Fascists may have a slightly more nationalistic bent than the other two. Other than that they’re the same authoritarian tyranny.
It’s simultaneously amusing and disheartening to see people on PDW support Hitler’s brand of fascism solely because he burned some transgender books. They don’t see that Hitler’s form of tyranny is the Deep State’s end goal.
What’s preposterous is to not consider all the evidence and hold to theory and conjecture over data. Preposterous and lazy.
Why do scientists hold to evolution and Big Bang cosmology despite their failures? Why do we have flat earthers, terrain theorists, and ancient alien theorists?
They all have one thing in common: they are so wedded to their pet theories that they stubbornly refuse to consider all the relevant data and refuse to consider more reasonable explanations for the data that they do consider. All they do is shoot themselves in the foot, show themselves to be intellectually dishonest, and impede scientific progress.
His SC picks kicked the issue back to the states.
Trump's comment to the effect of "we'll sit down and figure out a number everyone is happy with" is irrelevant. He's saying that to shut the interrupting (and rude) report up. Possibly also to reach across the aisle, to show moderates and liberals that he's not a "religious fundamentalist".
Rejecting the possibility is based on the assumption that no other mechanism is known beyond that of ionizing radiation, as you described.
It is your job to prove that non-ionizing radiation can cause cancer. It is not my job to give you the benefit of the doubt. I did not say that ionizing radiation is the only thing that can cause cancer, I said that non-ionizing radiation does not have a known mechanism to cause cancer. Those are not the same claims.
I'm going to more thoroughly read that paper you linked, but keyword searching does not reveal that they even attempt to show a link between non-ionizing radiation and cancer, or any disease for that matter. Most of the mentions of "radiowaves", "microwaves", and "electromagnetic" concern diagnostic methods. I see one urge to not eat microwaved food, with no explanation given. This makes no sense as microwaved food does not give off microwaves and is not chemically altered by microwaves. I see nothing at all about cell phones or personal use of any communications device.
I'm also seeing discussion of "structured water" in this paper, which is a huge red flag. "Structured water" is a branch of pseudoscience extremely popular with New Agers and scam artists. In fact, it's not even pseudoscience; it's just wrong. Structured water is merely ice; liquid water by nature cannot be structured as it is in a constantly shifting fluid state. I'm hoping that the authors are using this term in a different sense than the New Age quantum mystic scammers.
I did not demonize the sun. I said that you absorb more thermal energy from sunlight, and that this sunlight (which is partially UV) is far more likely to give you cancer or other damage than cellular networks. These are objectively true facts.
I'd like to see any instance of someone getting sunburn-like symptoms from using their phone. I'm around phones and computers 24/7 and have never experienced any negative effects; nor has anyone else I've ever known, most of whom consistently use phones as well.
I compare cellular networks to the sun to give people a proportional sense of scale. If sunlight is generally not harmful (with the exception of sunburns), then 5G is going to be even more harmless, especially since it imparts orders of magnitude less energy.
demonization of sunlight and connecting it to cancer.
Oh, so when studies show that UV cause sunburns and are linked to skin cancer, it's demonizing, but when other studies show a weak correlation between 5G and cancer, it's totally legit. How convenient.
Again, not only do you have to show a correlation between radio waves and (insert malady here), but you also have to 1) propose a physical mechanism for why radio waves cause it, 2) prove by experiment that the proposed mechanism works, and 3) conclusively eliminate all other possible causes (genetics, exposure to other types of radiation, exposure to other carcinogenic substances, exposure to diseases, vaccination status, lifestyle choices, etc.)
At best only a weak correlation has been established between radio waves and (insert your disease of choice here). None of the other work has been done. I've said before and I'll keep saying it until people get it: correlation is not causation. That is a shortcut for lazy people who don't want to go through the work of proving their claims.
It is physically impossible for non-ionizing radiation to cause cancer.
UV causes sun burns and increases the probability of skin cancer because it is ionizing radiation. It strips electrons away from molecules, altering and damaging them. If that damage happens to DNA, and cellular repair mechanisms can’t fix it properly, that’s when the risk of cancer goes up. Sun burns are your skin cells committing mass suicide because they’re too damaged to repair themselves properly. X-rays and gamma rays do the same thing.
Visible light, infrared, micro, and radio waves can’t do that. They cannot alter molecular structures. At worst they impart heat, which is how a microwave cooks your food and why sunlight feels warm.
