The Rod of God -- (!) Pages 33 and 34 (!)

Atomic Punk · Post by **Atomic Punk** » Wed Sep 09, 2015 4:30 am

Pops, it's not up to me to explain their beliefs to you. That is their deal. All I'm doing is telling you from myself to you that you are wrong in your interpretations of scripture. If you choose to believe your interpretations the way you do, then you are on your own when flailing away with nonsensical responses.

Jay clearly understands what I'm talking about in regard to reasonable, observable and scientifically proven evidence. Science doesn't disprove the intent of the Bible to its early readers. I don't enjoy telling you that you are wrong and I also realize you are fine with your own literal interpretations. If that makes you comfy, then don't let me stop you. The problem is that you are unwilling to understand what mankind later discovered of what God has created and that you are definitely not His spokesman when it comes to discovery of reality.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Wed Sep 09, 2015 8:45 am

AP wrote:you are wrong in your interpretations of scripture.

mankind later discovered of what God has created.

God told us there is a firmament, when their is not one.
God told us there are waters above this firmament, when there are not any.
God told us the sun, moon and stars are within this firmament, when they are not -- but are in fact, billions of light years away, many of them.
God told us the earth never moves, when in fact it really does, and it really moves a LOT.
God said the sun and moon move around the earth, but really it is the earth that is moving.
God implied over and over that the earth is a flat plane, but it is really round.

Man has finally become so smart that he realizes that God fed him a whole lot of bullcrap.

Thank God for man!
We're finally smart.

Got it.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:01 am

Tuesday, on NASA's official Twitter account...

NASA
@NASA
What's our new cover pic? The sun & Earth, as seen by
@StationCDRKelly from the @Space_Station. Enjoy!
#YearInSpace
1:20 AM - 9 Sep 2015

Small problem.
It's not the sun, but is the moon.

http://mashable.com/2015/09/08/nasa-moo ... kR2eJb0OkE

And in fact, NASA made an almost identical mistake to this one just a few weeks ago, also.
And put their dumbass mistake up on their official Twitter account for all the world to see.

NASA
@NASA
@StationCDRKelly captured this stunning sunrise as he
orbited Earth from the @Space_Station: http://go.nasa.gov/1L4aTb1
6:02 AM - 12 Aug 2015

That's the moon, dumbshits.
Can't keep your own bullshit straight.

#fail

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Wed Sep 09, 2015 10:47 am

HAAAHAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Pop has exposed these tricksters!!!!!

They accidentally used the moon cgi sticky thing, rather than the sun as was prescribed by the NASA twitter boss. This is proof of this fraud.

It couldn't possibly be the 22 year old communications major balck chick that NASA hired to manage the twitter acct that simply doesn't know the first thing about astronomy.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Wed Sep 09, 2015 10:51 am

Jay in Phoenix wrote:Oh yes, of course. As to that little water graphic, where is the force of gravity being factored in?

It isn't.

The calculations you and MS seem to be so enamored with are restricted by a single mile of distance. Try using something a bit more reasonable in consideration of the size of the planet, say from the East coast of North Carolina to the West coast of Australia. From point A to point B. Using a telescope that can cover the distance from the Earth to the moon, a much, much longer distance, if the plane of the surface of the Earth is flat, you should be able to easily see the other shore. Yet, you cannot. Why?

If I were a flat earfer, I might point out the 3 mountain ranges that lay between the two points. Even flat earthers believe in topography. I think.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Wed Sep 09, 2015 10:54 am

Getting back to pop's ramblings about 8"/mile and the toronto pic, doesn't that mean that about 264" would be hidden below the horizon, assuming you are MS's height, a fair bit less for most of us?

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Wed Sep 09, 2015 11:18 am

smackaholic wrote:Getting back to pop's ramblings about 8"/mile and the toronto pic, doesn't that mean that about 264" would be hidden below the horizon, assuming you are MS's height, a fair bit less for most of us?

The 8" is not constant.
It compounds as one moves further from their viewing target.

