This video starts off with Edrique who said he called a travel agency to see if they have cruises from South America to New Zealand, which they said they did. He found out how long the cruise is and the average speed of the ship. With this, he commutated that it would be impossible for the earth to be round, as the distance would be too great (on a flat earth model the distance is much greater near the southern ridge). He said he had asked around for the answer from flat earthers and he got none. He said he would like to hear any answers from flat earth believer (this would be replying in the video Comments section).
Firstly, I’m sure there are flat earth believers that did respond but he didn’t bother to answer. If that is the case, here is my response below. Secondly, there have been some very good comments under this video and I don’t see ANY response from Edrique or Kent Hovind! WHY? This is strange – for someone who claims to want to get to the truth of this matter.
My response to both of these gentlemen are: Did you actually go on the cruise? If so, did you add in the number of days at sea to see (approximately) how many miles traveled? NO, they didn’t. If he did, he would find out that they lied or that the trip does not take him to the places they said. How can I say that? Easy.
There was another man who tried to prove the same thing but with a flight from Santiago, Chile to Australia. He tried to book online and he found out that along the way, he came to a page where the clicked area was greyed out – he could not proceed any further! Tricky, huh?
He did some more checking and found out the other flights from Chile went via Huston, Texas, then a stop over in Los Angeles, THEN to Australia. He asked why instead of flying directly there. He was told “they had to pick up some passengers in Huston!” Could you believe such nonsense? Yet, this is what they tell people and people believe it.
For people who know the United States, if you were to take a bus from Tucson, Arizona to Huston, would the bus to go Denver to pick up passengers? Of course not. Would the people believe it? In this case, people would know that the travel agent was lying; and if they really did that, there was some other reason that they were keeping secret. Sure, there may be people in Denver who want to go to Huston, but they would get on their own bus! The same with a plane. Yes, if you were to take a flight like this, you would be picking up passengers in Huston and Los Angeles but a plane would not go out of its way to do so IF there was a direct flight from Chile to Australia AND if the flight was shorter. The fact is, the flight would be too long and they would run out of fuel with no place to stop. And this would be the case for a flat earth model.
Edrique might be nieve about Polars Cruise Lines telling them a lie. But if he knows the guy he is working for (Kent Hovind) he would know about the lies that professors, teachers, the media, and just about everyone else in power tell about evolution. Now, if you say that these evolutions are only repeating what they are told and really believe it. This may be so. However, we know the deliberate lies that are told the the U.S. Government that some Middle East terrorist blew up the World Trade Towers. What about the deliberate lie of a how a plane can completely disintegrate a steel structure building. We are told this from official sources, so why not a cruise lines tell a lie about a trip and engage in “bait and switch” tacit? Edrique could book a cruise, put up a deposit and, in a couple of weeks get a call from them to say, “that trip is cancelled, but there is another one available”! A cruse agency could be told by the government to “create” a trip like this but the real purpose in doing so would be to fool the public. The military knowing full well that a trip from South America to Austrail would not be possible so no trip could be made WITHOUT people finding out how that the distance is much greater than a ball earth that is 25,000 miles in circumference.
In short, talking to a travel agent does not prove the earth is a ball.
6:30 “I have yet to see any explanations of the tides. Others have said that there are channels in the earth that affects it.” This is what Edrique said. Did he listen to what he said?! First, he said there were no explanations of why the tides work, then, in the next breath, he gives an answer to what, apparently, a flat earther said. So, this doesn’t count? Apparently that’s how he handles answers that he doesn’t like – he says has not received any answers. Well, this is an answer that, apparently he doesn’t like. So, how do you get through these people?
There are channels in the earth that the oceans drain through that causes the tides and NOT gravity or the pull of the moon. This is why lakes, streams and small bodies of water are not effected. If, what we are told is true, that the moon affects the tides, then it should affect small bodies of water such as lakes, too. In fact, the high and low tide would be much greater as there is “less water to pull!” But it doesn’t and that is ether because it is an enclosed body of water or that the channels are not anywhere near them. For example, the Mediterranean is not affected by tides of any appreciable amount.
14:35 Here, Edrique quotes some Bible verses. I Samuel 2:8, Isaia 40:22, Matthew 24:30, Isaiah 11:12.
I Samuel 2:8
(1Sa 2:8) He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD’S, and he hath set the world upon them.
