The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Rayzor on September 22, 2015, 06:40:44 PM
-
Ok, here is the challenge for flat earthers. If the earth is in fact flat, then there must be an edge.
We know that it's not at the South Pole, so it must be somewhere else?
Where is the edge?
A map showing the location would be acceptable, pictures would be better.
-
Ok, here is the challenge for flat earthers. If the earth is in fact flat, then there must be an edge.
We know that it's not at the South Pole, so it must be somewhere else?
Where is the edge?
A map showing the location would be acceptable, pictures would be better.
Hi, and welcome to the forum.
Its obvious you are new here as your question has been answered many times in the past.
To help you on your journey I suggest researching posts by chap who calls himself sceptimatic. I remember some time back he helped a fellow by the name of ausGeoff understand how it works and once Geoff understood he has had no need to return to this forum. Shame really Geoff seemed like a nice fellow.
Anyhow hope you hang around a while, cheers.
-
Ok, here is the challenge for flat earthers. If the earth is in fact flat, then there must be an edge.
We know that it's not at the South Pole, so it must be somewhere else?
Where is the edge?
A map showing the location would be acceptable, pictures would be better.
Hi, and welcome to the forum.
Its obvious your new here as your question has been answered many times in the past.
To help you on your journey I suggest researching posts by chap who calls himself sceptimatic. I remember some time back he helped a fellow by the name of ausGeoff understand how it works and once Geoff understood he has had no need to return to this forum. Shame really Geoff seemed like a nice fellow.
Anyhow hope you hang around a while, cheers.
The question has only been answered with long-ago refuted answers. You have yet to provide a proper irrefutable answer.
-
..... crickets .....
-
Playing the devils advocate here.
But there really does not need to be an edge on a hypothesised flat earth.
The realities of a flat earth are skewed enough that the plane could extend forever in the same way that the universe extends forever (as far as we can tell)
I just says nothing about the south pole or ice walls though.
-
Playing the devils advocate here.
But there really does not need to be an edge on a hypothesised flat earth.
The realities of a flat earth are skewed enough that the plane could extend forever in the same way that the universe extends forever (as far as we can tell)
I just says nothing about the south pole or ice walls though.
Then, edge as in edge of observed earth. Where does our observations end?
-
Just because you are deceived into believing there is not an edge there, does not mean there is no border to the Earth.
-
Just because you are deceived into believing there is not an edge there, does not mean there is no border to the Earth.
Where is it, was the question.
-
Just because you are deceived into believing there is not an edge there, does not mean there is no border to the Earth.
Where is it, was the question.
At what you call the South Pole.
-
Just because you are deceived into believing there is not an edge there, does not mean there is no border to the Earth.
Where is it, was the question.
At what you call the South Pole.
Where in the south pole? And how do you know? No one who has been to the south pole has seen an edge. The south pole has been thoroughly explored as well.
-
Just because you are deceived into believing there is not an edge there, does not mean there is no border to the Earth.
Where is it, was the question.
At what you call the South Pole.
Where in the south pole? And how do you know? No one who has been to the south pole has seen an edge. The south pole has been thoroughly explored as well.
"Just because you are deceived into believing there is not an edge there, does not mean there is no border to the Earth."
-
Just because you are deceived into believing there is not an edge there, does not mean there is no border to the Earth.
Where is it, was the question.
At what you call the South Pole.
Where in the south pole? And how do you know? No one who has been to the south pole has seen an edge. The south pole has been thoroughly explored as well.
"Just because you are deceived into believing there is not an edge there, does not mean there is no border to the Earth."
Sure, whatever. But can you answer the question anytime soon?
-
Just because you are deceived into believing there is not an edge there, does not mean there is no border to the Earth.
Where is it, was the question.
At what you call the South Pole.
Where in the south pole? And how do you know? No one who has been to the south pole has seen an edge. The south pole has been thoroughly explored as well.
"Just because you are deceived into believing there is not an edge there, does not mean there is no border to the Earth."
Sure, whatever. But can you answer the question anytime soon?
Would you care to specify what question? I have answered all those I have seen.
-
Just because you are deceived into believing there is not an edge there, does not mean there is no border to the Earth.
Where is it, was the question.
At what you call the South Pole.
Where in the south pole? And how do you know? No one who has been to the south pole has seen an edge. The south pole has been thoroughly explored as well.
"Just because you are deceived into believing there is not an edge there, does not mean there is no border to the Earth."
Sure, whatever. But can you answer the question anytime soon?
Would you care to specify what question? I have answered all those I have seen.
I guess that you are blind then.
Where is the edge?
Care to answer the very obvious question?
-
Just because you are deceived into believing there is not an edge there, does not mean there is no border to the Earth.
Where is it, was the question.
At what you call the South Pole.
-
Just because you are deceived into believing there is not an edge there, does not mean there is no border to the Earth.
Where is it, was the question.
At what you call the South Pole.
Where in the south pole? And how do you know? No one who has been to the south pole has seen an edge. The south pole has been thoroughly explored as well.
-
Just because you are deceived into believing there is not an edge there, does not mean there is no border to the Earth.
Where is it, was the question.
At what you call the South Pole.
Where in the south pole? And how do you know? No one who has been to the south pole has seen an edge. The south pole has been thoroughly explored as well.
I don't know the location to the metre, and even if I did I have no way of explaining that to you because you falsely believe it to be an island. I know because of God's word, I believe this is obvious.
As for the rest:
"Just because you are deceived into believing there is not an edge there, does not mean there is no border to the Earth."
-
Just because you are deceived into believing there is not an edge there, does not mean there is no border to the Earth.
Where is it, was the question.
At what you call the South Pole.
Where in the south pole? And how do you know? No one who has been to the south pole has seen an edge. The south pole has been thoroughly explored as well.
I don't know the location to the metre, and even if I did I have no way of explaining that to you because you falsely believe it to be an island. I know because of God's word, I believe this is obvious.
As for the rest:
"Just because you are deceived into believing there is not an edge there, does not mean there is no border to the Earth."
I am not asking you to give us the exact coordinates. But the south pole is a large place. It's like saying "it's in europe" or "it's in the US". It's too vague for an answer. Give us a rough position on a map or something.
-
Just because you are deceived into believing there is not an edge there, does not mean there is no border to the Earth.
Where is it, was the question.
At what you call the South Pole.
Where in the south pole? And how do you know? No one who has been to the south pole has seen an edge. The south pole has been thoroughly explored as well.
I don't know the location to the metre, and even if I did I have no way of explaining that to you because you falsely believe it to be an island. I know because of God's word, I believe this is obvious.
As for the rest:
"Just because you are deceived into believing there is not an edge there, does not mean there is no border to the Earth."
I am not asking you to give us the exact coordinates. But the south pole is a large place. It's like saying "it's in europe" or "it's in the US". It's too vague for an answer. Give us a rough position on a map or something.
What map would you like? It would be impossible to point to it on a globular map because your map of the South Pole is wrong and bears no relationship to reality and so cannot be used. It would be very easy to point to it on a disc map, and you wouldn't need my help.
-
Technically all of the ground could be considered an edge depending on your perspective. We know on this side of the Earth we are safe, going beyond the continent of Antarctica you might walk off into space, the same as if you were able to dig a tunnel straight to the bottom of the Earth and fall into space. Aside from the restrictions and astronomical cost of the expedition, the serious potential for danger is why so many are reluctant to photograph the edge you are referring to.
-
Just because you are deceived into believing there is not an edge there, does not mean there is no border to the Earth.
Where is it, was the question.
At what you call the South Pole.
Where in the south pole? And how do you know? No one who has been to the south pole has seen an edge. The south pole has been thoroughly explored as well.
I don't know the location to the metre, and even if I did I have no way of explaining that to you because you falsely believe it to be an island. I know because of God's word, I believe this is obvious.
As for the rest:
"Just because you are deceived into believing there is not an edge there, does not mean there is no border to the Earth."
I am not asking you to give us the exact coordinates. But the south pole is a large place. It's like saying "it's in europe" or "it's in the US". It's too vague for an answer. Give us a rough position on a map or something.
What map would you like? It would be impossible to point to it on a globular map because your map of the South Pole is wrong and bears no relationship to reality and so cannot be used. It would be very easy to point to it on a disc map, and you wouldn't need my help.
Any map that you like. As long as it is readable, and it gives a name of the site/area. Or a direction to there from a named site/area.
-
Just because you are deceived into believing there is not an edge there, does not mean there is no border to the Earth.
Where is it, was the question.
At what you call the South Pole.
Where in the south pole? And how do you know? No one who has been to the south pole has seen an edge. The south pole has been thoroughly explored as well.
I don't know the location to the metre, and even if I did I have no way of explaining that to you because you falsely believe it to be an island. I know because of God's word, I believe this is obvious.
As for the rest:
"Just because you are deceived into believing there is not an edge there, does not mean there is no border to the Earth."
I am not asking you to give us the exact coordinates. But the south pole is a large place. It's like saying "it's in europe" or "it's in the US". It's too vague for an answer. Give us a rough position on a map or something.
What map would you like? It would be impossible to point to it on a globular map because your map of the South Pole is wrong and bears no relationship to reality and so cannot be used. It would be very easy to point to it on a disc map, and you wouldn't need my help.
Any map that you like. As long as it is readable, and it gives a name of the site/area. Or a direction to there from a named site/area.
Here is a map
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection_SW.jpg
You may reach the edge by heading South/outwards from South America, Africa, Oceania...
There are no names, but I'm sure you know what those continents are called.
-
Just because you are deceived into believing there is not an edge there, does not mean there is no border to the Earth.
Where is it, was the question.
At what you call the South Pole.
Where in the south pole? And how do you know? No one who has been to the south pole has seen an edge. The south pole has been thoroughly explored as well.
I don't know the location to the metre, and even if I did I have no way of explaining that to you because you falsely believe it to be an island. I know because of God's word, I believe this is obvious.
As for the rest:
"Just because you are deceived into believing there is not an edge there, does not mean there is no border to the Earth."
I am not asking you to give us the exact coordinates. But the south pole is a large place. It's like saying "it's in europe" or "it's in the US". It's too vague for an answer. Give us a rough position on a map or something.
What map would you like? It would be impossible to point to it on a globular map because your map of the South Pole is wrong and bears no relationship to reality and so cannot be used. It would be very easy to point to it on a disc map, and you wouldn't need my help.
Any map that you like. As long as it is readable, and it gives a name of the site/area. Or a direction to there from a named site/area.
Here is a map
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection_SW.jpg
You may reach the edge by heading South/outwards from South America, Africa, Oceania...
There are no names, but I'm sure you know what those continents are called.
According to that map, the edge would be at the area around Amundsen Scott station, however that area has been thoroughly explored and there is no signs of any edge there. Do you have any source for why you know the edge is there, or are you deliberately spreading misinformation, or was it just a guess?
-
Just because you are deceived into believing there is not an edge there, does not mean there is no border to the Earth.
Where is it, was the question.
At what you call the South Pole.
Where in the south pole? And how do you know? No one who has been to the south pole has seen an edge. The south pole has been thoroughly explored as well.
I don't know the location to the metre, and even if I did I have no way of explaining that to you because you falsely believe it to be an island. I know because of God's word, I believe this is obvious.
As for the rest:
"Just because you are deceived into believing there is not an edge there, does not mean there is no border to the Earth."
I am not asking you to give us the exact coordinates. But the south pole is a large place. It's like saying "it's in europe" or "it's in the US". It's too vague for an answer. Give us a rough position on a map or something.
What map would you like? It would be impossible to point to it on a globular map because your map of the South Pole is wrong and bears no relationship to reality and so cannot be used. It would be very easy to point to it on a disc map, and you wouldn't need my help.
Any map that you like. As long as it is readable, and it gives a name of the site/area. Or a direction to there from a named site/area.
Here is a map
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection_SW.jpg
You may reach the edge by heading South/outwards from South America, Africa, Oceania...
There are no names, but I'm sure you know what those continents are called.
According to that map, the edge would be at the area around Amundsen Scott station, however that area has been thoroughly explored and there is no signs of any edge there. Do you have any source for why you know the edge is there, or are you deliberately spreading misinformation, or was it just a guess?
As I have said before, "Just because you are deceived into believing there is not an edge there, does not mean there is no border to the Earth."
-
Just because you are deceived into believing there is not an edge there, does not mean there is no border to the Earth.
Where is it, was the question.
At what you call the South Pole.
Where in the south pole? And how do you know? No one who has been to the south pole has seen an edge. The south pole has been thoroughly explored as well.
I don't know the location to the metre, and even if I did I have no way of explaining that to you because you falsely believe it to be an island. I know because of God's word, I believe this is obvious.
As for the rest:
"Just because you are deceived into believing there is not an edge there, does not mean there is no border to the Earth."
I am not asking you to give us the exact coordinates. But the south pole is a large place. It's like saying "it's in europe" or "it's in the US". It's too vague for an answer. Give us a rough position on a map or something.
What map would you like? It would be impossible to point to it on a globular map because your map of the South Pole is wrong and bears no relationship to reality and so cannot be used. It would be very easy to point to it on a disc map, and you wouldn't need my help.
Any map that you like. As long as it is readable, and it gives a name of the site/area. Or a direction to there from a named site/area.
Here is a map
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection_SW.jpg
You may reach the edge by heading South/outwards from South America, Africa, Oceania...
There are no names, but I'm sure you know what those continents are called.
According to that map, the edge would be at the area around Amundsen Scott station, however that area has been thoroughly explored and there is no signs of any edge there. Do you have any source for why you know the edge is there, or are you deliberately spreading misinformation, or was it just a guess?
As I have said before, "Just because you are deceived into believing there is not an edge there, does not mean there is no border to the Earth."
Yeah yeah, whatever. Care to stay on topic and give a proper answer to the question?
-
Yeah yeah, whatever. Care to stay on topic and give a proper answer to the question?
I have several times. Please tell me what is wrong with the answer I have given. You have done nothing except repeat the same question. If my answer is not enough, please tell me why.
-
Yeah yeah, whatever. Care to stay on topic and give a proper answer to the question?
I have several times. Please tell me what is wrong with the answer I have given. You have done nothing except repeat the same question. If my answer is not enough, please tell me why.
According to that map, the edge would be at the area around Amundsen Scott station, however that area has been thoroughly explored and there is no signs of any edge there. Do you have any source for why you know the edge is there, or are you deliberately spreading misinformation, or was it just a guess?
The question is, as it has been this whole time;
Where is the edge?
-
Yeah yeah, whatever. Care to stay on topic and give a proper answer to the question?
I have several times. Please tell me what is wrong with the answer I have given. You have done nothing except repeat the same question. If my answer is not enough, please tell me why.
According to that map, the edge would be at the area around Amundsen Scott station, however that area has been thoroughly explored and there is no signs of any edge there. Do you have any source for why you know the edge is there, or are you deliberately spreading misinformation, or was it just a guess?
The question is, as it has been this whole time;
Where is the edge?
I have answered this several times. I have answered the question, I have responded to your objection, and I have done all of this twice now. Just because you believe the South Pole to be explored does not mean it is. Just because you are deceived into believing there is not an edge there, does not make it true. The edge is at what you term the South Pole. There is no station, and no thorough exploration.
-
Yeah yeah, whatever. Care to stay on topic and give a proper answer to the question?
I have several times. Please tell me what is wrong with the answer I have given. You have done nothing except repeat the same question. If my answer is not enough, please tell me why.
According to that map, the edge would be at the area around Amundsen Scott station, however that area has been thoroughly explored and there is no signs of any edge there. Do you have any source for why you know the edge is there, or are you deliberately spreading misinformation, or was it just a guess?
The question is, as it has been this whole time;
Where is the edge?
I have answered this several times. I have answered the question, I have responded to your objection, and I have done all of this twice now. Just because you believe the South Pole to be explored does not mean it is. Just because you are deceived into believing there is not an edge there, does not make it true. The edge is at what you term the South Pole. There is no station, and no thorough exploration.
No, you never answered to my objection. You posted some incoherent off-topic rambling, but you have not answered to my objection. And since your answer to the question is refuted by my objection your answer is false, and therefore you have not correctly answered the question.
-
I have answered this several times. I have answered the question, I have responded to your objection, and I have done all of this twice now. Just because you believe the South Pole to be explored does not mean it is. Just because you are deceived into believing there is not an edge there, does not make it true. The edge is at what you term the South Pole. There is no station, and no thorough exploration.
There are stations on Antarctica, we know this because people go there.
http://www.sanap.ac.za/sanap_sanae/sanap_sanae.html (http://www.sanap.ac.za/sanap_sanae/sanap_sanae.html) This is the link to my country's base. Many countries support bases in Antarctica.
On a flat earth the "horizon" would appear as a haze in the distance. But im sure if twist physics enough anything is possible beyond the poles.
Why should anyone believe what you say if you can not provide any evidence of anything?
BTW, the "anti-christ" would know the Bible better than anyone, how do you differentiate yourself from the "anti-christ" if all you do is quote the bible?
-
Yeah yeah, whatever. Care to stay on topic and give a proper answer to the question?
I have several times. Please tell me what is wrong with the answer I have given. You have done nothing except repeat the same question. If my answer is not enough, please tell me why.
According to that map, the edge would be at the area around Amundsen Scott station, however that area has been thoroughly explored and there is no signs of any edge there. Do you have any source for why you know the edge is there, or are you deliberately spreading misinformation, or was it just a guess?
The question is, as it has been this whole time;
Where is the edge?
I have answered this several times. I have answered the question, I have responded to your objection, and I have done all of this twice now. Just because you believe the South Pole to be explored does not mean it is. Just because you are deceived into believing there is not an edge there, does not make it true. The edge is at what you term the South Pole. There is no station, and no thorough exploration.
No, you never answered to my objection. You posted some incoherent off-topic rambling, but you have not answered to my objection. And since your answer to the question is refuted by my objection your answer is false, and therefore you have not correctly answered the question.
According to that map, the edge would be at the area around Amundsen Scott station, however that area has been thoroughly explored and there is no signs of any edge there. Do you have any source for why you know the edge is there, or are you deliberately spreading misinformation, or was it just a guess?
Just because you believe the South Pole to be explored does not mean it is. Just because you are deceived into believing there is not an edge there, does not make it true. The edge is at what you term the South Pole. There is no station, and no thorough exploration.
Will you please tell me which of your questions you believe remains unanswered, and do so specifically, rather than insisting as you have multiple times that I have not answered, with no explanation or elaboration. It is very hard to clarify my answer when you refuse to tell me why what I have given is not enough, and what question remains unanswered.
-
Yeah yeah, whatever. Care to stay on topic and give a proper answer to the question?
I have several times. Please tell me what is wrong with the answer I have given. You have done nothing except repeat the same question. If my answer is not enough, please tell me why.
According to that map, the edge would be at the area around Amundsen Scott station, however that area has been thoroughly explored and there is no signs of any edge there. Do you have any source for why you know the edge is there, or are you deliberately spreading misinformation, or was it just a guess?
The question is, as it has been this whole time;
Where is the edge?
I have answered this several times. I have answered the question, I have responded to your objection, and I have done all of this twice now. Just because you believe the South Pole to be explored does not mean it is. Just because you are deceived into believing there is not an edge there, does not make it true. The edge is at what you term the South Pole. There is no station, and no thorough exploration.
No, you never answered to my objection. You posted some incoherent off-topic rambling, but you have not answered to my objection. And since your answer to the question is refuted by my objection your answer is false, and therefore you have not correctly answered the question.
According to that map, the edge would be at the area around Amundsen Scott station, however that area has been thoroughly explored and there is no signs of any edge there. Do you have any source for why you know the edge is there, or are you deliberately spreading misinformation, or was it just a guess?
Just because you believe the South Pole to be explored does not mean it is. Just because you are deceived into believing there is not an edge there, does not make it true. The edge is at what you term the South Pole. There is no station, and no thorough exploration.
Will you please tell me which of your questions you believe remains unanswered, and do so specifically, rather than insisting as you have multiple times that I have not answered, with no explanation or elaboration. It is very hard to clarify my answer when you refuse to tell me why what I have given is not enough, and what question remains unanswered.
How do you know that there is an edge there? And do you have any proof that tourists that go to that station gets recruited into a world-wide conspiracy?
-
I have answered this several times. I have answered the question, I have responded to your objection, and I have done all of this twice now. Just because you believe the South Pole to be explored does not mean it is. Just because you are deceived into believing there is not an edge there, does not make it true. The edge is at what you term the South Pole. There is no station, and no thorough exploration.
There are stations on Antarctica, we know this because people go there.
http://www.sanap.ac.za/sanap_sanae/sanap_sanae.html (http://www.sanap.ac.za/sanap_sanae/sanap_sanae.html) This is the link to my country's base. Many countries support bases in Antarctica.
On a flat earth the "horizon" would appear as a haze in the distance. But im sure if twist physics enough anything is possible beyond the poles.
Why should anyone believe what you say if you can not provide any evidence of anything?
BTW, the "anti-christ" would know the Bible better than anyone, how do you differentiate yourself from the "anti-christ" if all you do is quote the bible?
Those stations do nto exist: they are lies perpetuated by demons, and those loyal to them.
My evidence is God's word. That means more than any human's claim. Humans make mistakes and humans lie: God is perfect and honest.
You may pray to God yourself, and if your heart is open, receive these same answers. I do not ask you to believe me, I ask you to believe God.
-
Yeah yeah, whatever. Care to stay on topic and give a proper answer to the question?
I have several times. Please tell me what is wrong with the answer I have given. You have done nothing except repeat the same question. If my answer is not enough, please tell me why.
According to that map, the edge would be at the area around Amundsen Scott station, however that area has been thoroughly explored and there is no signs of any edge there. Do you have any source for why you know the edge is there, or are you deliberately spreading misinformation, or was it just a guess?
The question is, as it has been this whole time;
Where is the edge?
I have answered this several times. I have answered the question, I have responded to your objection, and I have done all of this twice now. Just because you believe the South Pole to be explored does not mean it is. Just because you are deceived into believing there is not an edge there, does not make it true. The edge is at what you term the South Pole. There is no station, and no thorough exploration.
No, you never answered to my objection. You posted some incoherent off-topic rambling, but you have not answered to my objection. And since your answer to the question is refuted by my objection your answer is false, and therefore you have not correctly answered the question.
According to that map, the edge would be at the area around Amundsen Scott station, however that area has been thoroughly explored and there is no signs of any edge there. Do you have any source for why you know the edge is there, or are you deliberately spreading misinformation, or was it just a guess?
Just because you believe the South Pole to be explored does not mean it is. Just because you are deceived into believing there is not an edge there, does not make it true. The edge is at what you term the South Pole. There is no station, and no thorough exploration.
Will you please tell me which of your questions you believe remains unanswered, and do so specifically, rather than insisting as you have multiple times that I have not answered, with no explanation or elaboration. It is very hard to clarify my answer when you refuse to tell me why what I have given is not enough, and what question remains unanswered.
How do you know that there is an edge there? And do you have any proof that tourists that go to that station gets recruited into a world-wide conspiracy?
I know from God's word that the Earth is flat, and the North Pole is crossed far more often, and has land centered around it, so the edge is not there.
Just because tourists are not taken to the edge does not mean it does not exist.
-
Yeah yeah, whatever. Care to stay on topic and give a proper answer to the question?
I have several times. Please tell me what is wrong with the answer I have given. You have done nothing except repeat the same question. If my answer is not enough, please tell me why.
