Firstly, let us establish the fact that, apparently unbeknownst to DRAUGR, WBD, and N Morgan, the two words “effect” and “affect” do not mean the same thing. One cannot be used in place of the other. In this particular case, the word we are looking for is “affect”, and not “effect”.
Secondly, the assumption is made that earth is spinning, as if this were a given, so fundamentally obvious as not to require any proof.
But earth is not spinning.
You might like to ask yourself in the first instance, why is it that all the planets are spinning? Is this the logical corollary to the supposed condensation of these bodies from the debris left over from the Big Bang? ( Which is another false assumption; based upon a misunderstanding of Hubble’s Red Shift. ) Why should a condensation of matter under the influence of gravity then go on to produce a spinning phenomenon? Here’s a hint; it won’t.
If earth is spinning, then once you leave its surface, you become independent of the spin. Thus, a flight from Jo’burg to London ought to select a NE trajectory so as to catch up with the eastwardly-disappearing capital of Perfidious Albion. But no, we just fly north. If earth were spinning, then by the time one got to where London had been in the morning, it would have gone around the backside of the earth, and so we should have to meet it by flying over the North Pole, and then back south again. But no, we never have to do this. If earth were spinning, flights E-W should be much faster than the return leg. But no, both legs take the same amount of time, windspeed and directionality being discounted.
Felix Baumgartner took 3 hours to ascend to the edge of space in his balloon; earth should have moved thousands of miles beneath him whilst he was aloft; but no, he landed 12 miles from where he took off.
And so on. If earth were spinning, the inertial effect ( note the correct use of the word here ) should cause the oceans to resist the spin, and so they should rise up into the mother of all tsunamis. Guess what? This is not observed.
The Bible makes it very clear on dozens of occasions that earth does not move. It neither spins on an axis, nor does it orbit the sun. During one of Joshua’s battles in Canaan, he asked the Lord God to stop the sun in mid-heaven for two days; this was done; interestingly enough, several civilizations from S America also have independent records of an equivalent two days of darkness where they were.
Thus, we see that not only do the heavens rotate around us every night, as does the Moon, but also, in order to do this, they must be orders of magnitude closer to us than the rabbis ( they lie behind all of modern astronomy’s greatest fantasies ) have told us.
And why do they lie thus? Huge distances in space equate to huge ages. Galaxies are supposed to be 4.5 billion light years away from us, so this is the age of the universe. In this sort of time span, it is fondly hoped that evolution from slime could have occurred. It could not have, btw, but it makes it look more plausible as a creation scenario.
Everything we have been told is a lie. The sun is not a nuclear fusion reaction held in place by its gravitational force. The blackness of its sunspots reveals that, beneath the surface, the sun is cold and dark. Its energy comes to it from outside, not inside, along the galactic currents of plasma which we can even see as glowing helixes joining one heavenly structure to another. The sun is more akin to a light bulb, which can be switched off by its Creator in a heartbeat.
This, in fact, is what happened during the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus Christ, when a darkness covered the land for three hours. Note that eclipses at most only give totality at any one spot for several minutes at most.
On that central day in all eternity, the entire universe was switched off.