Felix forwarded this to me. It's actually one of the most interesting Antarctica videos I've seen.
Tuesday, January 19, 2016
3 comments:
Hi, I'm Captain Rick of the Virtual Circumference Voyage of Antarctica. I intend to prove definitively if Earth is flat or a sphere by paying careful attention to how many miles we cover as we travel "around" Antarctica. Flat earth theory says it's 50-60,000 miles. Spherical Earth theory says it 14,000 miles. Join me and ask any questions that you think would help our mission.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
OH GOD when you hear religious nutjobs talking about Bible being true I just tend to lose faith in this issue of FET.
ReplyDeleteSeriously the Bible is the word of GOD? yeah from the 10 fucking commandments he thought it was very important to mention that thou shalt not cover they neighbors wife!! What was everyone doing coveting their neighbors wife that god decided to put that as commandment when he only had limited to 10. The earth is more than 5000 yrs old and that itself debunks the bible. There are various other texts that go way beyond the 5000 years and they also have a better theory of how the earth evolved. Read some HIndu texts.
Shit this is getting all bullshit. You cannot come up with a skeptical viewpoint if you are going to be a religious nutjob because everything is driven by "faith" and not independent thought or skeptical and rational thinking
Hindu Vedas go back 50,000 years or more I think. I read Zacharia Sitchen's Earth Chronicles and I'm partial to the ancient alien ideas he posits. It turns out that the pentateuch part of the Bible is a truncated and intentionally dumbed down and wrong version of what is found in Enuma Elish and other anicient Sumerian clay tablets and cylinder seals.
DeleteSo-- I understand your point however once you take into account the ancient aliens' creation and manipulation of mankind, the Bible becomes more of another ancient document like all the rest-- including the Emerald Tablets of Thoth, and including even ancient megalithic structures, the Aztec stone wheel calendars etc. When put in that context, it can be used for clues too.
Jareth who made that video simply took the Bible at face value-- which is a relatively nieve context compared to you and I-- but when we understand that, we can shrug it off. The other commentary and the video pictures are worth considering.
Context is everything,.. Thanks for posting here.
I started to have a different opinion about the Bible but only by reading for many month since early 2015 when I understood that antarctica cannot be what it is if it fit for the globe model. Reading and reading and find that it start to bethe first phylosophical concept of the earth : what will be the auestion of someone try to understand all around him? You cann trees, birds, nature, water, the sky, sun moon stars, etc... A guy or a group of philosophical concept will have a question about all : what can be the first time of all? And you start to describe in reversing context untill you reach the first day : 1:1. For me the genesis (only the part of creation) is the first geographical encyclopedia, very basic, wrote by verses, because of the lack of knowledge. Just an example : 1:3 describe just a light and 1:4 describe the sky with the light and the darkness, 1:5 it describe evening and morning and this is the first day. What do you see during the early morning? the light only. But the light of the sun not already there. So between 1:1 and 1:5 it describe by notion if it should be started on earth it will be the light first, just the moment when the sun will rise but they cannot describe how the sun is in reality, tey can't, so they describe the notion of the sun and the moon in 1:10 : he place the sun, moon and stars.. During an early morning (similar to an evening so that why it typed in 1:5 there was an evening and a morning...) you can't see stars, moon (it depend of the moon phasis) but you can see that the sky is divided in a part by the sunlight morning and to the opposite side ofo the morning you have the night.
DeleteThey place nature, trees before the sun appear because they probably understaood that it should be there already? and the sun appear after because this is not the morning anymore. They call the moon as a light also because it was a particular phasis of the moon during this description, how it will be describe if it was the new moon? So they can describe the moon as a small light because they already seen it, and stars also. Sun is the same, they already known the sun exist. I think the creation is some description of a moment happen by a question : how it will be the first time. Or it can be another thing and I try to work on. It change all the notion of the genesis to a book of a discovering (notion of the multi plateaux : more earth), not an encyclopedia. It can be 2 different things, but for sure this is not a creation. For me, after the 'creation', the adam part is a total creation of the human hand, there is no link between the 'creation' and the eden garden, nothing. He create human and then he form adam (dust and water), the notion of creation and formation is opposite.