According to that map, the edge would be at the area around Amundsen Scott station, however that area has been thoroughly explored and there is no signs of any edge there. Do you have any source for why you know the edge is there, or are you deliberately spreading misinformation, or was it just a guess?
The question is, as it has been this whole time;
Where is the edge?
I have answered this several times. I have answered the question, I have responded to your objection, and I have done all of this twice now. Just because you believe the South Pole to be explored does not mean it is. Just because you are deceived into believing there is not an edge there, does not make it true. The edge is at what you term the South Pole. There is no station, and no thorough exploration.
No, you never answered to my objection. You posted some incoherent off-topic rambling, but you have not answered to my objection. And since your answer to the question is refuted by my objection your answer is false, and therefore you have not correctly answered the question.
According to that map, the edge would be at the area around Amundsen Scott station, however that area has been thoroughly explored and there is no signs of any edge there. Do you have any source for why you know the edge is there, or are you deliberately spreading misinformation, or was it just a guess?
Just because you believe the South Pole to be explored does not mean it is. Just because you are deceived into believing there is not an edge there, does not make it true. The edge is at what you term the South Pole. There is no station, and no thorough exploration.
Will you please tell me which of your questions you believe remains unanswered, and do so specifically, rather than insisting as you have multiple times that I have not answered, with no explanation or elaboration. It is very hard to clarify my answer when you refuse to tell me why what I have given is not enough, and what question remains unanswered.
How do you know that there is an edge there? And do you have any proof that tourists that go to that station gets recruited into a world-wide conspiracy?
I know from God's word that the Earth is flat, and the North Pole is crossed far more often, and has land centered around it, so the edge is not there.
Just because tourists are not taken to the edge does not mean it does not exist.
Tourists do visit the exact spot where the edge would be. It's hard not to go to the geographic south pole when you are at the geographic south pole. And I asked for evidence that there is an edge there.
-
Yeah yeah, whatever. Care to stay on topic and give a proper answer to the question?
I have several times. Please tell me what is wrong with the answer I have given. You have done nothing except repeat the same question. If my answer is not enough, please tell me why.
According to that map, the edge would be at the area around Amundsen Scott station, however that area has been thoroughly explored and there is no signs of any edge there. Do you have any source for why you know the edge is there, or are you deliberately spreading misinformation, or was it just a guess?
The question is, as it has been this whole time;
Where is the edge?
I have answered this several times. I have answered the question, I have responded to your objection, and I have done all of this twice now. Just because you believe the South Pole to be explored does not mean it is. Just because you are deceived into believing there is not an edge there, does not make it true. The edge is at what you term the South Pole. There is no station, and no thorough exploration.
No, you never answered to my objection. You posted some incoherent off-topic rambling, but you have not answered to my objection. And since your answer to the question is refuted by my objection your answer is false, and therefore you have not correctly answered the question.
According to that map, the edge would be at the area around Amundsen Scott station, however that area has been thoroughly explored and there is no signs of any edge there. Do you have any source for why you know the edge is there, or are you deliberately spreading misinformation, or was it just a guess?
Just because you believe the South Pole to be explored does not mean it is. Just because you are deceived into believing there is not an edge there, does not make it true. The edge is at what you term the South Pole. There is no station, and no thorough exploration.
Will you please tell me which of your questions you believe remains unanswered, and do so specifically, rather than insisting as you have multiple times that I have not answered, with no explanation or elaboration. It is very hard to clarify my answer when you refuse to tell me why what I have given is not enough, and what question remains unanswered.
How do you know that there is an edge there? And do you have any proof that tourists that go to that station gets recruited into a world-wide conspiracy?
I know from God's word that the Earth is flat, and the North Pole is crossed far more often, and has land centered around it, so the edge is not there.
Just because tourists are not taken to the edge does not mean it does not exist.
Tourists do visit the exact spot where the edge would be. It's hard not to go to the geographic south pole when you are at the geographic south pole. And I asked for evidence that there is an edge there.
"I know from God's word that the Earth is flat, and the North Pole is crossed far more often, and has land centered around it, so the edge is not there." There is your evidence.
Because you believe something to be a geographic south pole does not mean it is. They clearly do not visit the spot the edge would be. The ice at the edge is at least as thick as your Antarctica.
-
Yeah yeah, whatever. Care to stay on topic and give a proper answer to the question?
I have several times. Please tell me what is wrong with the answer I have given. You have done nothing except repeat the same question. If my answer is not enough, please tell me why.
According to that map, the edge would be at the area around Amundsen Scott station, however that area has been thoroughly explored and there is no signs of any edge there. Do you have any source for why you know the edge is there, or are you deliberately spreading misinformation, or was it just a guess?
The question is, as it has been this whole time;
Where is the edge?
I have answered this several times. I have answered the question, I have responded to your objection, and I have done all of this twice now. Just because you believe the South Pole to be explored does not mean it is. Just because you are deceived into believing there is not an edge there, does not make it true. The edge is at what you term the South Pole. There is no station, and no thorough exploration.
No, you never answered to my objection. You posted some incoherent off-topic rambling, but you have not answered to my objection. And since your answer to the question is refuted by my objection your answer is false, and therefore you have not correctly answered the question.
According to that map, the edge would be at the area around Amundsen Scott station, however that area has been thoroughly explored and there is no signs of any edge there. Do you have any source for why you know the edge is there, or are you deliberately spreading misinformation, or was it just a guess?
Just because you believe the South Pole to be explored does not mean it is. Just because you are deceived into believing there is not an edge there, does not make it true. The edge is at what you term the South Pole. There is no station, and no thorough exploration.
Will you please tell me which of your questions you believe remains unanswered, and do so specifically, rather than insisting as you have multiple times that I have not answered, with no explanation or elaboration. It is very hard to clarify my answer when you refuse to tell me why what I have given is not enough, and what question remains unanswered.
How do you know that there is an edge there? And do you have any proof that tourists that go to that station gets recruited into a world-wide conspiracy?
I know from God's word that the Earth is flat, and the North Pole is crossed far more often, and has land centered around it, so the edge is not there.
Just because tourists are not taken to the edge does not mean it does not exist.
Tourists do visit the exact spot where the edge would be. It's hard not to go to the geographic south pole when you are at the geographic south pole. And I asked for evidence that there is an edge there.
"I know from God's word that the Earth is flat, and the North Pole is crossed far more often, and has land centered around it, so the edge is not there." There is your evidence.
Because you believe something to be a geographic south pole does not mean it is. They clearly do not visit the spot the edge would be. The ice at the edge is at least as thick as your Antarctica.
Can you cite your source, and specify the source, please? And how is this evidence that the edge is in the south pole? It only seems to be evidence that the edge is not in the north pole.
-
Yeah yeah, whatever. Care to stay on topic and give a proper answer to the question?
I have several times. Please tell me what is wrong with the answer I have given. You have done nothing except repeat the same question. If my answer is not enough, please tell me why.
According to that map, the edge would be at the area around Amundsen Scott station, however that area has been thoroughly explored and there is no signs of any edge there. Do you have any source for why you know the edge is there, or are you deliberately spreading misinformation, or was it just a guess?
The question is, as it has been this whole time;
Where is the edge?
I have answered this several times. I have answered the question, I have responded to your objection, and I have done all of this twice now. Just because you believe the South Pole to be explored does not mean it is. Just because you are deceived into believing there is not an edge there, does not make it true. The edge is at what you term the South Pole. There is no station, and no thorough exploration.
No, you never answered to my objection. You posted some incoherent off-topic rambling, but you have not answered to my objection. And since your answer to the question is refuted by my objection your answer is false, and therefore you have not correctly answered the question.
According to that map, the edge would be at the area around Amundsen Scott station, however that area has been thoroughly explored and there is no signs of any edge there. Do you have any source for why you know the edge is there, or are you deliberately spreading misinformation, or was it just a guess?
Just because you believe the South Pole to be explored does not mean it is. Just because you are deceived into believing there is not an edge there, does not make it true. The edge is at what you term the South Pole. There is no station, and no thorough exploration.
Will you please tell me which of your questions you believe remains unanswered, and do so specifically, rather than insisting as you have multiple times that I have not answered, with no explanation or elaboration. It is very hard to clarify my answer when you refuse to tell me why what I have given is not enough, and what question remains unanswered.
How do you know that there is an edge there? And do you have any proof that tourists that go to that station gets recruited into a world-wide conspiracy?
I know from God's word that the Earth is flat, and the North Pole is crossed far more often, and has land centered around it, so the edge is not there.
Just because tourists are not taken to the edge does not mean it does not exist.
Tourists do visit the exact spot where the edge would be. It's hard not to go to the geographic south pole when you are at the geographic south pole. And I asked for evidence that there is an edge there.
"I know from God's word that the Earth is flat, and the North Pole is crossed far more often, and has land centered around it, so the edge is not there." There is your evidence.
Because you believe something to be a geographic south pole does not mean it is. They clearly do not visit the spot the edge would be. The ice at the edge is at least as thick as your Antarctica.
Can you cite your source, and specify the source, please? And how is this evidence that the edge is in the south pole? It only seems to be evidence that the edge is not in the north pole.
The Holy Bible, as I have said before. My signature gives you one verse, and Matthew 4:8 another (all the kingdoms visible from one location: it must be a plane).
The edge must be at a pole. This is obvious from reason: God gave us the capability to think and read His word. All the answers are there, even if all are not explicit. The edge would be surrounded by ice as it is the furthest from the heat of God's light, the Sun.
-
Yeah yeah, whatever. Care to stay on topic and give a proper answer to the question?
I have several times. Please tell me what is wrong with the answer I have given. You have done nothing except repeat the same question. If my answer is not enough, please tell me why.
According to that map, the edge would be at the area around Amundsen Scott station, however that area has been thoroughly explored and there is no signs of any edge there. Do you have any source for why you know the edge is there, or are you deliberately spreading misinformation, or was it just a guess?
The question is, as it has been this whole time;
Where is the edge?
I have answered this several times. I have answered the question, I have responded to your objection, and I have done all of this twice now. Just because you believe the South Pole to be explored does not mean it is. Just because you are deceived into believing there is not an edge there, does not make it true. The edge is at what you term the South Pole. There is no station, and no thorough exploration.
No, you never answered to my objection. You posted some incoherent off-topic rambling, but you have not answered to my objection. And since your answer to the question is refuted by my objection your answer is false, and therefore you have not correctly answered the question.
According to that map, the edge would be at the area around Amundsen Scott station, however that area has been thoroughly explored and there is no signs of any edge there. Do you have any source for why you know the edge is there, or are you deliberately spreading misinformation, or was it just a guess?
Just because you believe the South Pole to be explored does not mean it is. Just because you are deceived into believing there is not an edge there, does not make it true. The edge is at what you term the South Pole. There is no station, and no thorough exploration.
Will you please tell me which of your questions you believe remains unanswered, and do so specifically, rather than insisting as you have multiple times that I have not answered, with no explanation or elaboration. It is very hard to clarify my answer when you refuse to tell me why what I have given is not enough, and what question remains unanswered.
How do you know that there is an edge there? And do you have any proof that tourists that go to that station gets recruited into a world-wide conspiracy?
I know from God's word that the Earth is flat, and the North Pole is crossed far more often, and has land centered around it, so the edge is not there.
Just because tourists are not taken to the edge does not mean it does not exist.
Tourists do visit the exact spot where the edge would be. It's hard not to go to the geographic south pole when you are at the geographic south pole. And I asked for evidence that there is an edge there.
"I know from God's word that the Earth is flat, and the North Pole is crossed far more often, and has land centered around it, so the edge is not there." There is your evidence.
Because you believe something to be a geographic south pole does not mean it is. They clearly do not visit the spot the edge would be. The ice at the edge is at least as thick as your Antarctica.
Can you cite your source, and specify the source, please? And how is this evidence that the edge is in the south pole? It only seems to be evidence that the edge is not in the north pole.
The Holy Bible, as I have said before. My signature gives you one verse, and Matthew 4:8 another (all the kingdoms visible from one location: it must be a plane).
The edge must be at a pole. This is obvious from reason: God gave us the capability to think and read His word. All the answers are there, even if all are not explicit. The edge would be surrounded by ice as it is the furthest from the heat of God's light, the Sun.
If you believe that there is a verse in the bible that states that the edge is in the south pole, please cite it.
-
Yeah yeah, whatever. Care to stay on topic and give a proper answer to the question?
I have several times. Please tell me what is wrong with the answer I have given. You have done nothing except repeat the same question. If my answer is not enough, please tell me why.
According to that map, the edge would be at the area around Amundsen Scott station, however that area has been thoroughly explored and there is no signs of any edge there. Do you have any source for why you know the edge is there, or are you deliberately spreading misinformation, or was it just a guess?
The question is, as it has been this whole time;
Where is the edge?
I have answered this several times. I have answered the question, I have responded to your objection, and I have done all of this twice now. Just because you believe the South Pole to be explored does not mean it is. Just because you are deceived into believing there is not an edge there, does not make it true. The edge is at what you term the South Pole. There is no station, and no thorough exploration.
No, you never answered to my objection. You posted some incoherent off-topic rambling, but you have not answered to my objection. And since your answer to the question is refuted by my objection your answer is false, and therefore you have not correctly answered the question.
According to that map, the edge would be at the area around Amundsen Scott station, however that area has been thoroughly explored and there is no signs of any edge there. Do you have any source for why you know the edge is there, or are you deliberately spreading misinformation, or was it just a guess?
Just because you believe the South Pole to be explored does not mean it is. Just because you are deceived into believing there is not an edge there, does not make it true. The edge is at what you term the South Pole. There is no station, and no thorough exploration.
Will you please tell me which of your questions you believe remains unanswered, and do so specifically, rather than insisting as you have multiple times that I have not answered, with no explanation or elaboration. It is very hard to clarify my answer when you refuse to tell me why what I have given is not enough, and what question remains unanswered.
How do you know that there is an edge there? And do you have any proof that tourists that go to that station gets recruited into a world-wide conspiracy?
I know from God's word that the Earth is flat, and the North Pole is crossed far more often, and has land centered around it, so the edge is not there.
Just because tourists are not taken to the edge does not mean it does not exist.
Tourists do visit the exact spot where the edge would be. It's hard not to go to the geographic south pole when you are at the geographic south pole. And I asked for evidence that there is an edge there.
"I know from God's word that the Earth is flat, and the North Pole is crossed far more often, and has land centered around it, so the edge is not there." There is your evidence.
Because you believe something to be a geographic south pole does not mean it is. They clearly do not visit the spot the edge would be. The ice at the edge is at least as thick as your Antarctica.
Can you cite your source, and specify the source, please? And how is this evidence that the edge is in the south pole? It only seems to be evidence that the edge is not in the north pole.
The Holy Bible, as I have said before. My signature gives you one verse, and Matthew 4:8 another (all the kingdoms visible from one location: it must be a plane).
The edge must be at a pole. This is obvious from reason: God gave us the capability to think and read His word. All the answers are there, even if all are not explicit. The edge would be surrounded by ice as it is the furthest from the heat of God's light, the Sun.
If you believe that there is a verse in the bible that states that the edge is in the south pole, please cite it.
I have given my reasoning. Please do not ignore it.
All the answers are in the Bible, but those answers require thought. Not everything is going to be stated clearly: God wants man to be able to comprehend, not merely obey. The fact the world is flat is stated explicitly and implicitly. For the location of the edge, thought is required.
-
Yeah yeah, whatever. Care to stay on topic and give a proper answer to the question?
I have several times. Please tell me what is wrong with the answer I have given. You have done nothing except repeat the same question. If my answer is not enough, please tell me why.
According to that map, the edge would be at the area around Amundsen Scott station, however that area has been thoroughly explored and there is no signs of any edge there. Do you have any source for why you know the edge is there, or are you deliberately spreading misinformation, or was it just a guess?
The question is, as it has been this whole time;
Where is the edge?
I have answered this several times. I have answered the question, I have responded to your objection, and I have done all of this twice now. Just because you believe the South Pole to be explored does not mean it is. Just because you are deceived into believing there is not an edge there, does not make it true. The edge is at what you term the South Pole. There is no station, and no thorough exploration.
No, you never answered to my objection. You posted some incoherent off-topic rambling, but you have not answered to my objection. And since your answer to the question is refuted by my objection your answer is false, and therefore you have not correctly answered the question.
According to that map, the edge would be at the area around Amundsen Scott station, however that area has been thoroughly explored and there is no signs of any edge there. Do you have any source for why you know the edge is there, or are you deliberately spreading misinformation, or was it just a guess?
Just because you believe the South Pole to be explored does not mean it is. Just because you are deceived into believing there is not an edge there, does not make it true. The edge is at what you term the South Pole. There is no station, and no thorough exploration.
Will you please tell me which of your questions you believe remains unanswered, and do so specifically, rather than insisting as you have multiple times that I have not answered, with no explanation or elaboration. It is very hard to clarify my answer when you refuse to tell me why what I have given is not enough, and what question remains unanswered.
How do you know that there is an edge there? And do you have any proof that tourists that go to that station gets recruited into a world-wide conspiracy?
I know from God's word that the Earth is flat, and the North Pole is crossed far more often, and has land centered around it, so the edge is not there.
Just because tourists are not taken to the edge does not mean it does not exist.
Tourists do visit the exact spot where the edge would be. It's hard not to go to the geographic south pole when you are at the geographic south pole. And I asked for evidence that there is an edge there.
"I know from God's word that the Earth is flat, and the North Pole is crossed far more often, and has land centered around it, so the edge is not there." There is your evidence.
Because you believe something to be a geographic south pole does not mean it is. They clearly do not visit the spot the edge would be. The ice at the edge is at least as thick as your Antarctica.
Can you cite your source, and specify the source, please? And how is this evidence that the edge is in the south pole? It only seems to be evidence that the edge is not in the north pole.
The Holy Bible, as I have said before. My signature gives you one verse, and Matthew 4:8 another (all the kingdoms visible from one location: it must be a plane).
The edge must be at a pole. This is obvious from reason: God gave us the capability to think and read His word. All the answers are there, even if all are not explicit. The edge would be surrounded by ice as it is the furthest from the heat of God's light, the Sun.
If you believe that there is a verse in the bible that states that the edge is in the south pole, please cite it.
I have given my reasoning. Please do not ignore it.
All the answers are in the Bible, but those answers require thought. Not everything is going to be stated clearly: God wants man to be able to comprehend, not merely obey. The fact the world is flat is stated explicitly and implicitly. For the location of the edge, thought is required.
Give me the verses that you believe can be interpreted to tell us the location of the edge as being the south pole.
-
If all you are going to do is make me repeat myself, then it is not possible to teach you. Please do not ask the exact same question several times: or, if you do, explain why my answer was not enough.
There is no verse that explicitly states that. God requires us to think when we read His words. All the answers are there, not all are explicit.
You have asked for nothing except my repitition all throughout this thread. I believe what I say I believe, not what you would like me to believe, or what you would like to force me to believe by insisting I have not answered certain questions.
Goodbye. I hope you open your heart to God in the future.
-
If all you are going to do is make me repeat myself, then it is not possible to teach you. Please do not ask the exact same question several times: or, if you do, explain why my answer was not enough.
There is no verse that explicitly states that. God requires us to think when we read His words. All the answers are there, not all are explicit.
You have asked for nothing except my repitition all throughout this thread. I believe what I say I believe, not what you would like me to believe, or what you would like to force me to believe by insisting I have not answered certain questions.
Goodbye. I hope you open your heart to God in the future.
You are the one making me repeat myself, as you never answer my questions properly.
Please cite the evidence you have that the edge of the earth lies in the south pole.
-
"Please do not ask the exact same question several times: or, if you do, explain why my answer was not enough."
"The edge must be at a pole. This is obvious from reason: God gave us the capability to think and read His word. All the answers are there, even if all are not explicit. The edge would be surrounded by ice as it is the furthest from the heat of God's light, the Sun."
"The North Pole is crossed far more often, and has land centered around it, so the edge is not there."
Please do not lie.
-
"Please do not ask the exact same question several times: or, if you do, explain why my answer was not enough."
"The edge must be at a pole. This is obvious from reason: God gave us the capability to think and read His word. All the answers are there, even if all are not explicit. The edge would be surrounded by ice as it is the furthest from the heat of God's light, the Sun."
"The North Pole is crossed far more often, and has land centered around it, so the edge is not there."
Please do not lie.
See? None of these are sources or cites from sources, which is what I'm asking for.
-
"Please do not ask the exact same question several times: or, if you do, explain why my answer was not enough."
"The edge must be at a pole. This is obvious from reason: God gave us the capability to think and read His word. All the answers are there, even if all are not explicit. The edge would be surrounded by ice as it is the furthest from the heat of God's light, the Sun."
"The North Pole is crossed far more often, and has land centered around it, so the edge is not there."
Please do not lie.
See? None of these are sources or cites from sources, which is what I'm asking for.
"The Holy Bible, as I have said before. My signature gives you one verse, and Matthew 4:8 another (all the kingdoms visible from one location: it must be a plane)."
-
"Please do not ask the exact same question several times: or, if you do, explain why my answer was not enough."
"The edge must be at a pole. This is obvious from reason: God gave us the capability to think and read His word. All the answers are there, even if all are not explicit. The edge would be surrounded by ice as it is the furthest from the heat of God's light, the Sun."
"The North Pole is crossed far more often, and has land centered around it, so the edge is not there."
Please do not lie.
See? None of these are sources or cites from sources, which is what I'm asking for.
"The Holy Bible, as I have said before. My signature gives you one verse, and Matthew 4:8 another (all the kingdoms visible from one location: it must be a plane)."
The Holy Bible, as I have said before. My signature gives you one verse, and Matthew 4:8 another (all the kingdoms visible from one location: it must be a plane).
The edge must be at a pole. This is obvious from reason: God gave us the capability to think and read His word. All the answers are there, even if all are not explicit. The edge would be surrounded by ice as it is the furthest from the heat of God's light, the Sun.
If you believe that there is a verse in the bible that states that the edge is in the south pole, please cite it.
I have given my reasoning. Please do not ignore it.
All the answers are in the Bible, but those answers require thought. Not everything is going to be stated clearly: God wants man to be able to comprehend, not merely obey. The fact the world is flat is stated explicitly and implicitly. For the location of the edge, thought is required.
Give me the verses that you believe can be interpreted to tell us the location of the edge as being the south pole.
-
Ok, here is the challenge for flat earthers. If the earth is in fact flat, then there must be an edge.
We know that it's not at the South Pole, so it must be somewhere else?
Where is the edge?
A map showing the location would be acceptable, pictures would be better.
Hi, and welcome to the forum.
Its obvious you are new here as your question has been answered many times in the past.
To help you on your journey I suggest researching posts by chap who calls himself sceptimatic. I remember some time back he helped a fellow by the name of ausGeoff understand how it works and once Geoff understood he has had no need to return to this forum. Shame really Geoff seemed like a nice fellow.
Anyhow hope you hang around a while, cheers.
Don't bother with this. I remember sceptimatic telling me no one could ever reach the edge because you would run out of air and die. I suggested a pressurized tank with oxygen, like a submersible would be only on ground. He then procceded to bury himself by suggesting a motor cannot run in a non oxygen environment. Another notch on the long list of fails for flat earthers.
-
"Please do not ask the exact same question several times: or, if you do, explain why my answer was not enough."