Let's say O is our viewing target.

As we stand 1 mile away at point A, the line B represents the 8" drop.

Then as we move further away, to point B, look how the drop increases -- as represented by line b.

So no, it would not be a 264" drop.
lol

Use the earth curve calculator.
http://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/

If your eye height is 10 ft and the distance to viewing target is 31 miles, 455 feet of your viewing target is supposed to be hidden below the horizon.

This sucks for the round earth dimwits.

But it is what it is.

R-Jack · Post by **R-Jack** » Wed Sep 09, 2015 12:48 pm

poptart wrote:Can't keep your own bullshit straight.

Yet are able to throw the wool over the entire worlds eyes for decades.

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Wed Sep 09, 2015 12:51 pm

poptart wrote:And the two main towers appeared to me to be a controlled demolition fall.

If the buildings were brought down via demolition, why would they bother with a controlled demo when they knew they would already be killing thousands?

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Wed Sep 09, 2015 1:33 pm

poptart wrote:
AP wrote:you are wrong in your interpretations of scripture.

mankind later discovered of what God has created.
Man said that God told us there is a firmament, when their is not one.
Man said that God told us there are waters above this firmament, when there are not any.
Man said that God told us the sun, moon and stars are within this firmament, when they are not -- but are in fact, billions of light years away, many of them.
Man said that God told us the earth never moves, when in fact it really does, and it really moves a LOT.
Man said that God said the sun and moon move around the earth, but really it is the earth that is moving.
Man said that God implied over and over that the earth is a flat plane, but it is really round.

Man has finally become so smart that he realizes that man said that God fed him a whole lot of bullcrap.

Thank God for man!
We're finally smart.

Got it.

FTFY

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Wed Sep 09, 2015 1:40 pm

lol @ Diego.

No 9/11 talk from me in this thead.

R-Jack wrote:Yet are able to throw the wool over the entire worlds eyes for decades.

Based on the intelligence on display in this thread, it's not surprising.

Not the entire world, however.
Some have always known the moon landings were bullcrap.

AP wrote:All I'm doing is telling you from myself to you that you are wrong in your interpretations of scripture

The days of Genesis 1 represent ages, you claim.
Thousands of years, millions or years, ??billions?? of years.
I don't know how many years you would say each day is, or even what (Biblically) you would base that on -- but this is your position.
Okay...

Genesis tells us that the earth was created on day 1.

The sun was not created until day 4.

So in your correct interpretation of Scripture, the earth was up and running with no sun and moon for... thousands, millions, billions of years?

Just an earth.
No sun or moon for insert a huge number years.
lol

What's up with that?

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Wed Sep 09, 2015 2:16 pm

You didn't even come close to answering my question Jay.

Jay in Phoenix · Post by **Jay in Phoenix** » Wed Sep 09, 2015 5:51 pm

Moving Sale wrote:You didn't even come close to answering my question Jay.

You're almost as bad as 'tart here Sale. Almost.

I did answer your question, I just did it in a roundabout way.

"Do you believe that a lake, one mile from shore to shore, is flat (as it appears to me) or is it 8" diff due to the earth's curve, the same as one mile of ocean must be?"

The surface of the lake, in perfectly calm conditions, given those parameters, is of course flat. Now then, expand that distance out, say for 1,000 miles, such as a typical stretch of sea or ocean, then the surface, to the naked eye, will "appear" flat. It isn't of course, due to gravitational pull. This is why I proposed the question of taking a telescope that can view the surface of the moon in detail, and try to see from the shore of the US to the shore of Australia, if you had a perfectly uninterrupted line of sight. The question was why can you not see the other shore? IF the surface of the earth and seas were perfectly flat and the sight line unimpeded, you should be able to see the other shoreline. But you cannot.

Again, why? IF it''s a perfectly horizontal plane, a perfect linear distance and the telescope can see surface detail on the moon, a much, much further distance, there shouldn't be an issue.

Pops can whine and flail all he wishes about this 8" drop, my question is based on a perfectly vertical line of sight.