There are plenty of people who think non ionizing radiation can cause cancer, but all they have is statistical correlation, which does not imply causation and is almost meaningless unless they can explain and experimentally demonstrate a physical mechanism by which non ionizing radiation can cause cancer.
You get a couple microwatts of power standing near the most powerful 5G towers. In about a week you will have absorbed the same amount energy as you get from eating a French fry.
Nothing about 5G is any more dangerous to the human body than 3G or 4G. Sunlight is orders of magnitude more powerful and more carcinogenic.
she’s coming off a divorce, and she’s vulnerable.
That’s a weird way of saying she’s stupid enough to sleep with the enemy. At the bare minimum undisciplined.
Who in their right mind goes to any public event with a known Democrat operative? Who in their right mind goes anywhere in public with someone they don’t know? That goes doubly true for any politician; they know people are watching them and trying to trip them up.
Stop trying to defend someone’s stupid choices because they’re a woman. She choose this arena, and clearly cracked under pressure.
The DS probably set her up, but she was also stupid enough to take the bait.
It should be common sense to not be in public with a known Democrat, much less date one.
written out of the book of life,
No one is written out of the book of life. No one’s name is written in there until they are saved.
Paul already explained the case of those who don’t know God’s Word in Romans 2:12-16. Though they don’t have God’s Law, they have their own laws and conscience that show that they are sinners as well.
Furthermore, I have heard multiple reports from Muslims in the Middle East who live in countries that heavily suppress the gospel. They say that no man came and preached to them, but that Jesus appeared to them in a vision and shared the gospel. It seems that many Muslims in this situation get saved this way; God has a way of getting the gospel to those who are isolated from preachers or missionaries.
Lastly, there is evidence that nearly every ancient culture, even those that predate the Israelites, had some knowledge of the gospel, and this knowledge was encoded in the names of the stars and constellations in the zodiac.
I’ll be working as usual. I expect it to be either a normal EBS test like we got in 2018, or for nothing at all to happen.
For those trying to fear monger that the signal will be dangerous to electronic devices, make them explain exactly how an EBS broadcast will damage your phone. After about 5 seconds they’ll reveal themselves to be blathering idiots without a single clue about how technology actually works.
North poles dont attract north poles.
Which is precisely why diamagnetic materials are slightly repelled by an external magnetic field. My comment on "no movement whatsoever" is slightly incorrect due to oversimplification.
If gold even had a normal magnetic moment at all,
Magnetic moment refers to the strength and orientation of a magnetic field. I don't think there's such a thing as a "normal" magnetic moment; every substance and every atom is going to have its own unique moment.
Diamagnetic materials can be used in magnetic levitation, but they serve as stabilizers, not the source of the main lifting force. This link has a good overview:
https://www.physics.ucla.edu/marty/diamag/
Maglev trains operate on similar principles.
As for why gold isn't used, my guess is that it's too rare/is required in other applications, its diamagnetic response isn't strong enough, or that it needs to be kept too cold to make it work. When it comes to magnetic levitation, superconducting materials are the key as they have strong diamagnetic properties. Most of them have to be liquid nitrogen cold though, so the current goal is find room temperature (or close enough) superconductors.
If you replaced the iron in your blood with gold, you would die in less than 10 minutes. And I’m being generous with that.
That iron is used in hemoglobin, a molecule in your red blood cells that takes oxygen from your lungs. The chemical properties of gold are unsuitable to replace iron in hemoglobin.
No hemoglobin, no oxygen transportation, you suffocate.
Gold is diamagnetic, like many other materials and organic tissues.
In diamagnetism, the individual atoms (which have very small magnetic fields) will align their magnetic fields in the opposite direction of the external applied magnetic field. On a macroscopic level, this results in no movement whatsoever.
I don’t think it’ll be that quick, but man I wish it would.
The only reason I have a Twitter account is so that I can check it everyday for the storm tweet.
There either won't be elections, or they will be overseen by the military.
Step 1: cut off the $2,200+ a month illegals get from the government, plus all the other benefits they get at our expense.
Step 2: ban employers from employing non citizens.
Step 3: sit back and watch as they deport themselves.
Step 4: (bonus round) nuke the cartels. Figuratively or literally, you pick. Build the wall on their irradiated remains.
Who knew the cabal can casually break the laws of physics? /s
The topic is not complicated.
