Enoch2021

18 hours ago, siegi91 said:

1.)  Are you saying that earth is flat and the sun (and the rest of the Universe) revolves about it?

2.)  And that to teach (to kids) that the earth is a sphere rotating around the sun is nonsensical buffooneries (and should therefore not be done)?

1.) I'm saying that the Earth is: Flat/Non-Spinning/Domed (Enclosed)/Geocentric and there is no 'Universe' as it's portrayed.

2.)  Well "Nonsensical Buffoneries" is a 'reserved' assessment. 

You also forgot to define "Teach".

 

Quote

I am not an expert in Christianity, but it surprises me a bit that this is what American Christian holds for true today.

Stereotype Fallacy on Two Levels.

 

Quote

This must be a North American thing

No, it's a Logical Consistency thing.

 

Quote

since my Christian friend Hilde (a German, too) thinks that the earth is a spinning spheroid orbiting around the sun. Like me.

Well many people "think" many strange things.  Just because people "think" something, doesn't make it true.

 

regards

5 hours ago, siegi91 said:

I am not acquainted with Science education in North America. But is it really true?

It's pretty bad these days.  Back in the day, you had to know The Scientific Method to pass the class.

Is what really true?

 

Quote

Do they teach at 5th grade that the earth is flat, not spinning and that the sun rotates around it? 

Define Teach...?

They "Indoctrinate" from Kindergarten that the Earth: is a Sphere, Spinning, and Rotating around the Sun...among Numerous other Nonsensical Buffooneries. 

None of which are Scientific Topics.

 

regards

 

3 hours ago, MorningGlory said:

You can review the Book of Enoch until The Second Coming but it will STILL be extrabiblical and NOT Scripture. 

1.  Who classified it as NOT Scripture and Extrabiblical...?

2.  I'm torn here. On one hand...if the Creator of the Universe wanted the Book of Enoch in the "Cannon"...then, it would be.

However, just because its not does not IPSO FACTO mean it's corrupted; Especially since the Book "mirrors" Scripture in many instances.  The Church Fathers and the New Testament Authors were more than well aware of the Book of Enoch.

 

Quote

We are to follow the word of God, not what is outside the canon.

Closing your eyes, sticking fingers in the ears and saying la la la... is not a doctrine to adopt, imho. Nevertheless, I personally use the Book for background.

 

Quote

Btw, Wikipedia is not  recognized as a reliable research tool by most.

For good reason.  However, that was only 1/8th of the SUPPORT he posted; what about the other 7/8th's ??

 

regards

16 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

That is some pretty bad exegesis.

Really?  Well we're gonna see.   

 

Quote

That is talking about the Roman Empire.

"What" is talking about the Roman Empire...?

 

Quote

the vision is about four kingdoms, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece and Rome.

 This is correct.  But Rome in Two-Parts (and NOT the Western and Eastern Legs)...

 

Quote

"Seed of men" is a reference the nations of the world or humanity in general.

Correct.  But "WHO" is "Mingling Themselves" with  "The Seed of Men"...?  Can't be "The Seed Of Men" because that's what the world and humanity is and renders the entire passage quite incoherent.

 

Quote

The Roman empire was multi-cultural and multi-ethnic.

 So??  The Grecian Empire (Dwarfed) the Roman Empire both in scope and in multi-cultural/ethnic aspects.

 

Quote

It is prophesying the historic split of the Roman Empire into east and west.

Well the Iron Legs were Rome.

The Toes OF the Feet were Iron 'Mixed With' Clay.  See the subtle difference?  The Toes are in reference to "End Times".  And the 10 Toes are the 10 Kings.  This is also "Echoed" in Daniel Chapter 7 (10 Horns) and Revelation (10 Horns). 

(Daniel 2:44) "And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever."

Ya see, this ^^^^ is the Part you Left Out (mr. "Context"). 

 

Quote

The fourth Kingdom is made up of iron and clay and the clay split from the iron.  Roman split into two parts, east and west.

Yes but the Eastern Leg (Byzantine Empire) Vanished/Dissolved in 1453 (The Western Leg 1000 Years before that).  Which renders your entire treatise as convoluted and nonsensical.

See it?

 

Quote

The latter part of the verse jumps to the Kingdom that God will establish and will destroy the other kingdoms.

There is No "Jumping"   It Clearly and Directly associates the time of these 10 Kings and God's Kingdom...

(Daniel 2:41-44) "And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters' clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay.  {42} And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken.  {43} And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.  {44} And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever."  

 

So for your "Exegesis" to hold any water, you must show God destroying the 10 Kings with "The Stone Cut Without Hands" (Jesus Christ) and Establishing His Kingdom that stands forever on or before the year 1453. 

Please, the floor is yours...?