"The edge must be at a pole. This is obvious from reason: God gave us the capability to think and read His word. All the answers are there, even if all are not explicit. The edge would be surrounded by ice as it is the furthest from the heat of God's light, the Sun."
"The North Pole is crossed far more often, and has land centered around it, so the edge is not there."
Please do not lie.
See? None of these are sources or cites from sources, which is what I'm asking for.
"The Holy Bible, as I have said before. My signature gives you one verse, and Matthew 4:8 another (all the kingdoms visible from one location: it must be a plane)."
The Holy Bible, as I have said before. My signature gives you one verse, and Matthew 4:8 another (all the kingdoms visible from one location: it must be a plane).
The edge must be at a pole. This is obvious from reason: God gave us the capability to think and read His word. All the answers are there, even if all are not explicit. The edge would be surrounded by ice as it is the furthest from the heat of God's light, the Sun.
If you believe that there is a verse in the bible that states that the edge is in the south pole, please cite it.
I have given my reasoning. Please do not ignore it.
All the answers are in the Bible, but those answers require thought. Not everything is going to be stated clearly: God wants man to be able to comprehend, not merely obey. The fact the world is flat is stated explicitly and implicitly. For the location of the edge, thought is required.
Give me the verses that you believe can be interpreted to tell us the location of the edge as being the south pole.
"There is no verse that explicitly states that. God requires us to think when we read His words. All the answers are there, not all are explicit."
"Please do not ask the exact same question several times: or, if you do, explain why my answer was not enough."
"The edge must be at a pole. This is obvious from reason: God gave us the capability to think and read His word. All the answers are there, even if all are not explicit. The edge would be surrounded by ice as it is the furthest from the heat of God's light, the Sun."
"The North Pole is crossed far more often, and has land centered around it, so the edge is not there."
Please do not lie.
-
"Please do not ask the exact same question several times: or, if you do, explain why my answer was not enough."
"The edge must be at a pole. This is obvious from reason: God gave us the capability to think and read His word. All the answers are there, even if all are not explicit. The edge would be surrounded by ice as it is the furthest from the heat of God's light, the Sun."
"The North Pole is crossed far more often, and has land centered around it, so the edge is not there."
Please do not lie.
See? None of these are sources or cites from sources, which is what I'm asking for.
"The Holy Bible, as I have said before. My signature gives you one verse, and Matthew 4:8 another (all the kingdoms visible from one location: it must be a plane)."
The Holy Bible, as I have said before. My signature gives you one verse, and Matthew 4:8 another (all the kingdoms visible from one location: it must be a plane).
The edge must be at a pole. This is obvious from reason: God gave us the capability to think and read His word. All the answers are there, even if all are not explicit. The edge would be surrounded by ice as it is the furthest from the heat of God's light, the Sun.
If you believe that there is a verse in the bible that states that the edge is in the south pole, please cite it.
I have given my reasoning. Please do not ignore it.
All the answers are in the Bible, but those answers require thought. Not everything is going to be stated clearly: God wants man to be able to comprehend, not merely obey. The fact the world is flat is stated explicitly and implicitly. For the location of the edge, thought is required.
Give me the verses that you believe can be interpreted to tell us the location of the edge as being the south pole.
"There is no verse that explicitly states that. God requires us to think when we read His words. All the answers are there, not all are explicit."
"Please do not ask the exact same question several times: or, if you do, explain why my answer was not enough."
"The edge must be at a pole. This is obvious from reason: God gave us the capability to think and read His word. All the answers are there, even if all are not explicit. The edge would be surrounded by ice as it is the furthest from the heat of God's light, the Sun."
"The North Pole is crossed far more often, and has land centered around it, so the edge is not there."
Please do not lie.
Damn you're stupid. I'm asking for the text that lead you to the conclusion that the edge is at the south pole. The whole bible is NOT about this. A small part of the bible may be, maybe a couple of verses can be analyzed and lead to the conclusion that the edge is at the south pole. You don't need a whole bible to say that the edge is at the south pole.
-
"Please do not ask the exact same question several times: or, if you do, explain why my answer was not enough."
"The edge must be at a pole. This is obvious from reason: God gave us the capability to think and read His word. All the answers are there, even if all are not explicit. The edge would be surrounded by ice as it is the furthest from the heat of God's light, the Sun."
"The North Pole is crossed far more often, and has land centered around it, so the edge is not there."
Please do not lie.
See? None of these are sources or cites from sources, which is what I'm asking for.
"The Holy Bible, as I have said before. My signature gives you one verse, and Matthew 4:8 another (all the kingdoms visible from one location: it must be a plane)."
The Holy Bible, as I have said before. My signature gives you one verse, and Matthew 4:8 another (all the kingdoms visible from one location: it must be a plane).
The edge must be at a pole. This is obvious from reason: God gave us the capability to think and read His word. All the answers are there, even if all are not explicit. The edge would be surrounded by ice as it is the furthest from the heat of God's light, the Sun.
If you believe that there is a verse in the bible that states that the edge is in the south pole, please cite it.
I have given my reasoning. Please do not ignore it.
All the answers are in the Bible, but those answers require thought. Not everything is going to be stated clearly: God wants man to be able to comprehend, not merely obey. The fact the world is flat is stated explicitly and implicitly. For the location of the edge, thought is required.
Give me the verses that you believe can be interpreted to tell us the location of the edge as being the south pole.
"There is no verse that explicitly states that. God requires us to think when we read His words. All the answers are there, not all are explicit."
"Please do not ask the exact same question several times: or, if you do, explain why my answer was not enough."
"The edge must be at a pole. This is obvious from reason: God gave us the capability to think and read His word. All the answers are there, even if all are not explicit. The edge would be surrounded by ice as it is the furthest from the heat of God's light, the Sun."
"The North Pole is crossed far more often, and has land centered around it, so the edge is not there."
Please do not lie.
Damn you're stupid. I'm asking for the text that lead you to the conclusion that the edge is at the south pole. The whole bible is NOT about this. A small part of the bible may be, maybe a couple of verses can be analyzed and lead to the conclusion that the edge is at the south pole. You don't need a whole bible to say that the edge is at the south pole.
You resort to insults. I have repeated myself enough for you.
"The edge must be at a pole. This is obvious from reason: God gave us the capability to think and read His word. All the answers are there, even if all are not explicit. The edge would be surrounded by ice as it is the furthest from the heat of God's light, the Sun."
"The North Pole is crossed far more often, and has land centered around it, so the edge is not there."
Logic is what tells me the edge is at the South pole: the Sun is always visible somewhere so it does not cross the edge (God would never turn away entirely from His people). Therefore, at the edge there must be ice. Therefore, the edge must be at a pole, and it is clearly not at the North. The Bible is what tells me that there is an edge. Logic is what tells me where. I have given you this logic multiple times before. You are demanding more than is required. I have given you the reason why I think this, and my source for the only part that requires a source.
God's word must be read with thought and an open mind. Every answer is not there, but you cannot insist that every answer must be expressed explicitly. The book would be far too long to be read by anyone, in that case. There is enough information in the Bible for every answer to be found, if you consider the world.
Is this enough or are you going to ask me to repeat myself again with still no explanation of what is wrong with the answer I have given?
-
"Please do not ask the exact same question several times: or, if you do, explain why my answer was not enough."
"The edge must be at a pole. This is obvious from reason: God gave us the capability to think and read His word. All the answers are there, even if all are not explicit. The edge would be surrounded by ice as it is the furthest from the heat of God's light, the Sun."
"The North Pole is crossed far more often, and has land centered around it, so the edge is not there."
Please do not lie.
See? None of these are sources or cites from sources, which is what I'm asking for.
"The Holy Bible, as I have said before. My signature gives you one verse, and Matthew 4:8 another (all the kingdoms visible from one location: it must be a plane)."
The Holy Bible, as I have said before. My signature gives you one verse, and Matthew 4:8 another (all the kingdoms visible from one location: it must be a plane).
The edge must be at a pole. This is obvious from reason: God gave us the capability to think and read His word. All the answers are there, even if all are not explicit. The edge would be surrounded by ice as it is the furthest from the heat of God's light, the Sun.
If you believe that there is a verse in the bible that states that the edge is in the south pole, please cite it.
I have given my reasoning. Please do not ignore it.
All the answers are in the Bible, but those answers require thought. Not everything is going to be stated clearly: God wants man to be able to comprehend, not merely obey. The fact the world is flat is stated explicitly and implicitly. For the location of the edge, thought is required.
Give me the verses that you believe can be interpreted to tell us the location of the edge as being the south pole.
"There is no verse that explicitly states that. God requires us to think when we read His words. All the answers are there, not all are explicit."
"Please do not ask the exact same question several times: or, if you do, explain why my answer was not enough."
"The edge must be at a pole. This is obvious from reason: God gave us the capability to think and read His word. All the answers are there, even if all are not explicit. The edge would be surrounded by ice as it is the furthest from the heat of God's light, the Sun."
"The North Pole is crossed far more often, and has land centered around it, so the edge is not there."
Please do not lie.
Damn you're stupid. I'm asking for the text that lead you to the conclusion that the edge is at the south pole. The whole bible is NOT about this. A small part of the bible may be, maybe a couple of verses can be analyzed and lead to the conclusion that the edge is at the south pole. You don't need a whole bible to say that the edge is at the south pole.
You resort to insults. I have repeated myself enough for you.
"The edge must be at a pole. This is obvious from reason: God gave us the capability to think and read His word. All the answers are there, even if all are not explicit. The edge would be surrounded by ice as it is the furthest from the heat of God's light, the Sun."
"The North Pole is crossed far more often, and has land centered around it, so the edge is not there."
Logic is what tells me the edge is at the South pole: the Sun is always visible somewhere so it does not cross the edge (God would never turn away entirely from His people). Therefore, at the edge there must be ice. Therefore, the edge must be at a pole, and it is clearly not at the North. The Bible is what tells me that there is an edge. Logic is what tells me where. I have given you this logic multiple times before. You are demanding more than is required. I have given you the reason why I think this, and my source for the only part that requires a source.
God's word must be read with thought and an open mind. Every answer is not there, but you cannot insist that every answer must be expressed explicitly. The book would be far too long to be read by anyone, in that case. There is enough information in the Bible for every answer to be found, if you consider the world.
Is this enough or are you going to ask me to repeat myself again with still no explanation of what is wrong with the answer I have given?
Sorry for the insult.
Sorry, but your own logic is not enough to prove your point. You have to have a source, and cite it correctly, which you have not done yet. I am not the one making you repeat yourself - you choose to repeat yourself rather than answering my questions properly. You are just quoting yourself, that is not the same as citing a source. And my logic tells me that the edge can't be at the south pole because thousands of people have been there and not seen it, and I can travel there myself. I have enough hope in humanity to believe that people won't silence themselves as soon as they get some irrefutable proof that the earth is flat and that there is an edge at the south pole.
Also, I also believe that you are misinterpreting the bible, horribly, as it shouldn't stand anywhere where the edge of the earth is, neither explicitly nor implicitly.
-
I have given a source for why the Earth has an edge. From then, it is logic that tells me where this edge must be.
What part of this is not an answer? I am not giving a source for teh simple applictaion of logic, because there is no possible to give a source for that. I have explained my thought process, and my chain of reasoning. That is the closest possible thing that can be given for a source to logic.
If you disagree, that is your choice, but you can no longer lie and claim I have not answered your question.
I believe God does not lie, and I believe He knows what He has wrought. I find it far more likely that humans can be possessed or corrupted to lie, than the Creator of the world does not know what His creation is.
-
You don't need to quote everything every single time. This thread is unreadable.
And fuck off somewhere else with this religious shit.
-
You don't need to quote everything every single time. This thread is unreadable.
And fuck off somewhere else with this religious shit.
Why is God's word unwelcome?
-
You don't need to quote everything every single time. This thread is unreadable.
And fuck off somewhere else with this religious shit.
Why is God's word unwelcome?
Same reason why Krishna's word is not welcome. Or Zeus' or Thor's. Meaningless for the discussion.
-
You don't need to quote everything every single time. This thread is unreadable.
And fuck off somewhere else with this religious shit.
Why is God's word unwelcome?
Same reason why Krishna's word is not welcome. Or Zeus' or Thor's. Meaningless for the discussion.
God, the real One who created the world, will know far more about it than fictional characters and flawed and corruptible humans.
-
I have given a source for why the Earth has an edge. From then, it is logic that tells me where this edge must be.
What part of this is not an answer? I am not giving a source for teh simple applictaion of logic, because there is no possible to give a source for that. I have explained my thought process, and my chain of reasoning. That is the closest possible thing that can be given for a source to logic.
If you disagree, that is your choice, but you can no longer lie and claim I have not answered your question.
I believe God does not lie, and I believe He knows what He has wrought. I find it far more likely that humans can be possessed or corrupted to lie, than the Creator of the world does not know what His creation is.
The bible is too vague. Where in the bible? Which verses? I keep asking this but you refuse to tell me.
-
I have given a source for why the Earth has an edge. From then, it is logic that tells me where this edge must be.
What part of this is not an answer? I am not giving a source for teh simple applictaion of logic, because there is no possible to give a source for that. I have explained my thought process, and my chain of reasoning. That is the closest possible thing that can be given for a source to logic.
If you disagree, that is your choice, but you can no longer lie and claim I have not answered your question.
I believe God does not lie, and I believe He knows what He has wrought. I find it far more likely that humans can be possessed or corrupted to lie, than the Creator of the world does not know what His creation is.
The bible is too vague. Where in the bible? Which verses? I keep asking this but you refuse to tell me.
Isaiah 40:22 and Matthew 4:8 tell us that the world is flat. I have told you this before.
Are you going to insist I provide a verse stating that the edge is in the South Pole again, despite the fact I have never claimed one exists and have explained why one is not needed?
-
I have asked you for evidence that the edge is at the south pole. You said that you know it from the words of god (aka the bible). I am asking you were in the bible it says that the edge is at the south pole. You are the one answering to phantom questions I never ask.
You "explanation" is only based on your own opinions. I am asking for facts, or evidence.
-
I have asked you for evidence that the edge is at the south pole. You said that you know it from the words of god (aka the bible). I am asking you were in the bible it says that the edge is at the south pole. You are the one answering to phantom questions I never ask.
You "explanation" is only based on your own opinions. I am asking for facts, or evidence.
Are you going to insist I provide a verse stating that the edge is in the South Pole again, despite the fact I have never claimed one exists and have explained why one is not needed?
I cannot give a source for a logical deduction. That is an impossible ask. Logic does not allow for sources. This has been explained to you several times. Explain what is wrong with this, or stop repeating the same question over and over. I have answered you every single time, and anyone who reads this thread will see that. You are ignoring my answers. Logical deduction is different from personal opinion.
I directly guessed your next question and you did not so much as acknowledge or respond to it. if all you are going to do is ignore, goodbye. Preaching is wasted on those who have hardened their hearts.
If you are going to do this honestly, let us break this down.
I have:
1. Provided a source for the fact the world is flat.
2. Explained why the edge must be at a pole with simple logic.
3. Explained why it is not at the North with simple logic.
Which of these do you believe I have not done?
If you are going to insist logic cannot be used then no source may be used as it requires logic to read and interpret.
-
I have asked you for evidence that the edge is at the south pole. You said that you know it from the words of god (aka the bible). I am asking you were in the bible it says that the edge is at the south pole. You are the one answering to phantom questions I never ask.
You "explanation" is only based on your own opinions. I am asking for facts, or evidence.
Are you going to insist I provide a verse stating that the edge is in the South Pole again, despite the fact I have never claimed one exists and have explained why one is not needed?
I cannot give a source for a logical deduction. That is an impossible ask. Logic does not allow for sources. This has been explained to you several times. Explain what is wrong with this, or stop repeating the same question over and over. I have answered you every single time, and anyone who reads this thread will see that. You are ignoring my answers. Logical deduction is different from personal opinion.
I directly guessed your next question and you did not so much as acknowledge or respond to it. if all you are going to do is ignore, goodbye. Preaching is wasted on those who have hardened their hearts.
If you are going to do this honestly, let us break this down.
I have:
1. Provided a source for the fact the world is flat.
2. Explained why the edge must be at a pole with simple logic.
3. Explained why it is not at the North with simple logic.
Which of these do you believe I have not done?
If you are going to insist logic cannot be used then no source may be used as it requires logic to read and interpret.
Yes, I insist since I have explained why it is needed.
You have vaguely done 1. You've given a source, but you are misinterpreting it. You have not done 2 or 3, since your logic is based on your own opinions and not the observable reality. You don't have to do 1 in any case, I've never asked for that. All I want to know is where is the edge and what evidence is there? I have provided evidence that the edge is bot there, which decimates your little thought experiment.
-
Yes, I insist since I have explained why it is needed.
You have vaguely done 1. You've given a source, but you are misinterpreting it. You have not done 2 or 3, since your logic is based on your own opinions and not the observable reality. You don't have to do 1 in any case, I've never asked for that. All I want to know is where is the edge and what evidence is there? I have provided evidence that the edge is bot there, which decimates your little thought experiment.
I am giving God's word. You do not get to call it misinterpretation.
How is it opinion to state that the Sun is always visible somewhere? How is it opinion to state that where the Sun does not travel and heat would therefore be the edge and would therefore be covere din ice? How is it opinion to state that the North pole is travelled over enough that it cannot be the edge?
You have provided no evidence that demons could not and would not forge.
-
So Testify is another Bible literalist. Ok, so I have a question then. Which translation of the Bible is correct? Because looking into the differing translations shows many contradictions between them.
Once we get that part out of the way then I have more questions for you. BTW I believe your answer is going to be the King James version, as many of today's literalists use.
-
Just because you are deceived into believing there is not an edge there, does not mean there is no border to the Earth.
Where is it, was the question.
At what you call the South Pole.
Where in the south pole? And how do you know? No one who has been to the south pole has seen an edge. The south pole has been thoroughly explored as well.
I don't know the location to the metre, and even if I did I have no way of explaining that to you because you falsely believe it to be an island. I know because of God's word, I believe this is obvious.
As for the rest:
"Just because you are deceived into believing there is not an edge there, does not mean there is no border to the Earth."
I am not asking you to give us the exact coordinates. But the south pole is a large place. It's like saying "it's in europe" or "it's in the US". It's too vague for an answer. Give us a rough position on a map or something.
What map would you like? It would be impossible to point to it on a globular map because your map of the South Pole is wrong and bears no relationship to reality and so cannot be used. It would be very easy to point to it on a disc map, and you wouldn't need my help.
Any map that you like. As long as it is readable, and it gives a name of the site/area. Or a direction to there from a named site/area.
Here is a map
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection_SW.jpg
You may reach the edge by heading South/outwards from South America, Africa, Oceania...
There are no names, but I'm sure you know what those continents are called.
The map which you cited is simply the representation as a flat map of the earth made by a process known as the Azimuthal Equidistant Projection. This is a projection of the globe. It is also known by its distortion south of the equator. In particular the size and shape of Australia is an example of this distortion. Any attempt to make a flat map of the entire earth is going to show some distortion in some areas. There are many other projections , all made from the globe. The Mercator Projection is another well known projections.
All of these projections have been from the globe because the globe is the true shape of the earth.
There is no flat earth map because the earth is not some flat disc shape.
The continent of Antarctica has been surveyed, mapped, charted and photographed by aerial and satellite methods.
-
Yes, I insist since I have explained why it is needed.
You have vaguely done 1. You've given a source, but you are misinterpreting it. You have not done 2 or 3, since your logic is based on your own opinions and not the observable reality. You don't have to do 1 in any case, I've never asked for that. All I want to know is where is the edge and what evidence is there? I have provided evidence that the edge is bot there, which decimates your little thought experiment.
I am giving God's word. You do not get to call it misinterpretation.
How is it opinion to state that the Sun is always visible somewhere? How is it opinion to state that where the Sun does not travel and heat would therefore be the edge and would therefore be covere din ice? How is it opinion to state that the North pole is travelled over enough that it cannot be the edge?
You have provided no evidence that demons could not and would not forge.
It is your opinion that the edge is at a cold place. Why does it have to be a cold place? We see the sun sink below the horizon, so the sun is no longer in the area. We can also observe midnight sun in the south pole, times where the sun never stops to shine. It also goes around the observer continuously, as if the south pole was the center the sun revolved around. The same thing can be seen at the north pole, during it's summer. That would mean that both the north and the south poles are centers that the sun revolves around, right? The edge can't be at the center, so it can't be at neither the north or south pole. You are right, the sun is always shining on a spot on earth, so when on the south pole and you see the sun revolving around you you know that the sun is always shining on land below it, which means that there is land all around you as you are on the south pole. And this is all according to your logics.
-
So Testify is another Bible literalist. Ok, so I have a question then. Which translation of the Bible is correct? Because looking into the differing translations shows many contradictions between them.
Once we get that part out of the way then I have more questions for you. BTW I believe your answer is going to be the King James version, as many of today's literalists use.
The King James version, yes. It was the first intended for the public, and God would need only one in the dominant language. All others since then are subtle manipulations caused by demons, in an attempt to veil and confuse God's truth.
I have a thread in the religion section to discuss the Bible. This is not the thread for that.
-
Just because you are deceived into believing there is not an edge there, does not mean there is no border to the Earth.
Where is it, was the question.
At what you call the South Pole.
Where in the south pole? And how do you know? No one who has been to the south pole has seen an edge. The south pole has been thoroughly explored as well.
I don't know the location to the metre, and even if I did I have no way of explaining that to you because you falsely believe it to be an island. I know because of God's word, I believe this is obvious.
As for the rest:
"Just because you are deceived into believing there is not an edge there, does not mean there is no border to the Earth."
I am not asking you to give us the exact coordinates. But the south pole is a large place. It's like saying "it's in europe" or "it's in the US". It's too vague for an answer. Give us a rough position on a map or something.
What map would you like? It would be impossible to point to it on a globular map because your map of the South Pole is wrong and bears no relationship to reality and so cannot be used. It would be very easy to point to it on a disc map, and you wouldn't need my help.
Any map that you like. As long as it is readable, and it gives a name of the site/area. Or a direction to there from a named site/area.
Here is a map
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection_SW.jpg
You may reach the edge by heading South/outwards from South America, Africa, Oceania...
There are no names, but I'm sure you know what those continents are called.
The map which you cited is simply the representation as a flat map of the earth made by a process known as the Azimuthal Equidistant Projection. This is a projection of the globe. It is also known by its distortion south of the equator. In particular the size and shape of Australia is an example of this distortion. Any attempt to make a flat map of the entire earth is going to show some distortion in some areas. There are many other projections , all made from the globe. The Mercator Projection is another well known projections.
All of these projections have been from the globe because the globe is the true shape of the earth.
There is no flat earth map because the earth is not some flat disc shape.
The continent of Antarctica has been surveyed, mapped, charted and photographed by aerial and satellite methods.
The projection of the globe was made, by demons, of the true disc. The disc is accurate, and Antartica has not been reliably mapped: the only attempts have been by humans possessed or corrupted by demons, in their attempt to make man rebel against God, and His word of a flat creation.
The map will not be, in detail, accurate as it would be made public by demons to mislead, but in gist it is approximately correct.
-
Yes, I insist since I have explained why it is needed.
You have vaguely done 1. You've given a source, but you are misinterpreting it. You have not done 2 or 3, since your logic is based on your own opinions and not the observable reality. You don't have to do 1 in any case, I've never asked for that. All I want to know is where is the edge and what evidence is there? I have provided evidence that the edge is bot there, which decimates your little thought experiment.
