn. 6:45;14:26;16:13, 1 Cor. 2:13, 1 Thes. 4:9, Heb. 12:11, Eph. 4:21

God created the Bible for YOU, Ariel. He protected it for THOUSANDS of years while powerful men and empire after empire tried to completely destroy it and FAILED.

You can trust it EXACTLY as it is written. (In the KJV, that is)

95% of Christians today WILL NOT READ THEIR BIBLE cover to cover. They flat WON'T do it.

They'll carry it with them to church and open it to pages they are told to during a sermon and follow along for a verse or 2, but that's it. The VAST majority will NOT read their Bibles as God intended them to do.

That is the SADDEST part of all the Christians out there who are completely lost and deceived. God went to ALL that trouble of raising up prophet after prophet to speak His Truth and dictate His Word for all those who believe in Him and love Him and almost NONE of them will read it.

My own mother, bless her heart, and all her friends at their mega-church will NOT read their Bibles and even imply that those who DO are weird or nerdy or too Bible-literal, etc.

Read your Bible and pray for guidance from God. THEN decide what you believe is true or not. And read a KJV. It absolutely DOES matter.

The main verses that have been debated in reference to the Flat Earth are simply the 'Round vs Spherical' verses of Isaiah and elsewhere.

There are many, many others to demonstrate the world that God describes in His Word that includes a firmament and the sun and moon within that firmament.

Here are some verses for you to study.

Gen. 1:6-9, 14-19
Deut. 13:8;26:15;28:64
Joshua 10:13

"Sun stand still over Gibeon;
And Moon, in the Valley of Aijalon."
So the sun stood still,
And the moon stopped,
Till the people had revenge
Upon their enemies.

Do you seriously believe that Joshua was just primitive and didn't understand yet the true workings of the world that God had made? Joshua was the most FAITHFUL man in the world at that time. Do you believe God would've allowed him to be clueless about the world He had created for him?

Why didn't God just have the Bible say that Joshua made the Earth stop spinning? Wouldn't that have been easier and NOT misled so many in centuries and millennia to come? Why would God allow such a discrepancy in His Word to cause SO much confusion and misunderstanding for His beloved followers to this present day?

He didn't. He made sure the Bible stated EXACTLY what He intended it to.

1 Sam. 2:9
1 Chron. 16:30
Neh. 9:6
Job 9:6,9;26:7,10,11;37:18;38:4
Psalm 19:1,6;24:2;75:3;93:1;104:2-5;135:7;148:4
Prov. 15:11
Eccl. 1-5
Isa. 5:26;11:12;34:4;40:22;41:8
Dan. 4:10-11
Matt. 12:42;24:29
Phil. 2:10-11
Rev. 1:7;5:3,13;6:13,14

The Bible is now and always has been a Flat Earth book. That is not by mistake. God doesn't make mistakes. And it certainly is NOT because man was primitive and stupid ages ago. We did NOT evolve from apes, we were created, very intelligent from the very beginning, by God.

PLEASE read your Bible. God loves you and wants you to know the Truth, His Truth, the ONLY Truth.

God bless.

Ok, BeyondET, let's work with this photo right here.



You tell me exactly how many miles this horizon is in this picture from left to right in the frame and we'll discuss exactly how much drop there should be and why we can't see any of it whatsoever.

I'll work with you. You decide, you do the math and come up with a distance in feet, inches or miles, and we'll discuss why there is absolutely no curvature to be seen, there.

Ball's in your court.

I'm game.

this is extremely easy to figure out first no one can tell how many miles in the photo it's a photo 4 inches wide that's it.
now a person can say well in the photo from this point to this point is so many miles in real life but like I said the snap shot is compressed reconfigured to fit in a 4" by 4" photo you get what I'm saying the photo of the mountain has been modified to fit within a predetermined size. Of coarse it may appear to be flat from being compressed but this is in no way shape or form depicts the actual view or size. Photos are the worst thing anybody can use to convince a round or flat earth it's a photo basically it's like peeping through a very very extremely small key hole looking at the natural world just can't be done like that.

The drop would be 33 feet from the center of the photo to the edge of the photo if the picture is showing a 50 mile wide part of earth. but like I said photography doesn't work like that.

Oops my bust that would be 16 1/2 feet each way from center of photo. Again the photo is from the camera prospective which will modify the view to fit.