Now then, as I have answered your question directly, here is the more pertinent, second one for you MS.

What shape is the Earth?

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Wed Sep 09, 2015 6:02 pm

So a one mile stretch of lake (in a small lake) is flat, but the same one mile of ocean water is curved with the earth. Is that your position?

I have already told you I think the earth is something approaching round. You CAN read right?

Jay in Phoenix · Post by **Jay in Phoenix** » Wed Sep 09, 2015 10:07 pm

Moving Sale wrote:So a one mile stretch of lake (in a small lake) is flat, but the same one mile of ocean water is curved with the earth. Is that your position?

I have already told you I think the earth is something approaching round. You CAN read right?

Yep, sure can, though I am wondering the same about you. Did I not say one mile against a thousand as example?

One mile is one mile, ocean or lake, land or sky.

A thousand miles is a little bit more, but as you are a small minded little troll, you would distract and argue this point.

As you believe the Earth is "approaching round", other than being your typical contrarian self, what is your purpose here?

A one mile stretch of ANY body of water is subject to the same principles of physics, thermal dynamics and gravity, as is a much larger body of water. Remember, you said yourself this was about what you can see. Take a ride in an airplane that can ascend high enough, say like the proverbial "Vomit Comet" used to film Apollo 13, then tell me what you se as the shape of the Earth's horizon.

Better still, use any simple telescope, as I have mentioned before, and view any planet in our solar system and describe it's shape.

The quaint little calculations you and 'tart are so desperately clinging to are a distraction, and you are trolling. I get that, it's your nature. Pops on the other hand is desperately craving attention and it is time to end this nonsensical discussion.

You KNOW the Earth is round, or roundish. You have admitted this.

So Sale, what exactly are you arguing here, other than some irrelevant calculus.

Go back and fucking READ the words. Understand the words.

Then politely piss off.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Thu Sep 10, 2015 12:56 am

Jay wrote:A one mile stretch of ANY body of water is subject to the same principles of physics, thermal dynamics and gravity, as is a much larger body of water

It must have an 8" drop.

You are telling us, Jay, that in a lake one mile long, water willsomehow
stack up at the Tangent Point, rather than flow down to A and B.

lol

Why are you berating MS?

He asked a simple question, which you dodged flailed over for days.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Thu Sep 10, 2015 1:02 am

poptart wrote:
Jay wrote:A one mile stretch of ANY body of water is subject to the same principles of physics, thermal dynamics and gravity, as is a much larger body of water
It must have an 8" drop.

You are telling us, Jay, that in a lake one mile long, water willsomehow
stack up at the Tangent Point, rather than flow down to A and B.

lol

A and B are not "down". A, B and your Tangent Point are equidistant from centre of mass.

You surely had lab experiments with centrifuges in high school, no?

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Thu Sep 10, 2015 1:04 am

Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote:...lab experiments...

Did your parents pin a note to your jacket, informing your teachers that you should be excused from these occult rituals?

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Thu Sep 10, 2015 1:31 am

Marty Tard, the rough diagram is only given by me so that people can visualize the nonsense Jay is selling.

Water will stack up and stay at a high point, rather than flow down and flatten, he says.
Water will not only not flow down, genius says, but it will hump up.

Quite amusing.

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Thu Sep 10, 2015 1:38 am

Next time I have to give a urine sample at the doctor's office or at work I'll just bring this thread up on my phone. I'll being flowing in no time....

Atomic Punk · Post by **Atomic Punk** » Thu Sep 10, 2015 1:43 am

Genesis says water will hump up? Was that Peter Gabriel or Phil Collins?

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Thu Sep 10, 2015 11:55 am

smackaholic wrote:It couldn't possibly be the 22 year old communications major balck chick that NASA hired to manage the twitter acct that simply doesn't know the first thing about astronomy.

The fact that you would make such a comment just shows your willingness to be irrational.

It's NASA's *OFFICIAL* Twitter account.
What goes up there is supposed to be the *OFFICIAL* word from NASA.
NASA with the 18 billion dollar budget.