I am giving God's word. You do not get to call it misinterpretation.
How is it opinion to state that the Sun is always visible somewhere? How is it opinion to state that where the Sun does not travel and heat would therefore be the edge and would therefore be covere din ice? How is it opinion to state that the North pole is travelled over enough that it cannot be the edge?
You have provided no evidence that demons could not and would not forge.
It is your opinion that the edge is at a cold place. Why does it have to be a cold place? We see the sun sink below the horizon, so the sun is no longer in the area. We can also observe midnight sun in the south pole, times where the sun never stops to shine. It also goes around the observer continuously, as if the south pole was the center the sun revolved around. The same thing can be seen at the north pole, during it's summer. That would mean that both the north and the south poles are centers that the sun revolves around, right? The edge can't be at the center, so it can't be at neither the north or south pole. You are right, the sun is always shining on a spot on earth, so when on the south pole and you see the sun revolving around you you know that the sun is always shining on land below it, which means that there is land all around you as you are on the south pole. And this is all according to your logics.
We see the Sun everywhere on Earth, at all times, so we know it does not cross down over the edge. This is all we need to know: it will be clear there will be ice, and it will be a cold place in the absence of the Sun.
Observations taken at the wall, whether it be at the North or South, are not reliable because it is the location where demons seek to mislead us.
-
We see the Sun everywhere on Earth, at all times, so we know it does not cross down over the edge. This is all we need to know: it will be clear there will be ice, and it will be a cold place in the absence of the Sun.
Observations taken at the wall, whether it be at the North or South, are not reliable because it is the location where demons seek to mislead us.
No we don't, I'm in Australia, and at the moment I'm writing this it's 10 o'clock Friday Night, I sure can't see the sun. Maybe I'm being misled by demons.
-
We see the Sun everywhere on Earth, at all times, so we know it does not cross down over the edge. This is all we need to know: it will be clear there will be ice, and it will be a cold place in the absence of the Sun.
Observations taken at the wall, whether it be at the North or South, are not reliable because it is the location where demons seek to mislead us.
No we don't, I'm in Australia, and at the moment I'm writing this it's 10 o'clock Friday Night, I sure can't see the sun. Maybe I'm being misled by demons.
You are not everywhere on Earth. It is visible elsewhere. I see it now.
The only one misleading you is your own sinful nature. I have explained myself very clearly.
-
We see the Sun everywhere on Earth, at all times, so we know it does not cross down over the edge. This is all we need to know: it will be clear there will be ice, and it will be a cold place in the absence of the Sun.
Observations taken at the wall, whether it be at the North or South, are not reliable because it is the location where demons seek to mislead us.
If the earth was round it'd have to cross over the horizon, just as we see that it does.
And how could demons mislead so many so much when gods light is shining on them 24/7?
And the north and south poles are cold, but there is only absence of sun during the winters. In the summers they bathe in light.
-
We see the Sun everywhere on Earth, at all times, so we know it does not cross down over the edge. This is all we need to know: it will be clear there will be ice, and it will be a cold place in the absence of the Sun.
Observations taken at the wall, whether it be at the North or South, are not reliable because it is the location where demons seek to mislead us.
No we don't, I'm in Australia, and at the moment I'm writing this it's 10 o'clock Friday Night, I sure can't see the sun. Maybe I'm being misled by demons.
You are not everywhere on Earth. It is visible elsewhere. I see it now.
The only one misleading you is your own sinful nature. I have explained myself very clearly.
My sinful nature? You judge me with zero knowledge, that is a greater sin.
You might be interested to know that the current flat earth view is that Antarctica is just a continent , and the edge lies elsewhere, look up the bipolar model for more info. The view you are pushing is not accepted by the majority of other flat earth believers. But, hey, it's your reality, believe what you want.
-
We see the Sun everywhere on Earth, at all times, so we know it does not cross down over the edge. This is all we need to know: it will be clear there will be ice, and it will be a cold place in the absence of the Sun.
Observations taken at the wall, whether it be at the North or South, are not reliable because it is the location where demons seek to mislead us.
If the earth was round it'd have to cross over the horizon, just as we see that it does.
And how could demons mislead so many so much when gods light is shining on them 24/7?
And the north and south poles are cold, but there is only absence of sun during the winters. In the summers they bathe in light.
The Sun always shines somewhere.
God's light does not shine 24/7 everywhere. He peers away to test us: this is night, when they shine as stars.
Only the barest of light reaches the poles, even in Summers. God would not forgo them entirely, but the poles are the edges: the centre of the Earth, and the edge where our plane meets Hell.
-
We see the Sun everywhere on Earth, at all times, so we know it does not cross down over the edge. This is all we need to know: it will be clear there will be ice, and it will be a cold place in the absence of the Sun.
Observations taken at the wall, whether it be at the North or South, are not reliable because it is the location where demons seek to mislead us.
No we don't, I'm in Australia, and at the moment I'm writing this it's 10 o'clock Friday Night, I sure can't see the sun. Maybe I'm being misled by demons.
You are not everywhere on Earth. It is visible elsewhere. I see it now.
The only one misleading you is your own sinful nature. I have explained myself very clearly.
My sinful nature? You judge me with zero knowledge, that is a greater sin.
You might be interested to know that the current flat earth view is that Antarctica is just a continent , and the edge lies elsewhere, look up the bipolar model for more info. The view you are pushing is not accepted by the majority of other flat earth believers. But, hey, it's your reality, believe what you want.
All humans have sinned. All have asinful nature, the more so when they reject God's word.
I listen to God, not corruptible and foolish humans.
-
We see the Sun everywhere on Earth, at all times, so we know it does not cross down over the edge. This is all we need to know: it will be clear there will be ice, and it will be a cold place in the absence of the Sun.
Observations taken at the wall, whether it be at the North or South, are not reliable because it is the location where demons seek to mislead us.
If the earth was round it'd have to cross over the horizon, just as we see that it does.
And how could demons mislead so many so much when gods light is shining on them 24/7?
And the north and south poles are cold, but there is only absence of sun during the winters. In the summers they bathe in light.
The Sun always shines somewhere.
God's light does not shine 24/7 everywhere. He peers away to test us: this is night, when they shine as stars.
Only the barest of light reaches the poles, even in Summers. God would not forgo them entirely, but the poles are the edges: the centre of the Earth, and the edge where our plane meets Hell.
But both the poels must be centres, as the light goes around them both earth has to be everywhere around both of them. And God would surely not let the demons mess with his light right?
-
We see the Sun everywhere on Earth, at all times, so we know it does not cross down over the edge. This is all we need to know: it will be clear there will be ice, and it will be a cold place in the absence of the Sun.
Observations taken at the wall, whether it be at the North or South, are not reliable because it is the location where demons seek to mislead us.
If the earth was round it'd have to cross over the horizon, just as we see that it does.
And how could demons mislead so many so much when gods light is shining on them 24/7?
And the north and south poles are cold, but there is only absence of sun during the winters. In the summers they bathe in light.
The Sun always shines somewhere.
God's light does not shine 24/7 everywhere. He peers away to test us: this is night, when they shine as stars.
Only the barest of light reaches the poles, even in Summers. God would not forgo them entirely, but the poles are the edges: the centre of the Earth, and the edge where our plane meets Hell.
But both the poels must be centres, as the light goes around them both earth has to be everywhere around both of them. And God would surely not let the demons mess with his light right?
Light does not go around both the poles. It moves horizontally in the distance.
Demons cannot mess with God's light: they can still deceive or possess or corrupt humans to lie. Few go to Antarctica, and there is even a movement to stop all travel there.
-
We see the Sun everywhere on Earth, at all times, so we know it does not cross down over the edge. This is all we need to know: it will be clear there will be ice, and it will be a cold place in the absence of the Sun.
Observations taken at the wall, whether it be at the North or South, are not reliable because it is the location where demons seek to mislead us.
If the earth was round it'd have to cross over the horizon, just as we see that it does.
And how could demons mislead so many so much when gods light is shining on them 24/7?
And the north and south poles are cold, but there is only absence of sun during the winters. In the summers they bathe in light.
The Sun always shines somewhere.
God's light does not shine 24/7 everywhere. He peers away to test us: this is night, when they shine as stars.
Only the barest of light reaches the poles, even in Summers. God would not forgo them entirely, but the poles are the edges: the centre of the Earth, and the edge where our plane meets Hell.
But both the poels must be centres, as the light goes around them both earth has to be everywhere around both of them. And God would surely not let the demons mess with his light right?
Light does not go around both the poles. It moves horizontally in the distance.
Demons cannot mess with God's light: they can still deceive or possess or corrupt humans to lie. Few go to Antarctica, and there is even a movement to stop all travel there.
That is in fact a genuine lie from you. A LOT of people go to antarctica, and there is no movement what-so-ever to stop travel to antarctica. You sound like one of the deceiving demons you are saying are trying to deceive us.
-
We see the Sun everywhere on Earth, at all times, so we know it does not cross down over the edge. This is all we need to know: it will be clear there will be ice, and it will be a cold place in the absence of the Sun.
Observations taken at the wall, whether it be at the North or South, are not reliable because it is the location where demons seek to mislead us.
If the earth was round it'd have to cross over the horizon, just as we see that it does.
And how could demons mislead so many so much when gods light is shining on them 24/7?
And the north and south poles are cold, but there is only absence of sun during the winters. In the summers they bathe in light.
The Sun always shines somewhere.
God's light does not shine 24/7 everywhere. He peers away to test us: this is night, when they shine as stars.
Only the barest of light reaches the poles, even in Summers. God would not forgo them entirely, but the poles are the edges: the centre of the Earth, and the edge where our plane meets Hell.
But both the poels must be centres, as the light goes around them both earth has to be everywhere around both of them. And God would surely not let the demons mess with his light right?
Light does not go around both the poles. It moves horizontally in the distance.
Demons cannot mess with God's light: they can still deceive or possess or corrupt humans to lie. Few go to Antarctica, and there is even a movement to stop all travel there.
That is in fact a genuine lie from you. A LOT of people go to antarctica, and there is no movement what-so-ever to stop travel to antarctica. You sound like one of the deceiving demons you are saying are trying to deceive us.
http://www.coolantarctica.com/Antarctica%20fact%20file/science/threats_tourism.php (http://www.coolantarctica.com/Antarctica%20fact%20file/science/threats_tourism.php)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30709924 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30709924)
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/jun/06/antarctica.antarctica (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/jun/06/antarctica.antarctica)
Those took me approximately five seconds to find. Do not say what you would like to be true, say what is true. How many cross Antarctica? How many see any more than the fringes? How many go there, compared to the total number of humans, or the stars in the sky?
-
We see the Sun everywhere on Earth, at all times, so we know it does not cross down over the edge. This is all we need to know: it will be clear there will be ice, and it will be a cold place in the absence of the Sun.
Observations taken at the wall, whether it be at the North or South, are not reliable because it is the location where demons seek to mislead us.
If the earth was round it'd have to cross over the horizon, just as we see that it does.
And how could demons mislead so many so much when gods light is shining on them 24/7?
And the north and south poles are cold, but there is only absence of sun during the winters. In the summers they bathe in light.
The Sun always shines somewhere.
God's light does not shine 24/7 everywhere. He peers away to test us: this is night, when they shine as stars.
Only the barest of light reaches the poles, even in Summers. God would not forgo them entirely, but the poles are the edges: the centre of the Earth, and the edge where our plane meets Hell.
But both the poels must be centres, as the light goes around them both earth has to be everywhere around both of them. And God would surely not let the demons mess with his light right?
Light does not go around both the poles. It moves horizontally in the distance.
Demons cannot mess with God's light: they can still deceive or possess or corrupt humans to lie. Few go to Antarctica, and there is even a movement to stop all travel there.
That is in fact a genuine lie from you. A LOT of people go to antarctica, and there is no movement what-so-ever to stop travel to antarctica. You sound like one of the deceiving demons you are saying are trying to deceive us.
http://www.coolantarctica.com/Antarctica%20fact%20file/science/threats_tourism.php (http://www.coolantarctica.com/Antarctica%20fact%20file/science/threats_tourism.php)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30709924 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30709924)
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/jun/06/antarctica.antarctica (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/jun/06/antarctica.antarctica)
Those took me approximately five seconds to find. Do not say what you would like to be true, say what is true. How many cross Antarctica? How many see any more than the fringes? How many go there, compared to the total number of humans, or the stars in the sky?
1. They disprove your claim that few visit antarctica, so at least that was a lie from you.
2. None of these are against tourism itself. It's against the tourists and the means of transportation. Oil spills and trash left there is indeed really bad. And getting too close to the animal life is not too good either. But that is just controlling the tourism so that it doesn't disturb the wildlife. Tourism is actually seen as a positive side in itself according to all those sources, so you disproved yourself. And I did google and find similar ones in fact, which is why I wrote what I wrote: You were lying, since none of your claims were true.
-
We see the Sun everywhere on Earth, at all times, so we know it does not cross down over the edge. This is all we need to know: it will be clear there will be ice, and it will be a cold place in the absence of the Sun.
Observations taken at the wall, whether it be at the North or South, are not reliable because it is the location where demons seek to mislead us.
If the earth was round it'd have to cross over the horizon, just as we see that it does.
And how could demons mislead so many so much when gods light is shining on them 24/7?
And the north and south poles are cold, but there is only absence of sun during the winters. In the summers they bathe in light.
The Sun always shines somewhere.
God's light does not shine 24/7 everywhere. He peers away to test us: this is night, when they shine as stars.
Only the barest of light reaches the poles, even in Summers. God would not forgo them entirely, but the poles are the edges: the centre of the Earth, and the edge where our plane meets Hell.
But both the poels must be centres, as the light goes around them both earth has to be everywhere around both of them. And God would surely not let the demons mess with his light right?
Light does not go around both the poles. It moves horizontally in the distance.
Demons cannot mess with God's light: they can still deceive or possess or corrupt humans to lie. Few go to Antarctica, and there is even a movement to stop all travel there.
That is in fact a genuine lie from you. A LOT of people go to antarctica, and there is no movement what-so-ever to stop travel to antarctica. You sound like one of the deceiving demons you are saying are trying to deceive us.
http://www.coolantarctica.com/Antarctica%20fact%20file/science/threats_tourism.php (http://www.coolantarctica.com/Antarctica%20fact%20file/science/threats_tourism.php)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30709924 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30709924)
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/jun/06/antarctica.antarctica (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/jun/06/antarctica.antarctica)
Those took me approximately five seconds to find. Do not say what you would like to be true, say what is true. How many cross Antarctica? How many see any more than the fringes? How many go there, compared to the total number of humans, or the stars in the sky?
1. They disprove your claim that few visit antarctica, so at least that was a lie from you.
2. None of these are against tourism itself. It's against the tourists and the means of transportation. Oil spills and trash left there is indeed really bad. And getting too close to the animal life is not too good either. But that is just controlling the tourism so that it doesn't disturb the wildlife. Tourism is actually seen as a positive side in itself according to all those sources, so you disproved yourself. And I did google and find similar ones in fact, which is why I wrote what I wrote: You were lying, since none of your claims were true.
Few means different things in different contexts. I assumed you would be honest enough to realize what context we are working in.
Do you expect demons to be completely truthful? They are insisting Antarctica be less accessible. Consider why.
-
We see the Sun everywhere on Earth, at all times, so we know it does not cross down over the edge. This is all we need to know: it will be clear there will be ice, and it will be a cold place in the absence of the Sun.
Observations taken at the wall, whether it be at the North or South, are not reliable because it is the location where demons seek to mislead us.
If the earth was round it'd have to cross over the horizon, just as we see that it does.
And how could demons mislead so many so much when gods light is shining on them 24/7?
And the north and south poles are cold, but there is only absence of sun during the winters. In the summers they bathe in light.
The Sun always shines somewhere.
God's light does not shine 24/7 everywhere. He peers away to test us: this is night, when they shine as stars.
Only the barest of light reaches the poles, even in Summers. God would not forgo them entirely, but the poles are the edges: the centre of the Earth, and the edge where our plane meets Hell.
But both the poels must be centres, as the light goes around them both earth has to be everywhere around both of them. And God would surely not let the demons mess with his light right?
Light does not go around both the poles. It moves horizontally in the distance.
Demons cannot mess with God's light: they can still deceive or possess or corrupt humans to lie. Few go to Antarctica, and there is even a movement to stop all travel there.
That is in fact a genuine lie from you. A LOT of people go to antarctica, and there is no movement what-so-ever to stop travel to antarctica. You sound like one of the deceiving demons you are saying are trying to deceive us.
http://www.coolantarctica.com/Antarctica%20fact%20file/science/threats_tourism.php (http://www.coolantarctica.com/Antarctica%20fact%20file/science/threats_tourism.php)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30709924 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30709924)
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/jun/06/antarctica.antarctica (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/jun/06/antarctica.antarctica)
Those took me approximately five seconds to find. Do not say what you would like to be true, say what is true. How many cross Antarctica? How many see any more than the fringes? How many go there, compared to the total number of humans, or the stars in the sky?
1. They disprove your claim that few visit antarctica, so at least that was a lie from you.
2. None of these are against tourism itself. It's against the tourists and the means of transportation. Oil spills and trash left there is indeed really bad. And getting too close to the animal life is not too good either. But that is just controlling the tourism so that it doesn't disturb the wildlife. Tourism is actually seen as a positive side in itself according to all those sources, so you disproved yourself. And I did google and find similar ones in fact, which is why I wrote what I wrote: You were lying, since none of your claims were true.
Few means different things in different contexts. I assumed you would be honest enough to realize what context we are working in.
Do you expect demons to be completely truthful? They are insisting Antarctica be less accessible. Consider why.
I know what context we are in. 20-40 thousand is a lot of people, not few. And that is every year.
-
We see the Sun everywhere on Earth, at all times, so we know it does not cross down over the edge. This is all we need to know: it will be clear there will be ice, and it will be a cold place in the absence of the Sun.
Observations taken at the wall, whether it be at the North or South, are not reliable because it is the location where demons seek to mislead us.
If the earth was round it'd have to cross over the horizon, just as we see that it does.
And how could demons mislead so many so much when gods light is shining on them 24/7?
And the north and south poles are cold, but there is only absence of sun during the winters. In the summers they bathe in light.
The Sun always shines somewhere.
God's light does not shine 24/7 everywhere. He peers away to test us: this is night, when they shine as stars.
Only the barest of light reaches the poles, even in Summers. God would not forgo them entirely, but the poles are the edges: the centre of the Earth, and the edge where our plane meets Hell.
But both the poels must be centres, as the light goes around them both earth has to be everywhere around both of them. And God would surely not let the demons mess with his light right?
Light does not go around both the poles. It moves horizontally in the distance.
Demons cannot mess with God's light: they can still deceive or possess or corrupt humans to lie. Few go to Antarctica, and there is even a movement to stop all travel there.
That is in fact a genuine lie from you. A LOT of people go to antarctica, and there is no movement what-so-ever to stop travel to antarctica. You sound like one of the deceiving demons you are saying are trying to deceive us.
http://www.coolantarctica.com/Antarctica%20fact%20file/science/threats_tourism.php (http://www.coolantarctica.com/Antarctica%20fact%20file/science/threats_tourism.php)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30709924 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30709924)
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/jun/06/antarctica.antarctica (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/jun/06/antarctica.antarctica)
Those took me approximately five seconds to find. Do not say what you would like to be true, say what is true. How many cross Antarctica? How many see any more than the fringes? How many go there, compared to the total number of humans, or the stars in the sky?
1. They disprove your claim that few visit antarctica, so at least that was a lie from you.
2. None of these are against tourism itself. It's against the tourists and the means of transportation. Oil spills and trash left there is indeed really bad. And getting too close to the animal life is not too good either. But that is just controlling the tourism so that it doesn't disturb the wildlife. Tourism is actually seen as a positive side in itself according to all those sources, so you disproved yourself. And I did google and find similar ones in fact, which is why I wrote what I wrote: You were lying, since none of your claims were true.
Few means different things in different contexts. I assumed you would be honest enough to realize what context we are working in.
Do you expect demons to be completely truthful? They are insisting Antarctica be less accessible. Consider why.
I know what context we are in. 20-40 thousand is a lot of people, not few. And that is every year.
How many people are in the world? How many stars are in the sky?
And how many of those thousands who claim to go to Antarctica cross it, or journey anywhere close to where the edge would be: and how many simply go to predetermined and pre-allowed areas to rest and be entertained by penguins?
-
How many people are in the world? How many stars are in the sky?
And how many of those thousands who claim to go to Antarctica cross it, or journey anywhere close to where the edge would be: and how many simply go to predetermined and pre-allowed areas to rest and be entertained by penguins?
The deal with the stars is that the more you magnify the sky the more you can see. If you ground the entire Earth into sand then the number of particles that would yield would be orders of magnitude smaller then the number of stars that can be seen with scientific equipment. Needless to say, that outnumbers every human that has ever or will ever exist. Also, nobody has noticed any stars appearing even though many people are being born and killed every day.
You can actually book a flight over Antarctica if you feel so inclined and have the money. Many people have done it and there have so far been no reports of falling off the edge of the Earth. I could give you a link to the website where you can book these tickets if you want.
-
How many people are in the world? How many stars are in the sky?
And how many of those thousands who claim to go to Antarctica cross it, or journey anywhere close to where the edge would be: and how many simply go to predetermined and pre-allowed areas to rest and be entertained by penguins?
The deal with the stars is that the more you magnify the sky the more you can see. If you ground the entire Earth into sand then the number of particles that would yield would be orders of magnitude smaller then the number of stars that can be seen with scientific equipment. Needless to say, that outnumbers every human that has ever or will ever exist. Also, nobody has noticed any stars appearing even though many people are being born and killed every day.
You can actually book a flight over Antarctica if you feel so inclined and have the money. Many people have done it and there have so far been no reports of falling off the edge of the Earth. I could give you a link to the website where you can book these tickets if you want.
Why would stars appear because people are born and killed? They are demons. The only celestial object that would have appeared with a birth is the moon, two thousand years ago.
Just because you believe a plane travels over the Antarctic does not mean it does.
-
Why would stars appear because people are born and killed? They are demons. The only celestial object that would have appeared with a birth is the moon, two thousand years ago.
Just because you believe a plane travels over the Antarctic does not mean it does.
According to Genisis only 1/3 of all people became deamons. Are you suggesting that the number of people that has ever and will ever live is such a ridiculous number?
Antarctica is about as easy to identify as the the back of your hand. Where else do the southern stars rotate counter clockwise around appoint directly above you?
-
According to Genisis only 1/3 of all people became deamons. Are you suggesting that the number of people that has ever and will ever live is such a ridiculous number?
People do not become demons, it is angels who fall. We may observe many similar angels in the sky: the worlds blasphemously named after Pagan deities, so-called asteroids, as well as all those that do battle when demons seek to enter heaven and cause 'sunspots'.
Antarctica is about as easy to identify as the the back of your hand. Where else do the southern stars rotate counter clockwise around appoint directly above you?
The stars are demons. Observations taken from them are not to be trusted.
-
Why would stars appear because people are born and killed? They are demons. The only celestial object that would have appeared with a birth is the moon, two thousand years ago.
Just because you believe a plane travels over the Antarctic does not mean it does.
According to Genisis only 1/3 of all people became deamons. Are you suggesting that the number of people that has ever and will ever live is such a ridiculous number?