Men have XY sex chromosomes, which usually manifest male body types and genitalia.
Women have XX sex chromosomes and usually manifest female body types and genitalia.
A few in a million will be actually intersex, with both chromosomes and partial structures of both sets of genitalia. Such rare departures from the norm bear witness that the norm exists in the first place. The exceptions to a rule do not provide an excuse to tear the rule down.
If you pretend otherwise from the three points above, you are either mentally ill, extremely stupid and gullible, or are deliberately attempting to destroy western civilization.
Any questions?
Literally hundreds of verses are crystal clear in context.
The mere fact that there is a debate on this subject, let alone the fact that the overwhelming majority of Christians and Jews do not share your flat earth views, suggests otherwise.
You say that the sun, moon, and stars are in the firmament, and that the firmament is solid. How then do each of these objects move at different speeds and relative to each other? This a rehash of the epicycles invented by the geocentrists in medieval times. Their model quickly fell apart because it became far to convoluted, and it still was incongruent with observation. The paths taken by all celestial bodies across the night sky can only be explained by the heliocentric model; geocentricism became outdated 400 years ago.
Furthermore, the word "firmament" simply means "something that is firm". The word has no definite shape associated with it. You're assuming that it has the exact shape and properties that your model requires. You perfectly illustrated my point of presupposing a flat earth model and reading it into the text to "prove" flat earth.
I found the passage in Ezekiel 1 that references a firmament.
And the likeness of the firmament upon the heads of the living creature was as the colour of the terrible crystal, stretched forth over their heads above. Eze. 1:22
And there was a voice from the firmament that was over their heads, when they stood, and had let down their wings. Eze. 1:25
Note the phrases "upon the heads" and "that was over their heads", both referring to the heads of the angels and wheel creatures. Why would the passage be so specific about this phrase if the firmament was always over everyone's heads? "Firmament" here simply refers to a solid structure that the angels possessed, not something that encompasses the entire world.
Let's try Job 38:12-15:
12Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days; And caused the dayspring to know his place; 13That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, That the wicked might be shaken out of it? 14It is turned as clay to the seal; And they stand as a garment. 15And from the wicked their light is withholden, And the high arm shall be broken.
Note the phrase "as clay to the seal". In literature this is called a simile; a figure of speech that is not meant to be taken literally. If you insist on taking this passage literally, you must also interpret verse 12 literally, where the dawn (dayspring) is an intelligent entity that must be taught where to be. You must also then interpret verse 14 as stating that the ends of the earth are also like a garment. Flat earthers don't seem nearly as keen on using that analogy.
Since the firmament is a solid structure, and was created to have water both above and below it, the most reasonable conclusion is that the firmament is the earth's crust. It was created with some water above it (pre-flood seas), and some water trapped below. During the Flood, the crust split open (the fountains of the great deep), and this water gushed out under high pressure. It fell back down as rain (the windows of heaven being opened) and flooded the world.
Source for further reading: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/PartII.html
Amazing God would choose that example instead of a ball.
Argument from silence. The fact that God did not use a sphere analogy does not mean the earth isn't a sphere. Analogies and metaphors throughout scripture are more commonly used to teach spiritual truths, not scientific ones. Where the Bible speaks on science it is accurate, but it is less concerned about science and more concerned about spiritual matters.
Joshua describes the sun being halted from its circuit.
Because that's how that phenomenon looks from an earth based observer. There is a perfectly reasonable explanation for the earth standing still in real world cosmology; Joshua's example isn't even the first or last time the sun has "stood still".
Source: https://www.barrysetterfield.org/biblicaldisc.htm#longday
The most devastating would be revelation claiming the stars will fall to earth. Holy spinning water ball, arcturas, beatlejuice, the sun, and all the countless stars that dwarf our sun will somehow find our little speck of sand.
- While much of Revelation can be easily interpreted literally, much of it is metaphorical as well, much like OT prophets. If you insist on interpreting everything here literally, then explain how the woman of Rev. 12 is clothed with the sun. This makes no literal sense even in the flat earth model.
- You are retroactively interpreting the biblical use word "star" with the stricter, more modern scientific definition. In ancient times the word was used to describe anything visible in the night sky that wasn't the sun or moon. That's why the Greeks called the planets "wandering stars", which is where our word planet comes from. Even in modern times, what do we call meteors that burn up in earth's atmosphere? Shooting stars. Shooting stars start at one end of the sky and fly toward the other, going down to the horizon. Almost looks like they're stars "falling to earth".