Dude, they pumped the same kind of dumb error out onto their *OFFICIAL* account twice within a month.
Like they really don't know what the hell they are doing.

And you, for some unexplained reason, blame it on a 22 yr old.
Whenever else NASA puts things out, you gobble it all up as fact.

Eight are frying pans and one is Europa.

Find it.

Dumbshit.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Thu Sep 10, 2015 11:56 am

Atomic Punk wrote:Genesis says water will hump up? Was that Peter Gabriel or Phil Collins?

Lay off the sauce.

You are making no sense whatsoever here.

Jay in Phoenix · Post by **Jay in Phoenix** » Thu Sep 10, 2015 5:16 pm

Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote:
poptart wrote:
Jay wrote:A one mile stretch of ANY body of water is subject to the same principles of physics, thermal dynamics and gravity, as is a much larger body of water
It must have an 8" drop.

You are telling us, Jay, that in a lake one mile long, water willsomehow
stack up at the Tangent Point, rather than flow down to A and B.

lol
A and B are not "down". A, B and your Tangent Point are equidistant from centre of mass.

You surely had lab experiments with centrifuges in high school, no?

Bingo. We have a winner.

I have been speaking of the waters surface since the beginning. Where did I say, "Water will stack up and stay at a high point, rather than flow down and flatten, he says.
Water will not only not flow down, genius says, but it will hump up." Never happened, was never even implied. Once again, poptart is showing just how badly he fails at reading and interpretation. The crude graphic has nothing whatsoever to do with the answer(s) I have given to you and Sale. Thanks for getting everything completely wrong yet again.

The surface of a calm, small body of water is always flat. When said surface is the length of an ocean or sea, it will "bend" in accordance with gravity.

There are innumerable experiments that can be performed that show the physics and reaction of water.

You're stuck on stupid with a graphic that is not applicable.

Enough of this nonsense. I understand you are desperate for attention and that is what this whole thing has been from the beginning.

Nighty night pops.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Thu Sep 10, 2015 5:34 pm

poptart wrote:
Atomic Punk wrote:Genesis says water will hump up? Was that Peter Gabriel or Phil Collins?
Lay off the sauce.

You are making no sense whatsoever here.

He's just trying to fit in.

Moby Dick · Post by **Moby Dick** » Thu Sep 10, 2015 9:06 pm

long video but i actually watched it....

actual EVIDENCE...

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Thu Sep 10, 2015 9:43 pm

Jay,

You are making conflicting statements. Water does "hump" as pop likes to put it in as short a distance as a mile. Marty, surprisingly, gave a pretty good explanation. It isn't much of a hump, but, it is a hump.

R-Jack · Post by **R-Jack** » Thu Sep 10, 2015 10:55 pm

smackaholic wrote:It isn't much of a hump, but, it is a hump.

Only at T1B, where an innocent debate about a flat earth will morph into a discussion of Mrs. Smackaholic's sex life.

Jay in Phoenix · Post by **Jay in Phoenix** » Thu Sep 10, 2015 11:21 pm

smackaholic wrote:Jay,

You are making conflicting statements. Water does "hump" as pop likes to put it in as short a distance as a mile. Marty, surprisingly, gave a pretty good explanation. It isn't much of a hump, but, it is a hump.

No 'holic I am not. I have qualified both examples of the distribution and placement and levels of water. Water can literally "bump", as you put it, in a small glass, given the right environment and what lays under the water.

I have used such terms as malleable and shown the elasticity of water. Water can also have a perfectly flat surface on a body like a pool or lake. Disturb that water or redistribute the underlying water with any mass and this causes change in the surface tension, movement, placement, etc.

Sorry you couldn't follow said examples, but then, this has been a very long and ridiculous discussion.

Go back to that silly graphic 'tart used and try to guess the mistake.

You already know it as Marty has shown you and you have acknowledged.