Antarctica is about as easy to identify as the the back of your hand. Where else do the southern stars rotate counter clockwise around appoint directly above you?
Where else does the sun (Gods light, remmeber the "demons" are deceiving) does this as well?
-
Why would stars appear because people are born and killed? They are demons. The only celestial object that would have appeared with a birth is the moon, two thousand years ago.
Just because you believe a plane travels over the Antarctic does not mean it does.
According to Genisis only 1/3 of all people became deamons. Are you suggesting that the number of people that has ever and will ever live is such a ridiculous number?
Antarctica is about as easy to identify as the the back of your hand. Where else do the southern stars rotate counter clockwise around appoint directly above you?
Where else does the sun (Gods light, remmeber the "demons" are deceiving) does this as well?
Do what? The Sun is not spoken of in what you quote.
-
Why would stars appear because people are born and killed? They are demons. The only celestial object that would have appeared with a birth is the moon, two thousand years ago.
Just because you believe a plane travels over the Antarctic does not mean it does.
According to Genisis only 1/3 of all people became deamons. Are you suggesting that the number of people that has ever and will ever live is such a ridiculous number?
Antarctica is about as easy to identify as the the back of your hand. Where else do the southern stars rotate counter clockwise around appoint directly above you?
Where else does the sun (Gods light, remmeber the "demons" are deceiving) does this as well?
Do what? The Sun is not spoken of in what you quote.
rotate counter clockwise around appoint directly above you?
^ What the sun does ^
Since you need to be spoonfed information.
-
Why would stars appear because people are born and killed? They are demons. The only celestial object that would have appeared with a birth is the moon, two thousand years ago.
Just because you believe a plane travels over the Antarctic does not mean it does.
According to Genisis only 1/3 of all people became deamons. Are you suggesting that the number of people that has ever and will ever live is such a ridiculous number?
Antarctica is about as easy to identify as the the back of your hand. Where else do the southern stars rotate counter clockwise around appoint directly above you?
Where else does the sun (Gods light, remmeber the "demons" are deceiving) does this as well?
Do what? The Sun is not spoken of in what you quote.
rotate counter clockwise around appoint directly above you?
^ What the sun does ^
Since you need to be spoonfed information.
This is not what was said. They referred specifically to the Southern Stars.
The Sun is not visible at the poles.
-
Why would stars appear because people are born and killed? They are demons. The only celestial object that would have appeared with a birth is the moon, two thousand years ago.
Just because you believe a plane travels over the Antarctic does not mean it does.
According to Genisis only 1/3 of all people became deamons. Are you suggesting that the number of people that has ever and will ever live is such a ridiculous number?
Antarctica is about as easy to identify as the the back of your hand. Where else do the southern stars rotate counter clockwise around appoint directly above you?
Where else does the sun (Gods light, remmeber the "demons" are deceiving) does this as well?
Do what? The Sun is not spoken of in what you quote.
rotate counter clockwise around appoint directly above you?
^ What the sun does ^
Since you need to be spoonfed information.
This is not what was said. They referred specifically to the Southern Stars.
The Sun is not visible at the poles.
I never said he said that. I just said that is what the sun does.
The Sun is not visible at the poles.
You said yourself that the sun shines at the poles. You just proved yourself to be a liar.
-
This is not what was said. They referred specifically to the Southern Stars.
The Sun is not visible at the poles.
The Sun tends to move more or less in the same way as the stars. The Sun is in fact visible on the poles but only when it's not winter. As you (hopefully) know, the Northern and Southern Hemispheres have opposite seasons. On both piles the Sun doesn't show it's self for months in the winter and during the Summer something happens called the midnight Sun where the Sun travels in circles around you but never sets for a few months. This happens on both poles including Antarctica which is impossible on a round Earth. Either God is trying to trick us into thinking that Earth is round or Earth is actually round.
-
Why would stars appear because people are born and killed? They are demons. The only celestial object that would have appeared with a birth is the moon, two thousand years ago.
Just because you believe a plane travels over the Antarctic does not mean it does.
According to Genisis only 1/3 of all people became deamons. Are you suggesting that the number of people that has ever and will ever live is such a ridiculous number?
Antarctica is about as easy to identify as the the back of your hand. Where else do the southern stars rotate counter clockwise around appoint directly above you?
Where else does the sun (Gods light, remmeber the "demons" are deceiving) does this as well?
Do what? The Sun is not spoken of in what you quote.
rotate counter clockwise around appoint directly above you?
^ What the sun does ^
Since you need to be spoonfed information.
This is not what was said. They referred specifically to the Southern Stars.
The Sun is not visible at the poles.
I never said he said that. I just said that is what the sun does.
The Sun is not visible at the poles.
You said yourself that the sun shines at the poles. You just proved yourself to be a liar.
You have accused me of dishonesty many times. Every single time it has been shown that you are the one bearing false witness.
God's light is visible at the pole: this does not mean the Sun is. If you turn a light on in your room, and walk outside, you may see the light even if you do not see the bulb. The edge of the world is closest to Hell, where God has withdrawn his presence and cast them into darkness.
-
This is not what was said. They referred specifically to the Southern Stars.
The Sun is not visible at the poles.
The Sun tends to move more or less in the same way as the stars. The Sun is in fact visible on the poles but only when it's not winter. As you (hopefully) know, the Northern and Southern Hemispheres have opposite seasons. On both piles the Sun doesn't show it's self for months in the winter and during the Summer something happens called the midnight Sun where the Sun travels in circles around you but never sets for a few months. This happens on both poles including Antarctica which is impossible on a round Earth. Either God is trying to trick us into thinking that Earth is round or Earth is actually round.
*Impossible on a flat earth.
-
This is not what was said. They referred specifically to the Southern Stars.
The Sun is not visible at the poles.
The Sun tends to move more or less in the same way as the stars. The Sun is in fact visible on the poles but only when it's not winter. As you (hopefully) know, the Northern and Southern Hemispheres have opposite seasons. On both piles the Sun doesn't show it's self for months in the winter and during the Summer something happens called the midnight Sun where the Sun travels in circles around you but never sets for a few months. This happens on both poles including Antarctica which is impossible on a round Earth. Either God is trying to trick us into thinking that Earth is round or Earth is actually round.
It is demons who deceive, not God. God allows them to in order to test us.
-
Why would stars appear because people are born and killed? They are demons. The only celestial object that would have appeared with a birth is the moon, two thousand years ago.
Just because you believe a plane travels over the Antarctic does not mean it does.
According to Genisis only 1/3 of all people became deamons. Are you suggesting that the number of people that has ever and will ever live is such a ridiculous number?
Antarctica is about as easy to identify as the the back of your hand. Where else do the southern stars rotate counter clockwise around appoint directly above you?
Where else does the sun (Gods light, remmeber the "demons" are deceiving) does this as well?
Do what? The Sun is not spoken of in what you quote.
rotate counter clockwise around appoint directly above you?
^ What the sun does ^
Since you need to be spoonfed information.
This is not what was said. They referred specifically to the Southern Stars.
The Sun is not visible at the poles.
I never said he said that. I just said that is what the sun does.
The Sun is not visible at the poles.
You said yourself that the sun shines at the poles. You just proved yourself to be a liar.
You have accused me of dishonesty many times. Every single time it has been shown that you are the one bearing false witness.
God's light is visible at the pole: this does not mean the Sun is. If you turn a light on in your room, and walk outside, you may see the light even if you do not see the bulb. The edge of the world is closest to Hell, where God has withdrawn his presence and cast them into darkness.
But the sun is definitely visible at the poles, and you said that the sun is gods light. If the sun is not visible then gods light is not. You can see the light from the room a lightbulb you can't see is illuminating, but the poles themselves are illuminated so the sun must be visible; it's bright as day. Also there is a big light in the sky which looks just like the sun.
You have accused me of dishonesty many times. Every single time it has been shown that you are the one bearing false witness.
Nope, not once have you even tried to counter me.
-
It is demons who deceive, not God. God allows them to in order to test us.
Then why does the Sun move in a way that's impossible on a flat Earth and makes perfect sense on a round Earth?
God made the Sun, so does God lie or is the Earth round? One of those must be true.
-
Why would stars appear because people are born and killed? They are demons. The only celestial object that would have appeared with a birth is the moon, two thousand years ago.
Just because you believe a plane travels over the Antarctic does not mean it does.
According to Genisis only 1/3 of all people became deamons. Are you suggesting that the number of people that has ever and will ever live is such a ridiculous number?
Antarctica is about as easy to identify as the the back of your hand. Where else do the southern stars rotate counter clockwise around appoint directly above you?
Where else does the sun (Gods light, remmeber the "demons" are deceiving) does this as well?
Do what? The Sun is not spoken of in what you quote.
rotate counter clockwise around appoint directly above you?
^ What the sun does ^
Since you need to be spoonfed information.
This is not what was said. They referred specifically to the Southern Stars.
The Sun is not visible at the poles.
I never said he said that. I just said that is what the sun does.
The Sun is not visible at the poles.
You said yourself that the sun shines at the poles. You just proved yourself to be a liar.
You have accused me of dishonesty many times. Every single time it has been shown that you are the one bearing false witness.
God's light is visible at the pole: this does not mean the Sun is. If you turn a light on in your room, and walk outside, you may see the light even if you do not see the bulb. The edge of the world is closest to Hell, where God has withdrawn his presence and cast them into darkness.
But the sun is definitely visible at the poles, and you said that the sun is gods light. If the sun is not visible then gods light is not. You can see the light from the room a lightbulb you can't see is illuminating, but the poles themselves are illuminated so the sun must be visible; it's bright as day. Also there is a big light in the sky which looks just like the sun.
You have accused me of dishonesty many times. Every single time it has been shown that you are the one bearing false witness.
Nope, not once have you even tried to counter me.
A pale imitation of the Sun is visible at the poles. It does not follow God's path, and does not shine with the same brightness or heat.
You lie once more. You pretended there was no movement to discourage tourism to Antarctica, and there was. You claimed I had not answered your question, and I had. You claimed my justification was personal opinion, and it was not: you swiftly ignored all of this once it was pointed out to you.
Exodus 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
-
Why would stars appear because people are born and killed? They are demons. The only celestial object that would have appeared with a birth is the moon, two thousand years ago.
Just because you believe a plane travels over the Antarctic does not mean it does.
According to Genisis only 1/3 of all people became deamons. Are you suggesting that the number of people that has ever and will ever live is such a ridiculous number?
Antarctica is about as easy to identify as the the back of your hand. Where else do the southern stars rotate counter clockwise around appoint directly above you?
Where else does the sun (Gods light, remmeber the "demons" are deceiving) does this as well?
Do what? The Sun is not spoken of in what you quote.
rotate counter clockwise around appoint directly above you?
^ What the sun does ^
Since you need to be spoonfed information.
This is not what was said. They referred specifically to the Southern Stars.
The Sun is not visible at the poles.
I never said he said that. I just said that is what the sun does.
The Sun is not visible at the poles.
You said yourself that the sun shines at the poles. You just proved yourself to be a liar.
You have accused me of dishonesty many times. Every single time it has been shown that you are the one bearing false witness.
God's light is visible at the pole: this does not mean the Sun is. If you turn a light on in your room, and walk outside, you may see the light even if you do not see the bulb. The edge of the world is closest to Hell, where God has withdrawn his presence and cast them into darkness.
But the sun is definitely visible at the poles, and you said that the sun is gods light. If the sun is not visible then gods light is not. You can see the light from the room a lightbulb you can't see is illuminating, but the poles themselves are illuminated so the sun must be visible; it's bright as day. Also there is a big light in the sky which looks just like the sun.
You have accused me of dishonesty many times. Every single time it has been shown that you are the one bearing false witness.
Nope, not once have you even tried to counter me.
A pale imitation of the Sun is visible at the poles. It does not follow God's path, and does not shine with the same brightness or heat.
You lie once more. You pretended there was no movement to discourage tourism to Antarctica, and there was. You claimed I had not answered your question, and I had. You claimed my justification was personal opinion, and it was not: you swiftly ignored all of this once it was pointed out to you.
Exodus 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
You are lying. There are no movements to stop tourism, only movements to decrease impact on the exosystems from tourism. Also, you did not answer my questions directly. And you basing your claims on "it's logical" does not make it backed up, it's still only your opinion.
So I guess you just sinned yourself. Sure you are no demon?
-
Why would stars appear because people are born and killed? They are demons. The only celestial object that would have appeared with a birth is the moon, two thousand years ago.
Just because you believe a plane travels over the Antarctic does not mean it does.
According to Genisis only 1/3 of all people became deamons. Are you suggesting that the number of people that has ever and will ever live is such a ridiculous number?
Antarctica is about as easy to identify as the the back of your hand. Where else do the southern stars rotate counter clockwise around appoint directly above you?
Where else does the sun (Gods light, remmeber the "demons" are deceiving) does this as well?
Do what? The Sun is not spoken of in what you quote.
rotate counter clockwise around appoint directly above you?
^ What the sun does ^
Since you need to be spoonfed information.
This is not what was said. They referred specifically to the Southern Stars.
The Sun is not visible at the poles.
I never said he said that. I just said that is what the sun does.
The Sun is not visible at the poles.
You said yourself that the sun shines at the poles. You just proved yourself to be a liar.
You have accused me of dishonesty many times. Every single time it has been shown that you are the one bearing false witness.
God's light is visible at the pole: this does not mean the Sun is. If you turn a light on in your room, and walk outside, you may see the light even if you do not see the bulb. The edge of the world is closest to Hell, where God has withdrawn his presence and cast them into darkness.
But the sun is definitely visible at the poles, and you said that the sun is gods light. If the sun is not visible then gods light is not. You can see the light from the room a lightbulb you can't see is illuminating, but the poles themselves are illuminated so the sun must be visible; it's bright as day. Also there is a big light in the sky which looks just like the sun.
You have accused me of dishonesty many times. Every single time it has been shown that you are the one bearing false witness.
Nope, not once have you even tried to counter me.
A pale imitation of the Sun is visible at the poles. It does not follow God's path, and does not shine with the same brightness or heat.
You lie once more. You pretended there was no movement to discourage tourism to Antarctica, and there was. You claimed I had not answered your question, and I had. You claimed my justification was personal opinion, and it was not: you swiftly ignored all of this once it was pointed out to you.
Exodus 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
You are lying. There are no movements to stop tourism, only movements to decrease impact on the exosystems from tourism. Also, you did not answer my questions directly. And you basing your claims on "it's logical" does not make it backed up, it's still only your opinion.
So I guess you just sinned yourself. Sure you are no demon?
Movements to decrease impact how? It discourages tourism.
You ask many things. I answer many directly, which indirectly contain the answers to your others: far easier than repeating myself. I am assuming you will be honest.
Logical deductions for simple facts are not an opinion.
Do not lie.
-
Logical deductions for simple facts are not an opinion.
For something to be a fact it has to be backed up by observable evidence. If that's not the case then it's an opinion.
-
Logical deductions for simple facts are not an opinion.
For something to be a fact it has to be backed up by observable evidence. If that's not the case then it's an opinion.
This was what I gave. We observe that the Sun is always visible at some point on Earth. Therefore it does not cross over the edge, therefore the edge would be somewhere colder.
-
Why would stars appear because people are born and killed? They are demons. The only celestial object that would have appeared with a birth is the moon, two thousand years ago.
Just because you believe a plane travels over the Antarctic does not mean it does.
According to Genisis only 1/3 of all people became deamons. Are you suggesting that the number of people that has ever and will ever live is such a ridiculous number?
Antarctica is about as easy to identify as the the back of your hand. Where else do the southern stars rotate counter clockwise around appoint directly above you?
Where else does the sun (Gods light, remmeber the "demons" are deceiving) does this as well?
Do what? The Sun is not spoken of in what you quote.
rotate counter clockwise around appoint directly above you?
^ What the sun does ^
Since you need to be spoonfed information.
This is not what was said. They referred specifically to the Southern Stars.
The Sun is not visible at the poles.
I never said he said that. I just said that is what the sun does.
The Sun is not visible at the poles.
You said yourself that the sun shines at the poles. You just proved yourself to be a liar.
You have accused me of dishonesty many times. Every single time it has been shown that you are the one bearing false witness.
God's light is visible at the pole: this does not mean the Sun is. If you turn a light on in your room, and walk outside, you may see the light even if you do not see the bulb. The edge of the world is closest to Hell, where God has withdrawn his presence and cast them into darkness.
But the sun is definitely visible at the poles, and you said that the sun is gods light. If the sun is not visible then gods light is not. You can see the light from the room a lightbulb you can't see is illuminating, but the poles themselves are illuminated so the sun must be visible; it's bright as day. Also there is a big light in the sky which looks just like the sun.
You have accused me of dishonesty many times. Every single time it has been shown that you are the one bearing false witness.
Nope, not once have you even tried to counter me.
A pale imitation of the Sun is visible at the poles. It does not follow God's path, and does not shine with the same brightness or heat.
You lie once more. You pretended there was no movement to discourage tourism to Antarctica, and there was. You claimed I had not answered your question, and I had. You claimed my justification was personal opinion, and it was not: you swiftly ignored all of this once it was pointed out to you.
Exodus 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
You are lying. There are no movements to stop tourism, only movements to decrease impact on the exosystems from tourism. Also, you did not answer my questions directly. And you basing your claims on "it's logical" does not make it backed up, it's still only your opinion.
So I guess you just sinned yourself. Sure you are no demon?
Movements to decrease impact how? It discourages tourism.
You ask many things. I answer many directly, which indirectly contain the answers to your others: far easier than repeating myself. I am assuming you will be honest.
Logical deductions for simple facts are not an opinion.
Do not lie.
No, it does not discourage tourism. If you think so you didn't even read through these articles yourself.
It was earlier that you didn't answer directly to my questions. If you want to I can dig it up.
"Logical deductions"? You assumed that the edge has to be somewhere cold because the sun never leaves earth? Sorry, but these do not connect. And did you forget my logical deduction which was based on part of your "logical deduction" (sun never leaves earth), where the sun during a south pole summer appears to make laps around the observer, which means that the earth is everywhere around the observer, and therefore the south pole? This is based entirely on observations as well.
I am not lying. You are, and you're ignorant.
-
Why would stars appear because people are born and killed? They are demons. The only celestial object that would have appeared with a birth is the moon, two thousand years ago.
Just because you believe a plane travels over the Antarctic does not mean it does.
According to Genisis only 1/3 of all people became deamons. Are you suggesting that the number of people that has ever and will ever live is such a ridiculous number?
Antarctica is about as easy to identify as the the back of your hand. Where else do the southern stars rotate counter clockwise around appoint directly above you?
Where else does the sun (Gods light, remmeber the "demons" are deceiving) does this as well?
Do what? The Sun is not spoken of in what you quote.
rotate counter clockwise around appoint directly above you?
^ What the sun does ^
Since you need to be spoonfed information.
This is not what was said. They referred specifically to the Southern Stars.
The Sun is not visible at the poles.
I never said he said that. I just said that is what the sun does.
The Sun is not visible at the poles.
You said yourself that the sun shines at the poles. You just proved yourself to be a liar.
You have accused me of dishonesty many times. Every single time it has been shown that you are the one bearing false witness.
God's light is visible at the pole: this does not mean the Sun is. If you turn a light on in your room, and walk outside, you may see the light even if you do not see the bulb. The edge of the world is closest to Hell, where God has withdrawn his presence and cast them into darkness.
But the sun is definitely visible at the poles, and you said that the sun is gods light. If the sun is not visible then gods light is not. You can see the light from the room a lightbulb you can't see is illuminating, but the poles themselves are illuminated so the sun must be visible; it's bright as day. Also there is a big light in the sky which looks just like the sun.
You have accused me of dishonesty many times. Every single time it has been shown that you are the one bearing false witness.
Nope, not once have you even tried to counter me.
A pale imitation of the Sun is visible at the poles. It does not follow God's path, and does not shine with the same brightness or heat.
You lie once more. You pretended there was no movement to discourage tourism to Antarctica, and there was. You claimed I had not answered your question, and I had. You claimed my justification was personal opinion, and it was not: you swiftly ignored all of this once it was pointed out to you.
Exodus 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
You are lying. There are no movements to stop tourism, only movements to decrease impact on the exosystems from tourism. Also, you did not answer my questions directly. And you basing your claims on "it's logical" does not make it backed up, it's still only your opinion.
So I guess you just sinned yourself. Sure you are no demon?
Movements to decrease impact how? It discourages tourism.
You ask many things. I answer many directly, which indirectly contain the answers to your others: far easier than repeating myself. I am assuming you will be honest.
Logical deductions for simple facts are not an opinion.
Do not lie.
No, it does not discourage tourism. If you think so you didn't even read through these articles yourself.
It was earlier that you didn't answer directly to my questions. If you want to I can dig it up.
"Logical deductions"? You assumed that the edge has to be somewhere cold because the sun never leaves earth? Sorry, but these do not connect. And did you forget my logical deduction which was based on part of your "logical deduction" (sun never leaves earth), where the sun during a south pole summer appears to make laps around the observer, which means that the earth is everywhere around the observer, and therefore the south pole? This is based entirely on observations as well.
I am not lying. You are, and you're ignorant.
You claim it does not follow, and offer no justification. The Sun does not cross the edge. What then would provide heat?
You lie again. I have explained that to you: a pale mimicry alone is visible sometimes at the pole, and it does not follow God's path or time.
-
Why would stars appear because people are born and killed? They are demons. The only celestial object that would have appeared with a birth is the moon, two thousand years ago.
Just because you believe a plane travels over the Antarctic does not mean it does.
According to Genisis only 1/3 of all people became deamons. Are you suggesting that the number of people that has ever and will ever live is such a ridiculous number?
Antarctica is about as easy to identify as the the back of your hand. Where else do the southern stars rotate counter clockwise around appoint directly above you?
Where else does the sun (Gods light, remmeber the "demons" are deceiving) does this as well?
Do what? The Sun is not spoken of in what you quote.
rotate counter clockwise around appoint directly above you?
^ What the sun does ^
Since you need to be spoonfed information.
This is not what was said. They referred specifically to the Southern Stars.
The Sun is not visible at the poles.
I never said he said that. I just said that is what the sun does.
The Sun is not visible at the poles.
You said yourself that the sun shines at the poles. You just proved yourself to be a liar.
You have accused me of dishonesty many times. Every single time it has been shown that you are the one bearing false witness.
God's light is visible at the pole: this does not mean the Sun is. If you turn a light on in your room, and walk outside, you may see the light even if you do not see the bulb. The edge of the world is closest to Hell, where God has withdrawn his presence and cast them into darkness.
But the sun is definitely visible at the poles, and you said that the sun is gods light. If the sun is not visible then gods light is not. You can see the light from the room a lightbulb you can't see is illuminating, but the poles themselves are illuminated so the sun must be visible; it's bright as day. Also there is a big light in the sky which looks just like the sun.
You have accused me of dishonesty many times. Every single time it has been shown that you are the one bearing false witness.
Nope, not once have you even tried to counter me.
A pale imitation of the Sun is visible at the poles. It does not follow God's path, and does not shine with the same brightness or heat.
You lie once more. You pretended there was no movement to discourage tourism to Antarctica, and there was. You claimed I had not answered your question, and I had. You claimed my justification was personal opinion, and it was not: you swiftly ignored all of this once it was pointed out to you.