- Job 38:7 closely identifies stars and angels. We know that literally speaking they are not the same thing, but they are thematically related in scripture. Revelation could just as easily be talking about fallen angels being cast down to earth.
- This entire argument is a classic example of the straw man fallacy. You have "defeated" a position that no one takes.
Hey I'm only doing 60mph on cruise control with no acceleration and the force of this wind about blew me away. I can't imagine what 1000mph wind would do.
When you're driving in a car, you are moving relative to the earth's surface and to it's atmosphere. That's why the wind exerts a force on you, you are moving relative to it. The atmosphere rotates with the earth. Once again you either have no clue how relative motion works, or you deliberately ignore it so that you can create another strawman.
If the atmosphere ever were moving relative to the earth's surface at 1,000 mph, the force of friction between the atmosphere and the surface would slow the atmosphere down and pull it in the same direction as the earth's rotation and at the same speed (which depends on latitude). The atmosphere is in perfect sync with the earth's rotation, and if it somehow ever got out of sync, friction would pull it right back into sync.
I was you two years ago.
No you were not. You were just as ignorant then as you are now.
don't account for rotation in flights or sniper school
This is patently false. You can literally see and measure the earth's rotation in real time with the Coriolis force. Snipers (and anyone dealing with ballistics) take this force into account all the time, the effect increases with increasing range. Sometimes flight manuals or other documents will tell you to assume a flat, nonrotating earth. The mere fact that they have to tell you to assume this implies that it is not reality, but an approximation. An approximation that is easier to do, less mentally taxing, and gives you results that are good enough for the task at hand. It is a practical concession. It is not a statement about the nature of reality.
can't explain Polaris fixed in place
I just did. You either refuse to believe it because you're emotionally attached to your narrative, or you lack the IQ necessary to comprehend relative motion.
can't go to Antarctica
This is also patently false. You flat earthers love making up stuff that doesn't exist. You can go to Antarctica anytime you'd like, you just need to get permission from the various countries who's section of the continent you plan to travel through. This can get you buried in red tape really quickly, so most people go through a tour guide who handles the legal stuff for you. Flat earthers, instead of putting in some work to make this happen, take the lazy route and lie that no one's allowed there at all.
can't explain why God describes his earth as a still foot stool and we are like grasshoppers underneath his throne.
Once again, the Bible is filled with metaphorical language, especially when it is talking about our relationship with God, and especially when it comes to the prophets. Do you believe that Israel and Judah are literally women and literally sisters?
If the Bible describes a phenomenon in terms which, if interpreted literally, violate every piece of observational and mathematical evidence known to mankind, then the more likely cause is that the Bible is speaking in metaphor. That doesn't make it untrue.
The day is the woman in the red dress to steal your focus from the purpose of the Sabbath.
See? You use metaphor yourself.
Also, the Sabbath was fulfilled in Christ. The round earth model does not distract from the Sabbath, either as the day the Israelites observed nor as our final, spiritual Sabbath in Christ.
Its hard to admit that we were tricked.
It's even harder when the person saying we've been tricked has no idea how the most basic concepts in physics work, and all of his arguments are straw men and flat out lies.
The tower of Babel makes no sense unless his throne is right there on top of us
No it does not. The men building Babel simply thought that their tower could reach "heaven", which as we see in Genesis 1 can refer to the earth's atmosphere. Nothing is said about reaching God's throne, their only stated motive for building the tower is so that they can stay in one place in defiance of God's command to spread out. Literally nothing about the shape of the earth is implied here.
But let's say these men were trying to reach God. Just because they thought their tower could reach God doesn't mean that it could. That is just as ridiculous as saying Babel was actually an alien teleportation gate. Furthermore, we now know more about earth's structure and atmosphere, how vast the universe truly is, and how far away God is by virtue of not being contained by the universe. With our modern understanding of cosmology, we can laugh at those fools for thinking their tower could reach God.
Reagan nailed it when he said the globalists would need aliens to convince everyone to embrace one world government to fight the common enemy. Don't fall for the alien hoax.
Complete non sequitur. Standard cosmology has nothing to do with the existence of aliens. They are just as unlikely to exist. I don't believe in aliens, and nor do the vast majority of Christians who still recognize that the earth is indeed round.