Unless you or anyone else wants to defend the 'tard's flat Earth nonsense, this discussion is over.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Fri Sep 11, 2015 1:57 am

Yesterday Jay finally answered MS's question by saying...

Jay wrote:A one mile stretch of ANY body of water is subject to the same principles of physics, thermal dynamics and gravity, as is a much larger body of water

Meaning, over a 1 mile span of lake water, there must be an 8" drop from one end to the other, if the earth is in fact 25,000 miles in circumference.
Meaning, he thinks water must stack up on the Tangent Point in this crude diagram rather than drop down to the sides -- as everyone knows very well water does.

Now it's just razzle dazzle double-talk from Jay to try to rationalize his untenable position.
This is what liars do.

A one mile stretch of ANY body of water is subject to the same principles of physics, thermal dynamics and gravity, as is a much larger body of water.
The surface of a calm, small body of water is always flat. When said surface is the length of an ocean or sea, it will "bend" in accordance with gravity.

- Jay

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Fri Sep 11, 2015 1:58 am

smackaholic wrote:Water does "hump" as pop likes to put it in as short a distance as a mile.

Yes, it must -- if the round earth model we've been shown is right.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Fri Sep 11, 2015 3:37 am

A one mile stretch of calm lake water will be flat -- but a one mile stretch of ocean water will bend by 8".

Is this your final answer, Jay?

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Fri Sep 11, 2015 10:07 am

Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote: A and B are not "down". A, B and your Tangent Point are equidistant from centre of mass.

By all means, keep ignoring that and instead focus on humps and lumps.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Fri Sep 11, 2015 11:22 am

A few pictures for you to view...

Seems North America has grown tremendously.
lol

Another look at the comparison.

Some 22 yr old intern probably goofed.

UnRACK her!

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Fri Sep 11, 2015 11:50 am

U.N. General Assembly - with the flat earth map prominently on
display above the speaker's podium.

They openly mock you.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Fri Sep 11, 2015 2:20 pm

poptart wrote: Meaning, he thinks water must stack up on the Tangent Point in this crude diagram rather than drop down to the sides -- as everyone knows very well water does.

Yes, that's exactly what it does, you fucking idiot.

Centripetal force. Learn it. Deal with it. Then go fuck yourself.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Fri Sep 11, 2015 5:25 pm

KC Scott wrote:photography

AKA ~ Lucifer's "Etch A Sketch"

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Fri Sep 11, 2015 9:35 pm

This just in from the Grand Canyon, Poptart has been clowned by a weather balloon and a go pro.

Jay in Phoenix · Post by **Jay in Phoenix** » Fri Sep 11, 2015 11:04 pm

Jesus fucking Christ poptart, you are either that stupid or the biggest liar ever to trap himself on a post board.

Nothing you said about what I said was either accurate, or worse, verbatim. mvscal has highlighted this point, so I need to add nothing further. I don't give a rats ass whether you are trolling or just FLAT out brain dead, but enough is enough.

Your bullshit out of sequence Earth photos only enhance your deceptions. You say you embrace Christianity, yet every aggression (argument) you return is embraced with hatred and ignorance. Bail out poptart, for the love of God and god, just stop.

Whatever respect and sense of humor anyone on this board has ever had for you has been erased.

Congratulations on the most epic meltdown in posting history.

Now go ahead and respond again and take Brother Goober's Last Word Crown and wear that shit with your delusional false pride.

A Christian, you are not.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sat Sep 12, 2015 1:30 am

KC Scott wrote:
poptart wrote:A few pictures for you to view...

Seems North America has grown tremendously.

Those shots were NOT taken from the same distance, location or at the same time

You seem to have a LOT of trouble understanding distance and perspective as it relates to photography

This is truly hilarious.

Of course they were taken from a different distance.

The overall ball earths are the same size there -- and therefore the overall size of the North Americas MUST be the same.

But they aren't.

They are not even close. :)

Is this really a difficult concept for you?

You grasping BADLY here.
Unreal, actually.

The pictures are ridiculous, Scott.

Just deal with that.