Exodus 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
You are lying. There are no movements to stop tourism, only movements to decrease impact on the exosystems from tourism. Also, you did not answer my questions directly. And you basing your claims on "it's logical" does not make it backed up, it's still only your opinion.
So I guess you just sinned yourself. Sure you are no demon?
Movements to decrease impact how? It discourages tourism.
You ask many things. I answer many directly, which indirectly contain the answers to your others: far easier than repeating myself. I am assuming you will be honest.
Logical deductions for simple facts are not an opinion.
Do not lie.
No, it does not discourage tourism. If you think so you didn't even read through these articles yourself.
It was earlier that you didn't answer directly to my questions. If you want to I can dig it up.
"Logical deductions"? You assumed that the edge has to be somewhere cold because the sun never leaves earth? Sorry, but these do not connect. And did you forget my logical deduction which was based on part of your "logical deduction" (sun never leaves earth), where the sun during a south pole summer appears to make laps around the observer, which means that the earth is everywhere around the observer, and therefore the south pole? This is based entirely on observations as well.
I am not lying. You are, and you're ignorant.
You claim it does not follow, and offer no justification. The Sun does not cross the edge. What then would provide heat?
You lie again. I have explained that to you: a pale mimicry alone is visible sometimes at the pole, and it does not follow God's path or time.
What is it I claim is not following what?
I know the sun does not cross the edge, I don't even believe there is an edge to begin with. Stop lying about my claims, I can just go back and re-read my posts as anyone can.
No, the sun is still pretty strong at the poles. Do you really think demons could mimic the bright and warm light of god? Also, if you travel to the south pole during the day by boat you can follow the sun and see that it is the same during the whole travel. Do you really think demons would be able to block out gods light and replace it with their own?
-
Why would stars appear because people are born and killed? They are demons. The only celestial object that would have appeared with a birth is the moon, two thousand years ago.
Just because you believe a plane travels over the Antarctic does not mean it does.
According to Genisis only 1/3 of all people became deamons. Are you suggesting that the number of people that has ever and will ever live is such a ridiculous number?
Antarctica is about as easy to identify as the the back of your hand. Where else do the southern stars rotate counter clockwise around appoint directly above you?
Where else does the sun (Gods light, remmeber the "demons" are deceiving) does this as well?
Do what? The Sun is not spoken of in what you quote.
rotate counter clockwise around appoint directly above you?
^ What the sun does ^
Since you need to be spoonfed information.
This is not what was said. They referred specifically to the Southern Stars.
The Sun is not visible at the poles.
I never said he said that. I just said that is what the sun does.
The Sun is not visible at the poles.
You said yourself that the sun shines at the poles. You just proved yourself to be a liar.
You have accused me of dishonesty many times. Every single time it has been shown that you are the one bearing false witness.
God's light is visible at the pole: this does not mean the Sun is. If you turn a light on in your room, and walk outside, you may see the light even if you do not see the bulb. The edge of the world is closest to Hell, where God has withdrawn his presence and cast them into darkness.
But the sun is definitely visible at the poles, and you said that the sun is gods light. If the sun is not visible then gods light is not. You can see the light from the room a lightbulb you can't see is illuminating, but the poles themselves are illuminated so the sun must be visible; it's bright as day. Also there is a big light in the sky which looks just like the sun.
You have accused me of dishonesty many times. Every single time it has been shown that you are the one bearing false witness.
Nope, not once have you even tried to counter me.
A pale imitation of the Sun is visible at the poles. It does not follow God's path, and does not shine with the same brightness or heat.
You lie once more. You pretended there was no movement to discourage tourism to Antarctica, and there was. You claimed I had not answered your question, and I had. You claimed my justification was personal opinion, and it was not: you swiftly ignored all of this once it was pointed out to you.
Exodus 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
You are lying. There are no movements to stop tourism, only movements to decrease impact on the exosystems from tourism. Also, you did not answer my questions directly. And you basing your claims on "it's logical" does not make it backed up, it's still only your opinion.
So I guess you just sinned yourself. Sure you are no demon?
Movements to decrease impact how? It discourages tourism.
You ask many things. I answer many directly, which indirectly contain the answers to your others: far easier than repeating myself. I am assuming you will be honest.
Logical deductions for simple facts are not an opinion.
Do not lie.
No, it does not discourage tourism. If you think so you didn't even read through these articles yourself.
It was earlier that you didn't answer directly to my questions. If you want to I can dig it up.
"Logical deductions"? You assumed that the edge has to be somewhere cold because the sun never leaves earth? Sorry, but these do not connect. And did you forget my logical deduction which was based on part of your "logical deduction" (sun never leaves earth), where the sun during a south pole summer appears to make laps around the observer, which means that the earth is everywhere around the observer, and therefore the south pole? This is based entirely on observations as well.
I am not lying. You are, and you're ignorant.
You claim it does not follow, and offer no justification. The Sun does not cross the edge. What then would provide heat?
You lie again. I have explained that to you: a pale mimicry alone is visible sometimes at the pole, and it does not follow God's path or time.
What is it I claim is not following what?
I know the sun does not cross the edge, I don't even believe there is an edge to begin with. Stop lying about my claims, I can just go back and re-read my posts as anyone can.
No, the sun is still pretty strong at the poles. Do you really think demons could mimic the bright and warm light of god? Also, if you travel to the south pole during the day by boat you can follow the sun and see that it is the same during the whole travel. Do you really think demons would be able to block out gods light and replace it with their own?
If you had indeed gone back and read your posts, you would see you were insisting that there was no logical bases for the edge of the world to be cold, acknowledging a flat world as specified by the Bible. The Sun would not cross the edge of a flat world because it is always visible somewhere on the world. You now claim (with no justification) that it does not follow that the edge would be cold, despite the fact it would clearly, by definition, receive much less sunlight if any.
Are you simply wasting time? You did this exact thing when we first began conversing, asking the exact same question multiple times and repeatedly refusing to explain why my answer was not enough. You claim I lie when everything I say is simple truth, and you insult rather than offer any explanation whatsoever for your claims.
No, demons cannot mimic God's light. This is why their attempt is so poor. It is cold, distant, and does not follow His cycle.
It is far easier to deceive a human than pretend Godhood. It would not be hard to trick the incredibly slight handful who would travel by a certain means, at a certain time of day, at a very limited time of year, and who would be staring at the sky constantly despite the fact we are taught from birth not to look at God's light directly.
-
Why would stars appear because people are born and killed? They are demons. The only celestial object that would have appeared with a birth is the moon, two thousand years ago.
Just because you believe a plane travels over the Antarctic does not mean it does.
According to Genisis only 1/3 of all people became deamons. Are you suggesting that the number of people that has ever and will ever live is such a ridiculous number?
Antarctica is about as easy to identify as the the back of your hand. Where else do the southern stars rotate counter clockwise around appoint directly above you?
Where else does the sun (Gods light, remmeber the "demons" are deceiving) does this as well?
Do what? The Sun is not spoken of in what you quote.
rotate counter clockwise around appoint directly above you?
^ What the sun does ^
Since you need to be spoonfed information.
This is not what was said. They referred specifically to the Southern Stars.
The Sun is not visible at the poles.
I never said he said that. I just said that is what the sun does.
The Sun is not visible at the poles.
You said yourself that the sun shines at the poles. You just proved yourself to be a liar.
You have accused me of dishonesty many times. Every single time it has been shown that you are the one bearing false witness.
God's light is visible at the pole: this does not mean the Sun is. If you turn a light on in your room, and walk outside, you may see the light even if you do not see the bulb. The edge of the world is closest to Hell, where God has withdrawn his presence and cast them into darkness.
But the sun is definitely visible at the poles, and you said that the sun is gods light. If the sun is not visible then gods light is not. You can see the light from the room a lightbulb you can't see is illuminating, but the poles themselves are illuminated so the sun must be visible; it's bright as day. Also there is a big light in the sky which looks just like the sun.
You have accused me of dishonesty many times. Every single time it has been shown that you are the one bearing false witness.
Nope, not once have you even tried to counter me.
A pale imitation of the Sun is visible at the poles. It does not follow God's path, and does not shine with the same brightness or heat.
You lie once more. You pretended there was no movement to discourage tourism to Antarctica, and there was. You claimed I had not answered your question, and I had. You claimed my justification was personal opinion, and it was not: you swiftly ignored all of this once it was pointed out to you.
Exodus 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
You are lying. There are no movements to stop tourism, only movements to decrease impact on the exosystems from tourism. Also, you did not answer my questions directly. And you basing your claims on "it's logical" does not make it backed up, it's still only your opinion.
So I guess you just sinned yourself. Sure you are no demon?
Movements to decrease impact how? It discourages tourism.
You ask many things. I answer many directly, which indirectly contain the answers to your others: far easier than repeating myself. I am assuming you will be honest.
Logical deductions for simple facts are not an opinion.
Do not lie.
No, it does not discourage tourism. If you think so you didn't even read through these articles yourself.
It was earlier that you didn't answer directly to my questions. If you want to I can dig it up.
"Logical deductions"? You assumed that the edge has to be somewhere cold because the sun never leaves earth? Sorry, but these do not connect. And did you forget my logical deduction which was based on part of your "logical deduction" (sun never leaves earth), where the sun during a south pole summer appears to make laps around the observer, which means that the earth is everywhere around the observer, and therefore the south pole? This is based entirely on observations as well.
I am not lying. You are, and you're ignorant.
You claim it does not follow, and offer no justification. The Sun does not cross the edge. What then would provide heat?
You lie again. I have explained that to you: a pale mimicry alone is visible sometimes at the pole, and it does not follow God's path or time.
What is it I claim is not following what?
I know the sun does not cross the edge, I don't even believe there is an edge to begin with. Stop lying about my claims, I can just go back and re-read my posts as anyone can.
No, the sun is still pretty strong at the poles. Do you really think demons could mimic the bright and warm light of god? Also, if you travel to the south pole during the day by boat you can follow the sun and see that it is the same during the whole travel. Do you really think demons would be able to block out gods light and replace it with their own?
If you had indeed gone back and read your posts, you would see you were insisting that there was no logical bases for the edge of the world to be cold, acknowledging a flat world as specified by the Bible. The Sun would not cross the edge of a flat world because it is always visible somewhere on the world. You now claim (with no justification) that it does not follow that the edge would be cold, despite the fact it would clearly, by definition, receive much less sunlight if any.
Are you simply wasting time? You did this exact thing when we first began conversing, asking the exact same question multiple times and repeatedly refusing to explain why my answer was not enough. You claim I lie when everything I say is simple truth, and you insult rather than offer any explanation whatsoever for your claims.
No, demons cannot mimic God's light. This is why their attempt is so poor. It is cold, distant, and does not follow His cycle.
It is far easier to deceive a human than pretend Godhood. It would not be hard to trick the incredibly slight handful who would travel by a certain means, at a certain time of day, at a very limited time of year, and who would be staring at the sky constantly despite the fact we are taught from birth not to look at God's light directly.
Why would the edge need to be cold? Why can't the sun be close to it? And the poles do receive plenty of sunlight, not scarce. You are just lying. And why are you completely ignoring my logical counterargument? And why is the sun at the poles bright and strong when demons light is cold. And why does it follow the cycle when it shouldn't?
You are full of contradictions. It is so obvious you are lying I'll stop responding to you soon.
-
Why would stars appear because people are born and killed? They are demons. The only celestial object that would have appeared with a birth is the moon, two thousand years ago.
Just because you believe a plane travels over the Antarctic does not mean it does.
According to Genisis only 1/3 of all people became deamons. Are you suggesting that the number of people that has ever and will ever live is such a ridiculous number?
Antarctica is about as easy to identify as the the back of your hand. Where else do the southern stars rotate counter clockwise around appoint directly above you?
Where else does the sun (Gods light, remmeber the "demons" are deceiving) does this as well?
Do what? The Sun is not spoken of in what you quote.
rotate counter clockwise around appoint directly above you?
^ What the sun does ^
Since you need to be spoonfed information.
This is not what was said. They referred specifically to the Southern Stars.
The Sun is not visible at the poles.
I never said he said that. I just said that is what the sun does.
The Sun is not visible at the poles.
You said yourself that the sun shines at the poles. You just proved yourself to be a liar.
You have accused me of dishonesty many times. Every single time it has been shown that you are the one bearing false witness.
God's light is visible at the pole: this does not mean the Sun is. If you turn a light on in your room, and walk outside, you may see the light even if you do not see the bulb. The edge of the world is closest to Hell, where God has withdrawn his presence and cast them into darkness.
But the sun is definitely visible at the poles, and you said that the sun is gods light. If the sun is not visible then gods light is not. You can see the light from the room a lightbulb you can't see is illuminating, but the poles themselves are illuminated so the sun must be visible; it's bright as day. Also there is a big light in the sky which looks just like the sun.
You have accused me of dishonesty many times. Every single time it has been shown that you are the one bearing false witness.
Nope, not once have you even tried to counter me.
A pale imitation of the Sun is visible at the poles. It does not follow God's path, and does not shine with the same brightness or heat.
You lie once more. You pretended there was no movement to discourage tourism to Antarctica, and there was. You claimed I had not answered your question, and I had. You claimed my justification was personal opinion, and it was not: you swiftly ignored all of this once it was pointed out to you.
Exodus 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
You are lying. There are no movements to stop tourism, only movements to decrease impact on the exosystems from tourism. Also, you did not answer my questions directly. And you basing your claims on "it's logical" does not make it backed up, it's still only your opinion.
So I guess you just sinned yourself. Sure you are no demon?
Movements to decrease impact how? It discourages tourism.
You ask many things. I answer many directly, which indirectly contain the answers to your others: far easier than repeating myself. I am assuming you will be honest.
Logical deductions for simple facts are not an opinion.
Do not lie.
No, it does not discourage tourism. If you think so you didn't even read through these articles yourself.
It was earlier that you didn't answer directly to my questions. If you want to I can dig it up.
"Logical deductions"? You assumed that the edge has to be somewhere cold because the sun never leaves earth? Sorry, but these do not connect. And did you forget my logical deduction which was based on part of your "logical deduction" (sun never leaves earth), where the sun during a south pole summer appears to make laps around the observer, which means that the earth is everywhere around the observer, and therefore the south pole? This is based entirely on observations as well.
I am not lying. You are, and you're ignorant.
You claim it does not follow, and offer no justification. The Sun does not cross the edge. What then would provide heat?
You lie again. I have explained that to you: a pale mimicry alone is visible sometimes at the pole, and it does not follow God's path or time.
What is it I claim is not following what?
I know the sun does not cross the edge, I don't even believe there is an edge to begin with. Stop lying about my claims, I can just go back and re-read my posts as anyone can.
No, the sun is still pretty strong at the poles. Do you really think demons could mimic the bright and warm light of god? Also, if you travel to the south pole during the day by boat you can follow the sun and see that it is the same during the whole travel. Do you really think demons would be able to block out gods light and replace it with their own?
If you had indeed gone back and read your posts, you would see you were insisting that there was no logical bases for the edge of the world to be cold, acknowledging a flat world as specified by the Bible. The Sun would not cross the edge of a flat world because it is always visible somewhere on the world. You now claim (with no justification) that it does not follow that the edge would be cold, despite the fact it would clearly, by definition, receive much less sunlight if any.
Are you simply wasting time? You did this exact thing when we first began conversing, asking the exact same question multiple times and repeatedly refusing to explain why my answer was not enough. You claim I lie when everything I say is simple truth, and you insult rather than offer any explanation whatsoever for your claims.
No, demons cannot mimic God's light. This is why their attempt is so poor. It is cold, distant, and does not follow His cycle.
It is far easier to deceive a human than pretend Godhood. It would not be hard to trick the incredibly slight handful who would travel by a certain means, at a certain time of day, at a very limited time of year, and who would be staring at the sky constantly despite the fact we are taught from birth not to look at God's light directly.
Why would the edge need to be cold? Why can't the sun be close to it? And the poles do receive plenty of sunlight, not scarce. You are just lying. And why are you completely ignoring my logical counterargument? And why is the sun at the poles bright and strong when demons light is cold. And why does it follow the cycle when it shouldn't?
You are full of contradictions. It is so obvious you are lying I'll stop responding to you soon.
You are offering no counterargument beyond the lie that the edge would not be cold. The Sun is visible from all sides at every point, it is not near the edge. This cannot be argued against because it is a fact. The edge would be cold.
Even by your own admission the poles do not receive sunlight for half the year, and what they do receive is typically constant: little of a day's cycle. It is not bright and strong. In sunlight, ice melts. If you have ever seen snow, you will know this.
You call me a liar and then make such bold claims. I am not full of contradictions, you simly ignore everything I say. You have been informed of all of this before now.
-
You are offering no counterargument beyond the lie that the edge would not be cold. The Sun is visible from all sides at every point, it is not near the edge. This cannot be argued against because it is a fact. The edge would be cold.
Even by your own admission the poles do not receive sunlight for half the year, and what they do receive is typically constant: little of a day's cycle. It is not bright and strong. In sunlight, ice melts. If you have ever seen snow, you will know this.
You call me a liar and then make such bold claims. I am not full of contradictions, you simly ignore everything I say. You have been informed of all of this before now.
When I take out an ice cube during winter here in sweden it doesn't melt under the sun. So no, ice does not always melt under the sun. Are you saying that the sun during winter in sweden is a demonic mimic that looks and behaves exactly as the normal sun?
And the sun at the poles is bright and strong, what is it that you don't get?
Also, since you keep ignoring it, you can see the sun revolving around you at the south pole. So the earth has to be all around you.
And this is anyways no evidence that the edge is at the south pole, just a deduction. Please provide EVIDENCE.
-
You are offering no counterargument beyond the lie that the edge would not be cold. The Sun is visible from all sides at every point, it is not near the edge. This cannot be argued against because it is a fact. The edge would be cold.
Even by your own admission the poles do not receive sunlight for half the year, and what they do receive is typically constant: little of a day's cycle. It is not bright and strong. In sunlight, ice melts. If you have ever seen snow, you will know this.
You call me a liar and then make such bold claims. I am not full of contradictions, you simly ignore everything I say. You have been informed of all of this before now.
When I take out an ice cube during winter here in sweden it doesn't melt under the sun. So no, ice does not always melt under the sun. Are you saying that the sun during winter in sweden is a demonic mimic that looks and behaves exactly as the normal sun?
And the sun at the poles is bright and strong, what is it that you don't get?
Also, since you keep ignoring it, you can see the sun revolving around you at the south pole. So the earth has to be all around you.
And this is anyways no evidence that the edge is at the south pole, just a deduction. Please provide EVIDENCE.
A deduction from evidence is a valid conclusion. Deduction from evidence is the only possible way to know anything. Why is it not acceptable just because you disagree with the premise?
I am not ignoring your claim. In case you haven't noticed, your claim is the exact topic that we are discussing. Thank you for making it clear that your exclusive interest here is in wasting time. You began by demanding I repeat myself, and now you pretend I am ignoring the question that we are openly discussing: the idea of the Sun being visible at a pole.
Goodbye. If someone honest would like to discuss this, I will be very happy to, but it is impossible to teach one who has hardened his heart, and persists in very clear dishonesty and timewasting.
Matthew 13:15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
-
You are offering no counterargument beyond the lie that the edge would not be cold. The Sun is visible from all sides at every point, it is not near the edge. This cannot be argued against because it is a fact. The edge would be cold.
Even by your own admission the poles do not receive sunlight for half the year, and what they do receive is typically constant: little of a day's cycle. It is not bright and strong. In sunlight, ice melts. If you have ever seen snow, you will know this.
You call me a liar and then make such bold claims. I am not full of contradictions, you simly ignore everything I say. You have been informed of all of this before now.
When I take out an ice cube during winter here in sweden it doesn't melt under the sun. So no, ice does not always melt under the sun. Are you saying that the sun during winter in sweden is a demonic mimic that looks and behaves exactly as the normal sun?
And the sun at the poles is bright and strong, what is it that you don't get?
Also, since you keep ignoring it, you can see the sun revolving around you at the south pole. So the earth has to be all around you.
And this is anyways no evidence that the edge is at the south pole, just a deduction. Please provide EVIDENCE.
A deduction from evidence is a valid conclusion. Deduction from evidence is the only possible way to know anything. Why is it not acceptable just because you disagree with the premise?
I am not ignoring your claim. In case you haven't noticed, your claim is the exact topic that we are discussing. Thank you for making it clear that your exclusive interest here is in wasting time. You began by demanding I repeat myself, and now you pretend I am ignoring the question that we are openly discussing: the idea of the Sun being visible at a pole.
Goodbye. If someone honest would like to discuss this, I will be very happy to, but it is impossible to teach one who has hardened his heart, and persists in very clear dishonesty and timewasting.
Matthew 13:15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
Wait, you are now sayin that the sun is not visible at all at the poles? You said way back that it was. Theres 20-40 thousand vitnesses per year.
You didn't deduct from evidence but from opinions. I am asking for evidence, not opinions.
-
You are offering no counterargument beyond the lie that the edge would not be cold. The Sun is visible from all sides at every point, it is not near the edge. This cannot be argued against because it is a fact. The edge would be cold.
Even by your own admission the poles do not receive sunlight for half the year, and what they do receive is typically constant: little of a day's cycle. It is not bright and strong. In sunlight, ice melts. If you have ever seen snow, you will know this.
You call me a liar and then make such bold claims. I am not full of contradictions, you simly ignore everything I say. You have been informed of all of this before now.
When I take out an ice cube during winter here in sweden it doesn't melt under the sun. So no, ice does not always melt under the sun. Are you saying that the sun during winter in sweden is a demonic mimic that looks and behaves exactly as the normal sun?
And the sun at the poles is bright and strong, what is it that you don't get?
Also, since you keep ignoring it, you can see the sun revolving around you at the south pole. So the earth has to be all around you.
And this is anyways no evidence that the edge is at the south pole, just a deduction. Please provide EVIDENCE.
A deduction from evidence is a valid conclusion. Deduction from evidence is the only possible way to know anything. Why is it not acceptable just because you disagree with the premise?
I am not ignoring your claim. In case you haven't noticed, your claim is the exact topic that we are discussing. Thank you for making it clear that your exclusive interest here is in wasting time. You began by demanding I repeat myself, and now you pretend I am ignoring the question that we are openly discussing: the idea of the Sun being visible at a pole.
Goodbye. If someone honest would like to discuss this, I will be very happy to, but it is impossible to teach one who has hardened his heart, and persists in very clear dishonesty and timewasting.
Matthew 13:15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
Wait, you are now sayin that the sun is not visible at all at the poles? You said way back that it was. Theres 20-40 thousand vitnesses per year.
You didn't deduct from evidence but from opinions. I am asking for evidence, not opinions.
"A pale imitation of the Sun is visible at the poles. It does not follow God's path, and does not shine with the same brightness or heat."
" The Sun is visible from all sides at every point, it is not near the edge. This cannot be argued against because it is a fact. The edge would be cold."
Matthew 13:15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
-
You are offering no counterargument beyond the lie that the edge would not be cold. The Sun is visible from all sides at every point, it is not near the edge. This cannot be argued against because it is a fact. The edge would be cold.
Even by your own admission the poles do not receive sunlight for half the year, and what they do receive is typically constant: little of a day's cycle. It is not bright and strong. In sunlight, ice melts. If you have ever seen snow, you will know this.
You call me a liar and then make such bold claims. I am not full of contradictions, you simly ignore everything I say. You have been informed of all of this before now.
