Ball Earth conundrums

Stupidity at its saddest.

Things don't move without application of a force. What is the force that causes more-dense things to go down?

Did you digest the thread entitled "Scripture Based Flat Earth Proposition"?

Has it occurred to you yet that a Mercator projection ["map"] - according to what you have said here - is just a globe earth flattened out? It is certainly not a surveyor map. And, it is certainly not accurate in the "spread-out" northern and southern regions. So then - according to you - no Mercator projection ["map"] can be considered to be an actual real bona fide map.

Oh yeah...well it looks cool.

One thing you need to understand - a single unexplained occurrance of something does not necessarily make the difference when there are many other explained occurances that far far outweigh it.

I said what I said before about the Sydney Opera House pictures because I do not fully trust what I see in the pictures - "Where is due north really?" - stuff like that - things I cannot truly verify unless I were actually there to see it for myself.

Can you explain this one to me a little more?

Nope - I believe what the Bible says.

In the strictest technical sense - "maybe, maybe not" - however it absolutely beyond-a-shadow-of-any-doubt-whatsoever proves that the earth cannot possibly be a spinning ball.

Your video is a propaganda piece.

The video I posted is not just about 'Arctic' versus 'Antarctic' - it is about:

45 degrees north versus 45 degrees south
50 degrees north versus 50 degrees south
55 degrees north versus 55 degrees south
60 degrees north versus 60 degrees south
65 degrees north versus 65 degrees south
70 degrees north versus 70 degrees south
75 degrees north versus 75 degrees south
80 degrees north versus 80 degrees south
85 degrees north versus 85 degrees south
90 degrees north versus 90 degrees south

(I could have included all of the other numbers also - but, I take it that you get my point...)

It is irrefutable that - if the Ball Earth model were true - the climate would in fact be identical-or-very-similar in each of these comparisons. There are no two ways about it.

C’mon @GaryA, the earth is round. I can get that inland Texans believe it to be flat, but it isn’t.

Are you saying that our "attempts" at conversation do not quite reach the point whereby the word 'engage' may be used to describe it???

I noticed the change in the following image from the two times you posted it (post #620 and post #695):





The first image "outright lies" in the lower-left corner. What exceedingly untrustworthy source did you get this image from?

I'll give credit where due: I do respect you, Gary, even though we disagree on a few matters. Generally, your comments towards me and our interaction in general have been respectful. I can't say the same for any other flat-earth proponent, though Moses has occasionally engaged in respectful dialogue.

The Bible does not say "The earth is flat." - however, based on what it does say - we know that the earth cannot possibly be a spinning ball flying through space. And, the Bible does in fact describe the earth in terms of it being 'flat'.

'beat'???

The position of the sun determines night and day. The moon can be anywhere in its cycle - even close to where the sun is in its cycle.

Start here:

https://christianchat.com/bible-dis...at-and-stationary.153876/page-27#post-3185553

See if that post will help you. Then, come back and ask what has not been answered.

It looks North East to me. I could be wrong here, so Dino may correct. But my thinking is thus.

Silly comment. Yes, it is a flattened out globe map. However, the scaling is adjusted to compensate for the curvature of the earth. It's unfortunate as it leads to misconceptions as to the relative sizes of countries. It is better to use a globe if possible. However, it is not easy to navigate by a globe. Hence Mercator produced a map that could be laid flat. At least you can navigate accurately, unlike the FE map.

There's always the Buckminster Fuller flat map. It keeps all the land masses sizes correct. Hmm... wonder why it never caught on?

I'd hate to think that as little dialogue as we have had (mainly because I am new and limited on time), that you think that I have been disrespectful somehow. I was under the impression that our dialogue thus far has been respectful (from both sides). If not, I'd sure like to know why you think so. Not that I'm offended; I just want to set the record straight. However, in case you overlooked it, I would like to ask you if you care to at least try to answer my question from post 56 (and maybe 64 & 71, if you're up for the challenge) from the "Scripture Based Flat Earth Proposition" thread.