The creep is 77 and looks like 107. It’s a wonder he can stand upright at all.
1037 miles per hour. One hell of a carnival ride.
Once again, that is tangential velocity that is only applicable at the equator. Moreover, velocity does not impart a force, only acceleration does. Force equals mass times acceleration; this is one of the most basic concepts even in Newtonian mechanics.
The acceleration due to earth's rotation at the equator (where it's effect is strongest) is given by a=omega^2*R, where omega is angular velocity (7.292E-5 rad/s), and R is the distance between you and the axis of earth's spin. At the equator, this number is the same as earth's equatorial radius, 6,378 km.
Plugging all those numbers in, you arrive at 0.0339 m/s^2. Acceleration due to earth's gravity is on average 9.81 m/s^2. And that's the maximum acceleration due to earth's rotation, the effect decreases the closer you get to the poles where R becomes 0. At maximum it is 0.34% earth's gravity; you're not going to feel that.
Applying the same equation to earth's orbit around the sun, the acceleration due to that motion is 0.005998 m/s^2, or about 0.061% acceleration due to gravity. Once again, you're never going to feel that.
You don't seem to grasp that the pole star doesn't move.
Your straw man is that it is riding side by side with the sun but somehow the sun moves all day long and the north star sits still in the exact same location.
The sun moves relative to what? The north star sits still relative to what?
Your entire objection to celestial mechanics is based around your lack of understanding of relative motion. If two cars drive around a racetrack at exactly 60 mph each, what is their motion relative to each other?
Instead of a 4000 mile spoke length, we need 433 light years. 433ly x 6 trillion miles per LY x2xπ ÷ 24 = 6.798e14 mph.
What are you getting at here? Polaris doesn't orbit around the sun like earth does.
Why is one star so far away going to such unfathomable lengths to stalk us perfectly
You are assigning agency and intelligence to an inanimate object. That's like saying the earth is greedy and selfish because it pulls objects back down to its surface.
Could the Bible be right?
The Bible is right, but it does not state in any way that the earth is flat. Every flat earth use of the Bible requires pulling a verse out of context, insisting on a literal meaning in spite of textual evidence for metaphorical meaning, and deliberately interpreting it under the assumption that the flat earth model is already viable. Even though everyone in ancient times knew the earth was round. The Greeks were the first (that we know of) to accurately measure its circumference in 300 BC, but multiple ancient cultures knew that we lived on a sphere long before that.
We do not rotate at 1,000mph. That is a measure of tangential velocity that is only valid at the equator; that value decreases to 0 at the poles. Tangential velocity has no bearing on the acceleration generated by earth's rotation. Rotational velocity is the value for measuring spin, and earth's rotational velocity is once every 24 hours. Have someone spin you in a merry go round exactly once in a 24 hour period, and let me know how fast that feels.
The North star is actually 300-400 light years away; your figure would put the north star inside Jupiter's orbit. It does not appear to move relative to us because it is orbiting the center of the Milky Way along with our sun. It's like two racecars driving right next to each other around a racetrack; they don't appear to move very much relative to each other because both are moving in the same direction.
The answer is kind of.
Different versions of the Old and New Testaments exist. However, most of the differences are a few words or verses altered or deleted here and there. Different versions of the OT give different ages for the patriarchs in the genealogies. Stuff like that. All extent manuscripts agree 98+% of the time; there’s no evidence that significant portions of scripture have been altered or deleted.
So long as you’re not using a super modern translation like the New Message or Living Word versions, you’re going to be fine. You’ll get the truth that you need whether you use the NASB, ESV, KJV, etc. (though I personally recommend the KJV).
The main point of contention between denominations is which books should be in the Bible. I personally hold that the 66 books in the so called “Protestant” Bible are actually the Word of God. These books have been verified to be written by who they say they are written by. In the case of the New Testament, it has the books that it has because those books are known to be written by people who witnessed Jesus after His resurrection, and have been quoted by church fathers by at least the second century if not the first.
The books of the Apocrypha do not have the same track record as the core 66 books. They’re not bad, and they even provide some helpful historical context, but they shouldn’t be held as Scripture. You’re not really missing out on any doctrine by neglecting it.
Some links for further reading; it’s good that you’re asking these kinds of questions. It’s always important to know for sure what you believe in:
https://www.gotquestions.org/lost-books-Bible.html
https://www.gotquestions.org/Constantine-Bible.html