When I take out an ice cube during winter here in sweden it doesn't melt under the sun. So no, ice does not always melt under the sun. Are you saying that the sun during winter in sweden is a demonic mimic that looks and behaves exactly as the normal sun?
And the sun at the poles is bright and strong, what is it that you don't get?
Also, since you keep ignoring it, you can see the sun revolving around you at the south pole. So the earth has to be all around you.
And this is anyways no evidence that the edge is at the south pole, just a deduction. Please provide EVIDENCE.
A deduction from evidence is a valid conclusion. Deduction from evidence is the only possible way to know anything. Why is it not acceptable just because you disagree with the premise?
I am not ignoring your claim. In case you haven't noticed, your claim is the exact topic that we are discussing. Thank you for making it clear that your exclusive interest here is in wasting time. You began by demanding I repeat myself, and now you pretend I am ignoring the question that we are openly discussing: the idea of the Sun being visible at a pole.
Goodbye. If someone honest would like to discuss this, I will be very happy to, but it is impossible to teach one who has hardened his heart, and persists in very clear dishonesty and timewasting.
Matthew 13:15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
Wait, you are now sayin that the sun is not visible at all at the poles? You said way back that it was. Theres 20-40 thousand vitnesses per year.
You didn't deduct from evidence but from opinions. I am asking for evidence, not opinions.
"A pale imitation of the Sun is visible at the poles. It does not follow God's path, and does not shine with the same brightness or heat."
" The Sun is visible from all sides at every point, it is not near the edge. This cannot be argued against because it is a fact. The edge would be cold."
Matthew 13:15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
"And the sun at the poles is bright and strong, what is it that you don't get?"
Only the barest of light reaches the poles, even in Summers. God would not forgo them entirely
So if gods barest but visible light was visible, as well as the mimic from the demons, we would see two suns at the poles. We don't. We only see one, and since god would not forget about the poles it has to be gods.
(http://www.submm.caltech.edu/~cdd/yu_4th_grade/2006jan12%20004.jpg)
Yeah, that really looks "cold" and "distant" and "pale" and "not the same brightness".
(http://assets.atlasobscura.com/media/W1siZiIsInVwbG9hZHMvcGxhY2VfaW1hZ2VzLzdhNzQzMGUwNzM2NDAyYzI2YjBjNzJjZjBlOWQzZmFiYjQ2MTA3OWYuanBnIl0sWyJwIiwidGh1bWIiLCI5ODB4XHUwMDNlIl0sWyJwIiwiY29udmVydCIsIi1xdWFsaXR5IDkxIC1hdXRvLW9yaWVudCJdXQ/7a7430e0736402c26b0c72cf0e9d3fabb461079f.jpg/image.jpg)
Ohh wait, it looks just like it does in Sweden. So I guess Sweden is at the edge too? Sweden is the gates to hell then it seems.
(http://previews.123rf.com/images/wildman/wildman1207/wildman120700035/14384993-beautiful-summer-white-porto-katsiki-beach-on-ionian-sea-lefkada-greece-with-sun-in-sky.jpg)
Oh, and Greece must also be at the edge, the gates of hell.
Hmm, the gates of hell seems to be just about everywhere...
-
The Sun at the poles does not have God's warmth, nor does it follow His cycle. Demons may lie, and you are offering nothing new.
I have never claims that the poles are the gates to Hell. Further evidence of dishonesty. They are closest to the edge and Hell is beneath us, but there are no gates, and really they are no closer than most of the world. The Earth simply blocks light.
Stop ignoring the fact that demons may lie. A pale, cold imitation different in cycle and warmth is not the real thing.
Matthew 13:15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
-
The Sun at the poles does not have God's warmth, nor does it follow His cycle. Demons may lie, and you are offering nothing new.
I have never claims that the poles are the gates to Hell. Further evidence of dishonesty. They are closest to the edge and Hell is beneath us, but there are no gates, and really they are no closer than most of the world. The Earth simply blocks light.
Stop ignoring the fact that demons may lie. A pale, cold imitation different in cycle and warmth is not the real thing.
Matthew 13:15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
The same "pale imitation" can be seen in sweden and in greece. Does that mean that Sweden and greece also are at the edge?
-
The Sun at the poles does not have God's warmth, nor does it follow His cycle. Demons may lie, and you are offering nothing new.
I have never claims that the poles are the gates to Hell. Further evidence of dishonesty. They are closest to the edge and Hell is beneath us, but there are no gates, and really they are no closer than most of the world. The Earth simply blocks light.
Stop ignoring the fact that demons may lie. A pale, cold imitation different in cycle and warmth is not the real thing.
Matthew 13:15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
The same "pale imitation" can be seen in sweden and in greece. Does that mean that Sweden and greece also are at the edge?
No, it is not the same pale imitation. Sweden and Greece are far, far warmer, for the easiest example. I have been to Greece. Both are typically well above freezing.
-
The Sun at the poles does not have God's warmth, nor does it follow His cycle. Demons may lie, and you are offering nothing new.
I have never claims that the poles are the gates to Hell. Further evidence of dishonesty. They are closest to the edge and Hell is beneath us, but there are no gates, and really they are no closer than most of the world. The Earth simply blocks light.
Stop ignoring the fact that demons may lie. A pale, cold imitation different in cycle and warmth is not the real thing.
Matthew 13:15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
The same "pale imitation" can be seen in sweden and in greece. Does that mean that Sweden and greece also are at the edge?
No, it is not the same pale imitation. Sweden and Greece are far, far warmer, for the easiest example. I have been to Greece. Both are typically well above freezing.
My point was about the sun (or "Gods light", as you like to call it), not the climate.
If you cared to watch the images, you'd see that the sun is as bright and looks the same in each of those pictures. Either it's all gods light or it's all demons. Which is it?
-
The Sun at the poles does not have God's warmth, nor does it follow His cycle. Demons may lie, and you are offering nothing new.
I have never claims that the poles are the gates to Hell. Further evidence of dishonesty. They are closest to the edge and Hell is beneath us, but there are no gates, and really they are no closer than most of the world. The Earth simply blocks light.
Stop ignoring the fact that demons may lie. A pale, cold imitation different in cycle and warmth is not the real thing.
Matthew 13:15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
The same "pale imitation" can be seen in sweden and in greece. Does that mean that Sweden and greece also are at the edge?
No, it is not the same pale imitation. Sweden and Greece are far, far warmer, for the easiest example. I have been to Greece. Both are typically well above freezing.
My point was about the sun (or "Gods light", as you like to call it), not the climate.
If you cared to watch the images, you'd see that the sun is as bright and looks the same in each of those pictures. Either it's all gods light or it's all demons. Which is it?
The Sun produces heat. Why are you ignoring this? I'm not concerned with climate, I'm concerned with what the Sun causes. I can take a photo of the Sun, this does not make it God's light. An image is a mere fraction of what the Sun is: light is the slightest part of what it provides. The fact the light visible at the poles does not produce the same heat as God's light means it is not an accurate imitation.
-
The Sun at the poles does not have God's warmth, nor does it follow His cycle. Demons may lie, and you are offering nothing new.
I have never claims that the poles are the gates to Hell. Further evidence of dishonesty. They are closest to the edge and Hell is beneath us, but there are no gates, and really they are no closer than most of the world. The Earth simply blocks light.
Stop ignoring the fact that demons may lie. A pale, cold imitation different in cycle and warmth is not the real thing.
Matthew 13:15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
The same "pale imitation" can be seen in sweden and in greece. Does that mean that Sweden and greece also are at the edge?
No, it is not the same pale imitation. Sweden and Greece are far, far warmer, for the easiest example. I have been to Greece. Both are typically well above freezing.
My point was about the sun (or "Gods light", as you like to call it), not the climate.
If you cared to watch the images, you'd see that the sun is as bright and looks the same in each of those pictures. Either it's all gods light or it's all demons. Which is it?
The Sun produces heat. Why are you ignoring this? I'm not concerned with climate, I'm concerned with what the Sun causes. I can take a photo of the Sun, this does not make it God's light. An image is a mere fraction of what the Sun is: light is the slightest part of what it provides. The fact the light visible at the poles does not produce the same heat as God's light means it is not an accurate imitation.
None of this matters for the moment, nor is part of my point.
You said that the sun at the poles is pale. I show you pictures that shows that the same "pale" sun can be seen in sweden and greece. Now, is all of them the real sun or an imitation? Stop evading the question.
-
The Sun at the poles does not have God's warmth, nor does it follow His cycle. Demons may lie, and you are offering nothing new.
I have never claims that the poles are the gates to Hell. Further evidence of dishonesty. They are closest to the edge and Hell is beneath us, but there are no gates, and really they are no closer than most of the world. The Earth simply blocks light.
Stop ignoring the fact that demons may lie. A pale, cold imitation different in cycle and warmth is not the real thing.
Matthew 13:15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
The same "pale imitation" can be seen in sweden and in greece. Does that mean that Sweden and greece also are at the edge?
No, it is not the same pale imitation. Sweden and Greece are far, far warmer, for the easiest example. I have been to Greece. Both are typically well above freezing.
My point was about the sun (or "Gods light", as you like to call it), not the climate.
If you cared to watch the images, you'd see that the sun is as bright and looks the same in each of those pictures. Either it's all gods light or it's all demons. Which is it?
The Sun produces heat. Why are you ignoring this? I'm not concerned with climate, I'm concerned with what the Sun causes. I can take a photo of the Sun, this does not make it God's light. An image is a mere fraction of what the Sun is: light is the slightest part of what it provides. The fact the light visible at the poles does not produce the same heat as God's light means it is not an accurate imitation.
None of this matters for the moment, nor is part of my point.
You said that the sun at the poles is pale. I show you pictures that shows that the same "pale" sun can be seen in sweden and greece. Now, is all of them the real sun or an imitation? Stop evading the question.
You do not have a point. All you are doing is criticizing what I have said, and I beleve I know what is relevant to what I say.
You clearly do not. I said the Sun at the poles is 'a pale imitation'. This does not literally mean pale, it means a poor copy. This is very common knowledge.
Proverbs 12:22 Lying lips are abomination to the Lord: but they that deal truly are His delight.
-
The Sun at the poles does not have God's warmth, nor does it follow His cycle. Demons may lie, and you are offering nothing new.
I have never claims that the poles are the gates to Hell. Further evidence of dishonesty. They are closest to the edge and Hell is beneath us, but there are no gates, and really they are no closer than most of the world. The Earth simply blocks light.
Stop ignoring the fact that demons may lie. A pale, cold imitation different in cycle and warmth is not the real thing.
Matthew 13:15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
The same "pale imitation" can be seen in sweden and in greece. Does that mean that Sweden and greece also are at the edge?
No, it is not the same pale imitation. Sweden and Greece are far, far warmer, for the easiest example. I have been to Greece. Both are typically well above freezing.
My point was about the sun (or "Gods light", as you like to call it), not the climate.
If you cared to watch the images, you'd see that the sun is as bright and looks the same in each of those pictures. Either it's all gods light or it's all demons. Which is it?
The Sun produces heat. Why are you ignoring this? I'm not concerned with climate, I'm concerned with what the Sun causes. I can take a photo of the Sun, this does not make it God's light. An image is a mere fraction of what the Sun is: light is the slightest part of what it provides. The fact the light visible at the poles does not produce the same heat as God's light means it is not an accurate imitation.
None of this matters for the moment, nor is part of my point.
You said that the sun at the poles is pale. I show you pictures that shows that the same "pale" sun can be seen in sweden and greece. Now, is all of them the real sun or an imitation? Stop evading the question.
You do not have a point. All you are doing is criticizing what I have said, and I believe I know what is relevant to what I say.
You clearly do not. I said the Sun at the poles is 'a pale imitation'. This does not literally mean pale, it means a poor copy. This is very common knowledge.
Proverbs 12:22 Lying lips are abomination to the Lord: but they that deal truly are His delight.
It's your fault. Tell us what you mean directly instead of speaking in metaphors. It's not common knowledge if you just made a metaphor for what you actually meant.
If you travel to antarctica during the day you can keep track of the sun and see that the same sun is in antarctica as in wherever you left off.
And does that mean that the sun in the winter in sweden is also a copy?
-
The Sun at the poles does not have God's warmth, nor does it follow His cycle. Demons may lie, and you are offering nothing new.
I have never claims that the poles are the gates to Hell. Further evidence of dishonesty. They are closest to the edge and Hell is beneath us, but there are no gates, and really they are no closer than most of the world. The Earth simply blocks light.
Stop ignoring the fact that demons may lie. A pale, cold imitation different in cycle and warmth is not the real thing.
Matthew 13:15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
The same "pale imitation" can be seen in sweden and in greece. Does that mean that Sweden and greece also are at the edge?
No, it is not the same pale imitation. Sweden and Greece are far, far warmer, for the easiest example. I have been to Greece. Both are typically well above freezing.
My point was about the sun (or "Gods light", as you like to call it), not the climate.
If you cared to watch the images, you'd see that the sun is as bright and looks the same in each of those pictures. Either it's all gods light or it's all demons. Which is it?
The Sun produces heat. Why are you ignoring this? I'm not concerned with climate, I'm concerned with what the Sun causes. I can take a photo of the Sun, this does not make it God's light. An image is a mere fraction of what the Sun is: light is the slightest part of what it provides. The fact the light visible at the poles does not produce the same heat as God's light means it is not an accurate imitation.
None of this matters for the moment, nor is part of my point.
You said that the sun at the poles is pale. I show you pictures that shows that the same "pale" sun can be seen in sweden and greece. Now, is all of them the real sun or an imitation? Stop evading the question.
You do not have a point. All you are doing is criticizing what I have said, and I believe I know what is relevant to what I say.
You clearly do not. I said the Sun at the poles is 'a pale imitation'. This does not literally mean pale, it means a poor copy. This is very common knowledge.
Proverbs 12:22 Lying lips are abomination to the Lord: but they that deal truly are His delight.
It's your fault. Tell us what you mean directly instead of speaking in metaphors. It's not common knowledge if you just made a metaphor for what you actually meant.
If you travel to antarctica during the day you can keep track of the sun and see that the same sun is in antarctica as in wherever you left off.
And does that mean that the sun in the winter in sweden is also a copy?
Have you really never heard the phrase 'pale imitation' before? You're more than welcome to simply type the phrase into Google. It most definitely is common knowledge.
So you claim. It is easy to deceive humans. Only the barest handful, if any, would have done as you ask. A hypothetical is not a fact: few travel by boat, few during the day, and even fewer at the rare times the Sun would apparently be visible in Antarctica. Of that tiny fraction of the tiny fraction of the world that goes to Antarctica, how many do you honestly believe would stare at the Sun given that we are taught from birth to do the precise opposite of that?
I am fairly certain this too is something you have been told before.
Sweden is not nearly as cool as Antarctica. Ice melts there.
-
The Sun at the poles does not have God's warmth, nor does it follow His cycle. Demons may lie, and you are offering nothing new.
I have never claims that the poles are the gates to Hell. Further evidence of dishonesty. They are closest to the edge and Hell is beneath us, but there are no gates, and really they are no closer than most of the world. The Earth simply blocks light.
Stop ignoring the fact that demons may lie. A pale, cold imitation different in cycle and warmth is not the real thing.
Matthew 13:15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
The same "pale imitation" can be seen in sweden and in greece. Does that mean that Sweden and greece also are at the edge?
No, it is not the same pale imitation. Sweden and Greece are far, far warmer, for the easiest example. I have been to Greece. Both are typically well above freezing.
My point was about the sun (or "Gods light", as you like to call it), not the climate.
If you cared to watch the images, you'd see that the sun is as bright and looks the same in each of those pictures. Either it's all gods light or it's all demons. Which is it?
The Sun produces heat. Why are you ignoring this? I'm not concerned with climate, I'm concerned with what the Sun causes. I can take a photo of the Sun, this does not make it God's light. An image is a mere fraction of what the Sun is: light is the slightest part of what it provides. The fact the light visible at the poles does not produce the same heat as God's light means it is not an accurate imitation.
None of this matters for the moment, nor is part of my point.
You said that the sun at the poles is pale. I show you pictures that shows that the same "pale" sun can be seen in sweden and greece. Now, is all of them the real sun or an imitation? Stop evading the question.
You do not have a point. All you are doing is criticizing what I have said, and I believe I know what is relevant to what I say.
You clearly do not. I said the Sun at the poles is 'a pale imitation'. This does not literally mean pale, it means a poor copy. This is very common knowledge.
Proverbs 12:22 Lying lips are abomination to the Lord: but they that deal truly are His delight.
It's your fault. Tell us what you mean directly instead of speaking in metaphors. It's not common knowledge if you just made a metaphor for what you actually meant.
If you travel to antarctica during the day you can keep track of the sun and see that the same sun is in antarctica as in wherever you left off.
And does that mean that the sun in the winter in sweden is also a copy?
Have you really never heard the phrase 'pale imitation' before? You're more than welcome to simply type the phrase into Google. It most definitely is common knowledge.
So you claim. It is easy to deceive humans. Only the barest handful, if any, would have done as you ask. A hypothetical is not a fact: few travel by boat, few during the day, and even fewer at the rare times the Sun would apparently be visible in Antarctica. Of that tiny fraction of the tiny fraction of the world that goes to Antarctica, how many do you honestly believe would stare at the Sun given that we are taught from birth to do the precise opposite of that?
I am fairly certain this too is something you have been told before.
Sweden is not nearly as cool as Antarctica. Ice melts there.
I've heard it. It's similar, but not as strong or lively or whatever. It's different in some way. But the sun in the picture is not different.
Guess you've never been to sweden during winter. A hint: Ice does not melt at winter.
And guess what: Ice melts in antarctica during summer.
-
The Sun at the poles does not have God's warmth, nor does it follow His cycle. Demons may lie, and you are offering nothing new.
I have never claims that the poles are the gates to Hell. Further evidence of dishonesty. They are closest to the edge and Hell is beneath us, but there are no gates, and really they are no closer than most of the world. The Earth simply blocks light.
Stop ignoring the fact that demons may lie. A pale, cold imitation different in cycle and warmth is not the real thing.
Matthew 13:15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
The same "pale imitation" can be seen in sweden and in greece. Does that mean that Sweden and greece also are at the edge?
No, it is not the same pale imitation. Sweden and Greece are far, far warmer, for the easiest example. I have been to Greece. Both are typically well above freezing.
My point was about the sun (or "Gods light", as you like to call it), not the climate.
If you cared to watch the images, you'd see that the sun is as bright and looks the same in each of those pictures. Either it's all gods light or it's all demons. Which is it?
The Sun produces heat. Why are you ignoring this? I'm not concerned with climate, I'm concerned with what the Sun causes. I can take a photo of the Sun, this does not make it God's light. An image is a mere fraction of what the Sun is: light is the slightest part of what it provides. The fact the light visible at the poles does not produce the same heat as God's light means it is not an accurate imitation.
None of this matters for the moment, nor is part of my point.
You said that the sun at the poles is pale. I show you pictures that shows that the same "pale" sun can be seen in sweden and greece. Now, is all of them the real sun or an imitation? Stop evading the question.
You do not have a point. All you are doing is criticizing what I have said, and I believe I know what is relevant to what I say.
You clearly do not. I said the Sun at the poles is 'a pale imitation'. This does not literally mean pale, it means a poor copy. This is very common knowledge.
Proverbs 12:22 Lying lips are abomination to the Lord: but they that deal truly are His delight.
It's your fault. Tell us what you mean directly instead of speaking in metaphors. It's not common knowledge if you just made a metaphor for what you actually meant.
If you travel to antarctica during the day you can keep track of the sun and see that the same sun is in antarctica as in wherever you left off.
And does that mean that the sun in the winter in sweden is also a copy?
Have you really never heard the phrase 'pale imitation' before? You're more than welcome to simply type the phrase into Google. It most definitely is common knowledge.
So you claim. It is easy to deceive humans. Only the barest handful, if any, would have done as you ask. A hypothetical is not a fact: few travel by boat, few during the day, and even fewer at the rare times the Sun would apparently be visible in Antarctica. Of that tiny fraction of the tiny fraction of the world that goes to Antarctica, how many do you honestly believe would stare at the Sun given that we are taught from birth to do the precise opposite of that?
I am fairly certain this too is something you have been told before.
Sweden is not nearly as cool as Antarctica. Ice melts there.
I've heard it. It's similar, but not as strong or lively or whatever. It's different in some way. But the sun in the picture is not different.
Guess you've never been to sweden during winter. A hint: Ice does not melt at winter.
And guess what: Ice melts in antarctica during summer.
It is different: the heat it imparts at a pole are far less. You were told this, and now you pretend you were not.
Ice rarely melts in winter. Winter is not universal. If Antarctica melted it would not exist. The hottest temperature in Antarctica remains abysmally low.
Proverbs 23:9 Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words.
-
The Sun at the poles does not have God's warmth, nor does it follow His cycle. Demons may lie, and you are offering nothing new.
I have never claims that the poles are the gates to Hell. Further evidence of dishonesty. They are closest to the edge and Hell is beneath us, but there are no gates, and really they are no closer than most of the world. The Earth simply blocks light.
Stop ignoring the fact that demons may lie. A pale, cold imitation different in cycle and warmth is not the real thing.
Matthew 13:15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
The same "pale imitation" can be seen in sweden and in greece. Does that mean that Sweden and greece also are at the edge?
No, it is not the same pale imitation. Sweden and Greece are far, far warmer, for the easiest example. I have been to Greece. Both are typically well above freezing.
My point was about the sun (or "Gods light", as you like to call it), not the climate.
If you cared to watch the images, you'd see that the sun is as bright and looks the same in each of those pictures. Either it's all gods light or it's all demons. Which is it?
The Sun produces heat. Why are you ignoring this? I'm not concerned with climate, I'm concerned with what the Sun causes. I can take a photo of the Sun, this does not make it God's light. An image is a mere fraction of what the Sun is: light is the slightest part of what it provides. The fact the light visible at the poles does not produce the same heat as God's light means it is not an accurate imitation.
None of this matters for the moment, nor is part of my point.
You said that the sun at the poles is pale. I show you pictures that shows that the same "pale" sun can be seen in sweden and greece. Now, is all of them the real sun or an imitation? Stop evading the question.
You do not have a point. All you are doing is criticizing what I have said, and I believe I know what is relevant to what I say.
You clearly do not. I said the Sun at the poles is 'a pale imitation'. This does not literally mean pale, it means a poor copy. This is very common knowledge.
Proverbs 12:22 Lying lips are abomination to the Lord: but they that deal truly are His delight.
It's your fault. Tell us what you mean directly instead of speaking in metaphors. It's not common knowledge if you just made a metaphor for what you actually meant.
If you travel to antarctica during the day you can keep track of the sun and see that the same sun is in antarctica as in wherever you left off.
And does that mean that the sun in the winter in sweden is also a copy?
Have you really never heard the phrase 'pale imitation' before? You're more than welcome to simply type the phrase into Google. It most definitely is common knowledge.
So you claim. It is easy to deceive humans. Only the barest handful, if any, would have done as you ask. A hypothetical is not a fact: few travel by boat, few during the day, and even fewer at the rare times the Sun would apparently be visible in Antarctica. Of that tiny fraction of the tiny fraction of the world that goes to Antarctica, how many do you honestly believe would stare at the Sun given that we are taught from birth to do the precise opposite of that?
I am fairly certain this too is something you have been told before.
Sweden is not nearly as cool as Antarctica. Ice melts there.