Pillars of the earth. He said that there are only 3-4 verses in the Bible that says that. Even if that is so, how many verses does he need? God could say something once and that should be enough. So, this is one of the reasons why this verse is discounted for support of the flat earth model. Visser is asking, “Is this a metaphorical way of explaining something?” This he believes and so does Hovind. IN fact all the verse that the flat earth believers show – that the earth is stationary and does not move – is explained by these two that these verses should not be interpreted literally.
This is just a cop-out on their part.
In the above verse, Edrique said that pillars symbolising strength; strength of the Lord. Yet, the verse plainly says, and it’s on the screen as he talks, “…for the pillars of the earth is the Lord’s…”. So the pillars are related to the earth not to God himself.
If you listen closely, you’ll hear that Edrique does not believe in the pillars of the earth, then Kent says that, “The earth does have pillars,” and Edrique shakes his head in a yes direction. So, why is this guy vacillating back and forth?
18:30 The talk is on Isaiah 40:22 where is stays:
It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
He goes on to say that, “a circle is a two dimensional object,” and Kent adds that it’s really a imaginary construct. Kent says, “It doesn’t have any depth at all or it would be cylinder.” He adds later, “that a circle does not exist.” (20:57).
Now, what they are both doing is splitting hairs, as it were. OK, so technically, this is the case in
2-D geometry, but do they really think that God meant it that way? No, a circle certainly indicates that something is flat whereas a ball – which is the word that Isaiah used in an earlier verse is something different. We use the word “circle” in a matter of speaking and we don’t have to explain it to anyone.
If they believe in a flat earth – just for a moment as a point of illustration – that God is above and that the flat round earth is below, you would use the word “circle.” They would use the word “circle,” too. It’s clearly understood by all, but they want to get into some mathematical technical meaning and say that it doesn’t mean a flat earth.
When God spoke that he stretched out the heavens as a curtain, again, Edrique said this is metaphorical; that the heavens are not a curtain. Well, of course, flat earth believers KNOW this, but the words God used is “liken to” is what it really means. This is so we can understand what he is talking about. We know that the heavens is not a curtain or a tent (another word that Isaiah uses) but it is understood that there is a covering of some kind over the earth. And this is the message we are to get – that there is some kind of physical object. That’s the point – A PHYSICAL OBJECT – not trillions of miles of endless empty space. This is the meaning that God conveyed and it was understood by early Christians and those that pre-date them in the Old Testament. It is when people like Kent comes along and makes the simple and the plain complex. They say that is only meant to be metaphorical.
22:55 Matthew 24:30
And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
Flat earthers believe that all the tribes would be able to see God at once and that this would not be possible on a globe earth. Kent said, “That this prophecy can be answered by television and the internet.” I don’t know about that – that God would use man’s technology to make himself known world wide. I believe he will just show his glory and presence without man-made technology.
Kent mentioned something from the Bible with words to the effect, “Your sins shall be separated as far as the east is from the west.” Then, he pulls out his globe and shows that you can always go east on a globe, and he takes his finger and goes around it. “Hey, science teacher, you can go around a flat disk just the same!” Has he forgotten his geometry, which he said he taught for 15 years?!
As a side note to those who might be globe earth believers that are reading this, that when flat earth believers say the earth is flat, or that is like a round disk, we mean that it does have thickness to it but that it’s not a ball. But this is where the globe earth believers will pick at little straws in order to make their belief look right.
27:00 There is some talk about what flat earthers believe that the only people who can go to the Antarctica are those in the military, those doing scientific experiments and those who are on a trip but basically it is off limits under the Antarctica Treaty. Kent then said, “Because they believe it’s some kind of conspiracy.” In other words, he was making fun of flat earth believers. He, of all people should not make fun of conspiracy theorist, as he believes in many of them, himself. In fact, he knows of the evolutionist conspiracy, so why be surprised. He may doubt, he may laugh but let him try to go there himself. Let him tell the military that he will hire a plane to fly across it and he’ll find out the hard way. But of course, he won’t do this, as it would prove that what flat earthers say – that they will not let anyone into the interior.
31:30 Does God have feet? Kent said, “Come on it’s a metaphor.”
32:18 Edrique said, “I only found a verse that says, God has an arm and a hand, but not one that says that God has two feet.”
Can you image that? Do they really think that God has no feet? Is he making fun of God? Or, does he think that God is some form of energy mass like many of the New Age believers?
You’ve got to listen to this part of the video. So, they are turning God’s footstool into a metaphor, too. I notice that when you are talking to Christians who don’t believe in the flat earth, they conveniently use verses that refers to the earth as metaphors.
This is the end of video 2.