I've heard it. It's similar, but not as strong or lively or whatever. It's different in some way. But the sun in the picture is not different.
Guess you've never been to sweden during winter. A hint: Ice does not melt at winter.
And guess what: Ice melts in antarctica during summer.
It is different: the heat it imparts at a pole are far less. You were told this, and now you pretend you were not.
Ice rarely melts in winter. Winter is not universal. If Antarctica melted it would not exist. The hottest temperature in Antarctica remains abysmally low.
Proverbs 23:9 Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words.
Antarctica is a continent with rock ground you know?
-
The Sun at the poles does not have God's warmth, nor does it follow His cycle. Demons may lie, and you are offering nothing new.
I have never claims that the poles are the gates to Hell. Further evidence of dishonesty. They are closest to the edge and Hell is beneath us, but there are no gates, and really they are no closer than most of the world. The Earth simply blocks light.
Stop ignoring the fact that demons may lie. A pale, cold imitation different in cycle and warmth is not the real thing.
Matthew 13:15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
The same "pale imitation" can be seen in sweden and in greece. Does that mean that Sweden and greece also are at the edge?
No, it is not the same pale imitation. Sweden and Greece are far, far warmer, for the easiest example. I have been to Greece. Both are typically well above freezing.
My point was about the sun (or "Gods light", as you like to call it), not the climate.
If you cared to watch the images, you'd see that the sun is as bright and looks the same in each of those pictures. Either it's all gods light or it's all demons. Which is it?
The Sun produces heat. Why are you ignoring this? I'm not concerned with climate, I'm concerned with what the Sun causes. I can take a photo of the Sun, this does not make it God's light. An image is a mere fraction of what the Sun is: light is the slightest part of what it provides. The fact the light visible at the poles does not produce the same heat as God's light means it is not an accurate imitation.
None of this matters for the moment, nor is part of my point.
You said that the sun at the poles is pale. I show you pictures that shows that the same "pale" sun can be seen in sweden and greece. Now, is all of them the real sun or an imitation? Stop evading the question.
You do not have a point. All you are doing is criticizing what I have said, and I believe I know what is relevant to what I say.
You clearly do not. I said the Sun at the poles is 'a pale imitation'. This does not literally mean pale, it means a poor copy. This is very common knowledge.
Proverbs 12:22 Lying lips are abomination to the Lord: but they that deal truly are His delight.
It's your fault. Tell us what you mean directly instead of speaking in metaphors. It's not common knowledge if you just made a metaphor for what you actually meant.
If you travel to antarctica during the day you can keep track of the sun and see that the same sun is in antarctica as in wherever you left off.
And does that mean that the sun in the winter in sweden is also a copy?
Have you really never heard the phrase 'pale imitation' before? You're more than welcome to simply type the phrase into Google. It most definitely is common knowledge.
So you claim. It is easy to deceive humans. Only the barest handful, if any, would have done as you ask. A hypothetical is not a fact: few travel by boat, few during the day, and even fewer at the rare times the Sun would apparently be visible in Antarctica. Of that tiny fraction of the tiny fraction of the world that goes to Antarctica, how many do you honestly believe would stare at the Sun given that we are taught from birth to do the precise opposite of that?
I am fairly certain this too is something you have been told before.
Sweden is not nearly as cool as Antarctica. Ice melts there.
I've heard it. It's similar, but not as strong or lively or whatever. It's different in some way. But the sun in the picture is not different.
Guess you've never been to sweden during winter. A hint: Ice does not melt at winter.
And guess what: Ice melts in antarctica during summer.
It is different: the heat it imparts at a pole are far less. You were told this, and now you pretend you were not.
Ice rarely melts in winter. Winter is not universal. If Antarctica melted it would not exist. The hottest temperature in Antarctica remains abysmally low.
Proverbs 23:9 Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words.
Antarctica is a continent with rock ground you know?
Yes. Your point? It is primarily ice.
-
Nope, it's prinarily rock.
My point is that it wont melt away.
Also, ice melts there in the summer.
-
Nope, it's prinarily rock.
My point is that it wont melt away.
Also, ice melts there in the summer.
Are you still trying to compare the temperatures of Antarctica to the rest of the world? God's light does reach it as I have said: the same way you can see the light in your room without seeing the bulb.
Antarctica is drastically cooler than non-Pole areas of the world when compared realistically by season. True or false?
-
Nope, it's prinarily rock.
My point is that it wont melt away.
Also, ice melts there in the summer.
Are you still trying to compare the temperatures of Antarctica to the rest of the world? God's light does reach it as I have said: the same way you can see the light in your room without seeing the bulb.
Antarctica is drastically cooler than non-Pole areas of the world when compared realistically by season. True or false?
Kinda in the middle. Northen Sweden wouldn't be too far off. Same for northen norway. Seasons work the same way. Ice melts in summer and water freezes in the winter. Temperatures would be kinda similar, nowhere near drastic differences.
If gods light reaches antarctica we'd see two suns if there were a fake one. But there's only one. If the light shines on antarctica the source has to be visible from antarctica. And the only visible source is what appear to be the same sun as anywhere else.
-
Nope, it's prinarily rock.
My point is that it wont melt away.
Also, ice melts there in the summer.
Are you still trying to compare the temperatures of Antarctica to the rest of the world? God's light does reach it as I have said: the same way you can see the light in your room without seeing the bulb.
Antarctica is drastically cooler than non-Pole areas of the world when compared realistically by season. True or false?
Kinda in the middle. Northen Sweden wouldn't be too far off. Same for northen norway. Seasons work the same way. Ice melts in summer and water freezes in the winter. Temperatures would be kinda similar, nowhere near drastic differences.
If gods light reaches antarctica we'd see two suns if there were a fake one. But there's only one. If the light shines on antarctica the source has to be visible from antarctica. And the only visible source is what appear to be the same sun as anywhere else.
I did explain why we wouldn't see two Suns in the post you're responding to. A light source does not need to be visible for emitted light to be visible.
'Kinda similar' is not the same. What do you believe the difference is?
For example, in Winter, the average temperature is around -50C/-58F in the Antarctic, and in Northern Sweden/Norway they drop to at most -15C/5F, which I found out after about a minute of researching.
Two falsehoods.
-
Nope, it's prinarily rock.
My point is that it wont melt away.
Also, ice melts there in the summer.
Are you still trying to compare the temperatures of Antarctica to the rest of the world? God's light does reach it as I have said: the same way you can see the light in your room without seeing the bulb.
Antarctica is drastically cooler than non-Pole areas of the world when compared realistically by season. True or false?
Kinda in the middle. Northen Sweden wouldn't be too far off. Same for northen norway. Seasons work the same way. Ice melts in summer and water freezes in the winter. Temperatures would be kinda similar, nowhere near drastic differences.
If gods light reaches antarctica we'd see two suns if there were a fake one. But there's only one. If the light shines on antarctica the source has to be visible from antarctica. And the only visible source is what appear to be the same sun as anywhere else.
I did explain why we wouldn't see two Suns in the post you're responding to. A light source does not need to be visible for emitted light to be visible.
'Kinda similar' is not the same. What do you believe the difference is?
For example, in Winter, the average temperature is around -50C/-58F in the Antarctic, and in Northern Sweden/Norway they drop to at most -15C/5F, which I found out after about a minute of researching.
Two falsehoods.
The northen Sweden temperature is an avarage, not "drop to at most". It can well drop to -23C and less. The avarage is high since the last couple of winters have been extremely mild. A few years ago it could drop even further far up north, down to and below -30C. That is not a too drastic difference from antarctica. And how does this prove you anyways? It's still just your opinions and a guess at where the edge should be if the earth was flat.
-
Testify doesn't actually believe anything he's saying. Lol. He's a troll. This whole site, even the society ate just trolls. None of them thinks the earth is actually flat. They just wanna be edgy an claim to believe on something so far off the map so they can wallow in the controversy of it all. Its not a debate. He'll never say that here, though. To his dying breath he'll swear he thinks all this crap. He doesnt. He's just a guy. This is like the internet forum version of being goth. Its all makeup and black clothes with a dork inside. Lol.
-
Nope, it's prinarily rock.
My point is that it wont melt away.
Also, ice melts there in the summer.
Are you still trying to compare the temperatures of Antarctica to the rest of the world? God's light does reach it as I have said: the same way you can see the light in your room without seeing the bulb.
Antarctica is drastically cooler than non-Pole areas of the world when compared realistically by season. True or false?
Kinda in the middle. Northen Sweden wouldn't be too far off. Same for northen norway. Seasons work the same way. Ice melts in summer and water freezes in the winter. Temperatures would be kinda similar, nowhere near drastic differences.
If gods light reaches antarctica we'd see two suns if there were a fake one. But there's only one. If the light shines on antarctica the source has to be visible from antarctica. And the only visible source is what appear to be the same sun as anywhere else.
I did explain why we wouldn't see two Suns in the post you're responding to. A light source does not need to be visible for emitted light to be visible.
'Kinda similar' is not the same. What do you believe the difference is?
For example, in Winter, the average temperature is around -50C/-58F in the Antarctic, and in Northern Sweden/Norway they drop to at most -15C/5F, which I found out after about a minute of researching.
Two falsehoods.
The northen Sweden temperature is an avarage, not "drop to at most". It can well drop to -23C and less. The avarage is high since the last couple of winters have been extremely mild. A few years ago it could drop even further far up north, down to and below -30C. That is not a too drastic difference from antarctica. And how does this prove you anyways? It's still just your opinions and a guess at where the edge should be if the earth was flat.
If you are back to that lie, and are claiming 20C is not much of a difference, I see no reason to continue talking with you.
James 3:14 But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth.
-
Nope, it's prinarily rock.
My point is that it wont melt away.
Also, ice melts there in the summer.
Are you still trying to compare the temperatures of Antarctica to the rest of the world? God's light does reach it as I have said: the same way you can see the light in your room without seeing the bulb.
Antarctica is drastically cooler than non-Pole areas of the world when compared realistically by season. True or false?
Kinda in the middle. Northen Sweden wouldn't be too far off. Same for northen norway. Seasons work the same way. Ice melts in summer and water freezes in the winter. Temperatures would be kinda similar, nowhere near drastic differences.
If gods light reaches antarctica we'd see two suns if there were a fake one. But there's only one. If the light shines on antarctica the source has to be visible from antarctica. And the only visible source is what appear to be the same sun as anywhere else.
I did explain why we wouldn't see two Suns in the post you're responding to. A light source does not need to be visible for emitted light to be visible.
'Kinda similar' is not the same. What do you believe the difference is?
For example, in Winter, the average temperature is around -50C/-58F in the Antarctic, and in Northern Sweden/Norway they drop to at most -15C/5F, which I found out after about a minute of researching.
Two falsehoods.
The northen Sweden temperature is an avarage, not "drop to at most". It can well drop to -23C and less. The avarage is high since the last couple of winters have been extremely mild. A few years ago it could drop even further far up north, down to and below -30C. That is not a too drastic difference from antarctica. And how does this prove you anyways? It's still just your opinions and a guess at where the edge should be if the earth was flat.
If you are back to that lie, and are claiming 20C is not much of a difference, I see no reason to continue talking with you.
James 3:14 But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth.
What lie?
I don't see 20 degrees C as a drastic difference, no. More as an expected difference. The sun stands quite low in the sky in antarctica.
And I still see no evidence that the edge is at the south pole.
-
Nope, it's prinarily rock.
My point is that it wont melt away.
Also, ice melts there in the summer.
Are you still trying to compare the temperatures of Antarctica to the rest of the world? God's light does reach it as I have said: the same way you can see the light in your room without seeing the bulb.
Antarctica is drastically cooler than non-Pole areas of the world when compared realistically by season. True or false?
Kinda in the middle. Northen Sweden wouldn't be too far off. Same for northen norway. Seasons work the same way. Ice melts in summer and water freezes in the winter. Temperatures would be kinda similar, nowhere near drastic differences.
If gods light reaches antarctica we'd see two suns if there were a fake one. But there's only one. If the light shines on antarctica the source has to be visible from antarctica. And the only visible source is what appear to be the same sun as anywhere else.
I did explain why we wouldn't see two Suns in the post you're responding to. A light source does not need to be visible for emitted light to be visible.
'Kinda similar' is not the same. What do you believe the difference is?
For example, in Winter, the average temperature is around -50C/-58F in the Antarctic, and in Northern Sweden/Norway they drop to at most -15C/5F, which I found out after about a minute of researching.
Two falsehoods.
The northen Sweden temperature is an avarage, not "drop to at most". It can well drop to -23C and less. The avarage is high since the last couple of winters have been extremely mild. A few years ago it could drop even further far up north, down to and below -30C. That is not a too drastic difference from antarctica. And how does this prove you anyways? It's still just your opinions and a guess at where the edge should be if the earth was flat.
If you are back to that lie, and are claiming 20C is not much of a difference, I see no reason to continue talking with you.
James 3:14 But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth.
What lie?
I don't see 20 degrees C as a drastic difference, no. More as an expected difference. The sun stands quite low in the sky in antarctica.
And I still see no evidence that the edge is at the south pole.
Hosea 4:6 because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee
Your questions have been answered.
-
Nope, it's prinarily rock.
My point is that it wont melt away.
Also, ice melts there in the summer.
Are you still trying to compare the temperatures of Antarctica to the rest of the world? God's light does reach it as I have said: the same way you can see the light in your room without seeing the bulb.
Antarctica is drastically cooler than non-Pole areas of the world when compared realistically by season. True or false?
Kinda in the middle. Northen Sweden wouldn't be too far off. Same for northen norway. Seasons work the same way. Ice melts in summer and water freezes in the winter. Temperatures would be kinda similar, nowhere near drastic differences.
If gods light reaches antarctica we'd see two suns if there were a fake one. But there's only one. If the light shines on antarctica the source has to be visible from antarctica. And the only visible source is what appear to be the same sun as anywhere else.
I did explain why we wouldn't see two Suns in the post you're responding to. A light source does not need to be visible for emitted light to be visible.
'Kinda similar' is not the same. What do you believe the difference is?
For example, in Winter, the average temperature is around -50C/-58F in the Antarctic, and in Northern Sweden/Norway they drop to at most -15C/5F, which I found out after about a minute of researching.
Two falsehoods.
The northen Sweden temperature is an avarage, not "drop to at most". It can well drop to -23C and less. The avarage is high since the last couple of winters have been extremely mild. A few years ago it could drop even further far up north, down to and below -30C. That is not a too drastic difference from antarctica. And how does this prove you anyways? It's still just your opinions and a guess at where the edge should be if the earth was flat.
If you are back to that lie, and are claiming 20C is not much of a difference, I see no reason to continue talking with you.
James 3:14 But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth.
What lie?
I don't see 20 degrees C as a drastic difference, no. More as an expected difference. The sun stands quite low in the sky in antarctica.
And I still see no evidence that the edge is at the south pole.
Hosea 4:6 because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee
Your questions have been answered.
I am asking for evidence. You have not provided any evidence, only guesses and opinions.
-
Nope, it's prinarily rock.
My point is that it wont melt away.
Also, ice melts there in the summer.
Are you still trying to compare the temperatures of Antarctica to the rest of the world? God's light does reach it as I have said: the same way you can see the light in your room without seeing the bulb.
Antarctica is drastically cooler than non-Pole areas of the world when compared realistically by season. True or false?
Kinda in the middle. Northen Sweden wouldn't be too far off. Same for northen norway. Seasons work the same way. Ice melts in summer and water freezes in the winter. Temperatures would be kinda similar, nowhere near drastic differences.
If gods light reaches antarctica we'd see two suns if there were a fake one. But there's only one. If the light shines on antarctica the source has to be visible from antarctica. And the only visible source is what appear to be the same sun as anywhere else.
I did explain why we wouldn't see two Suns in the post you're responding to. A light source does not need to be visible for emitted light to be visible.
'Kinda similar' is not the same. What do you believe the difference is?
For example, in Winter, the average temperature is around -50C/-58F in the Antarctic, and in Northern Sweden/Norway they drop to at most -15C/5F, which I found out after about a minute of researching.
Two falsehoods.
The northen Sweden temperature is an avarage, not "drop to at most". It can well drop to -23C and less. The avarage is high since the last couple of winters have been extremely mild. A few years ago it could drop even further far up north, down to and below -30C. That is not a too drastic difference from antarctica. And how does this prove you anyways? It's still just your opinions and a guess at where the edge should be if the earth was flat.
If you are back to that lie, and are claiming 20C is not much of a difference, I see no reason to continue talking with you.
James 3:14 But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth.
What lie?
I don't see 20 degrees C as a drastic difference, no. More as an expected difference. The sun stands quite low in the sky in antarctica.
And I still see no evidence that the edge is at the south pole.
Hosea 4:6 because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee
Your questions have been answered.
I am asking for evidence. You have not provided any evidence, only guesses and opinions.
Matthew 13:14-15 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
-
Enough of that! Reported for religious preaching.
-
Guys, the topic is about "the Flatness of the Earth". Measuring the temperatures of the Earth doesn't prove it is flat or a sphere.
Two DIRECT PROOFS the Earth is NOT Flat are:
A:
-----------------------------------------
1) Motion is Relative. Like if a stationary person is watching a car go by at 60 mph vs being inside the car watching the person go by at 60 mph. The motion is relative to your reference point that can be swapped or changed.
2) If you spin a basketball (sphere) on your finger, your finger defines the S. Pole. If you look from above the ball, you will see the N. Pole. The N. and S. Poles define the axis of spin of the ball. This is what it looks like to a stationary person with the ball spinning. If the ball is stationary (swapping/changing the reference point), the person and world appear to be rotating around the ball. Both views are absolutely correct. The person and world appear to spin around the N. Celestial Pole (NCP) and S. Celestial Pole (SCP) that are extensions in the sky of the N. and S. Poles on the sphere. The NCP and SCP are the 2 points in the sky that everything appears to spin around (the center of the star trails).
3) A disk is a sphere that has been squished a lot. Everything in (2) totally applies to a disk but... You can ONLY see the SCP from the edge or bottom of the disk. You CAN NOT see it from the top of the disk!! A picture of star trails around the SCP taken from the Harker Glacier on the island of South Georgia in the S. Atlantic (lat -54.3667, long -36.5333) (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/03/140319-antarctica-big-bang-inflation-telescope-south-pole-astronomy/ (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/03/140319-antarctica-big-bang-inflation-telescope-south-pole-astronomy/)) would be impossible from a disk. Furthermore, the SCP in the S. Georgia Island image is 54 degrees up, which corresponds EXACTLY where it should be on a sphere earth. This in essence disproves a Flat Earth model - irrefutably.
4) ANY arguments of what you can/can't, will/won't see from any place on the Earth (sphere or flat) can be demonstrated easily and directly. All you need is a globe (sphere), a bicycle wheel (disk), cell phone and like Silly Putty. Simply set the cell phone on Movie mode to take like 10 sec movies. Then, using the Silly Putty, put the cell phone anywhere you want on the globe or disk (e.g. N. Pole (+90 deg), Arctic circle (+66.6 deg), equator, South Georgia Island (-54 deg), S. Pole (-90 deg)) and at any angle you want (vertical, horizontal, whatever). Then, start the movie and simply spin the globe/wheel back and forth. You will see what will appear in the sky to a person standing at that place on the sphere/disk looking up at that angle. No guessing. No "ifs", "ands" or "buts".
B:
-----------------------------------------
Basically, although a sphere and a disk are round, they have totally different attributes. There is a boat trip on 12/18/2015 from the southern most point of S. America to South Georgia Island via the Falkland Islands (1380 mi) that takes 3 days at approx 19.2 mph. Directly to South Georgia Island would be 1257 mi and 2.7 days. Per the Flat Earth model, the distance would be like 4423 mi (68.3 mph). Cruise ships don't go that fast.
Check out my "Traveling around 60 degrees south" thread for the details.
Both of these DIRECTLY prove the Earth is NOT flat.
-
Guys, the topic is about "the Flatness of the Earth". Measuring the temperatures of the Earth doesn't prove it is flat or a sphere.
Two DIRECT PROOFS the Earth is NOT Flat are:
A:
-----------------------------------------
1) Motion is Relative. Like if a stationary person is watching a car go by at 60 mph vs being inside the car watching the person go by at 60 mph. The motion is relative to your reference point that can be swapped or changed.
2) If you spin a basketball (sphere) on your finger, your finger defines the S. Pole. If you look from above the ball, you will see the N. Pole. The N. and S. Poles define the axis of spin of the ball. This is what it looks like to a stationary person with the ball spinning. If the ball is stationary (swapping/changing the reference point), the person and world appear to be rotating around the ball. Both views are absolutely correct. The person and world appear to spin around the N. Celestial Pole (NCP) and S. Celestial Pole (SCP) that are extensions in the sky of the N. and S. Poles on the sphere. The NCP and SCP are the 2 points in the sky that everything appears to spin around (the center of the star trails).
3) A disk is a sphere that has been squished a lot. Everything in (2) totally applies to a disk but... You can ONLY see the SCP from the edge or bottom of the disk. You CAN NOT see it from the top of the disk!! A picture of star trails around the SCP taken from the Harker Glacier on the island of South Georgia in the S. Atlantic (lat -54.3667, long -36.5333) (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/03/140319-antarctica-big-bang-inflation-telescope-south-pole-astronomy/ (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/03/140319-antarctica-big-bang-inflation-telescope-south-pole-astronomy/)) would be impossible from a disk. Furthermore, the SCP in the S. Georgia Island image is 54 degrees up, which corresponds EXACTLY where it should be on a sphere earth. This in essence disproves a Flat Earth model - irrefutably.
4) ANY arguments of what you can/can't, will/won't see from any place on the Earth (sphere or flat) can be demonstrated easily and directly. All you need is a globe (sphere), a bicycle wheel (disk), cell phone and like Silly Putty. Simply set the cell phone on Movie mode to take like 10 sec movies. Then, using the Silly Putty, put the cell phone anywhere you want on the globe or disk (e.g. N. Pole (+90 deg), Arctic circle (+66.6 deg), equator, South Georgia Island (-54 deg), S. Pole (-90 deg)) and at any angle you want (vertical, horizontal, whatever). Then, start the movie and simply spin the globe/wheel back and forth. You will see what will appear in the sky to a person standing at that place on the sphere/disk looking up at that angle. No guessing. No "ifs", "ands" or "buts".
B:
-----------------------------------------
Basically, although a sphere and a disk are round, they have totally different attributes. There is a boat trip on 12/18/2015 from the southern most point of S. America to South Georgia Island via the Falkland Islands (1380 mi) that takes 3 days at approx 19.2 mph. Directly to South Georgia Island would be 1257 mi and 2.7 days. Per the Flat Earth model, the distance would be like 4423 mi (68.3 mph). Cruise ships don't go that fast.
Check out my "Traveling around 60 degrees south" thread for the details.
Both of these DIRECTLY prove the Earth is NOT flat.
The topic is, in fact, if you've read the OP, where is the edge if the earth was flat? Which is what we were discussing. Of course, temperature has nothing to do with the edge as well.
-
As far as I know, there are two theories of where the edge of the Earth is on a Flat Earth model:
- At 90 deg south - based on a sphere model.
- Unknown - can extend "endlessly". Some people suppose there are lands and "aliens" living beyond the Antarctica "wall".
But, as per my proof in "B:" above, you can totally and directly PROVE the Flat Earth model doesn't work (i.e. there is no edge to even look for).