 

 

regards

8 hours ago, Hello Kitty said:

So you have brain washed your daughter also? 

Nope. I taught her "HOW" to think, NOT..."What" to think.

 

Quote

If the majority of Scientists are rejecting your claims it is because you have nothing of substance which support your claims!

1.  Flailing Generalized Sweeping Ipse Dixit Baseless 'bare' Assertion Fallacy.

2.  Most aren't "Scientists" to begin with.

3.  They're not rejecting them, they're 'Side-Stepping" with: Ad Homs, Appeals to Ridicule, Red Herrings, ect ect.

 

Quote

The difference between you and me is that I am willing to LEARN, you are NOT.

Oh Brother.

1.  Ad Hom Fallacy.

2.  Baseless Ipse Dixit 'bare Assertion Fallacy.

Do you have a 'coherent' Substantive Argument/Position concerning the Actual "Subject" by chance?

Guess not...

 

Quote

You are satisfied with not knowing and have closed your mind to anything that might challenge your set beliefs.

Generalized Sweeping Ipse Dixit Baseless 'bare' Assertion Fallacy

 

Quote

I believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old and the Universe is 13.8 billion years old.

You 'believe' them Blindly and in Direct Contradiction to just the mere fundamentals of "Science"... as I have shown.  

 

Quote

Does this have any influence in my belief in God?

Red Herring Fallacy. 

 

Quote

Yes there is AWE in the Big Bang

The only "AWE" concerning the big bang is how many Mindlessly PARROT the Fairytale.

 

Quote

and AWE when you look at the photos of the immense vastness of the Universe

There are no Photographs of the Universe; all you're seeing is CGI (Computer Generated Images).  Two very different animals.

 

Quote

provided by the Hubble Telescope. 

You mean Computer Generated Images (CGI) from SOPHIA, if that.

 

Quote

Why would you want to ignore such things?

I didn't/don't ignore them.  I download the Source Files of thousands and run them through Photo Forensics.  All the while KNOWING with Absolute Certainty that there is No "Outer Space" as it's Portrayed.

 
 

Quote

So then try to convince me that the Genesis Creation is a literal account

Isn't Genesis particularly, Self Evident?

 

Quote

what was the first thing God created?

The Heavens and the Earth.

(Genesis 1:1) "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

 

regards

19 minutes ago, Hello Kitty said:

If you seriously believe you have debunked the "Big Bang Theory"

Yea, 'duh'.  My 12 Year old daughter could PUMMEL it in less than a minute.

 

Quote

then why don't you go to the Science Academies, present your evidence

You mean Pseudo-Science Academies.  I've already presented this Information to a whole slew of Pseudo-Scientists...they just call me names. 

 

Quote

and claim your Noble Prize? 

Procedural Argument not one of "Substance".  And I've already got My Prize.

 

Quote

You will become the most FAMOUS person in the World and receive a million dollars! So what's keeping you from doing this?

Just 1 Million? 

(Matthew 16:26) " For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?"

(James 4:4) "Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God."

 

regards

11 minutes ago, Hello Kitty said:

Have you studied the Big Bang Theory in detail? 

Yes, it's NOT a Scientific Theory and I already explain why in quite some detail.

 

Quote

How old you think the Universe is?  7 days?

When you say "Universe" what exactly do you mean...?

1.  Any 5th Grade General Science Graduate knows Prima Facia, that ALL "Dating Methods" are OUTSIDE of the Scientific Method; Errr..."Sciences" Purview, for goodness sakes.
You have NO....: "Independent Variable", so as to Form a Valid Scientific Hypothesis to TEST then VALIDATE your PREDICTION. Ahhh... "SCIENCE" !

a. So "Independent Variables" are the "Input" (The Cause) that is CHANGED "manipulated by the scientist" so as to measure/validate the "Output" (The Effect) "Dependent Variables"---Predictions.

b. "Independent Variables" are sine qua non (indispensable, as it were) to Scientific Hypothesis construction, then Ipso Facto Experiments!! So can you please elaborate: 
How on Earth can you CHANGE the "INPUT" and TEST your Prediction on a Past Event (lol) without a Time Machine, Pray Tell....?

You're in a simple Category Error. The Scientific Method is used to Validate "Cause and Effect" Relationships...it's Non Sequitur (Fallacy) to use it to extrapolate "age".
It's tantamount to using a Framing Square to calculate the GNP of the Netherlands, for goodness sakes.  

Ergo...

A Better Question: Given the Immutable Fact that it is OUTSIDE the Scientific Method and can never be VALIDATED, why on Earth are these "Long Ages" PUSHED ad nauseam, mainly by Pseudo-Scientists..."Then Stage 5 Clung" to with a Kung Fu Death Grip then Blindly Parroted by the masses as Fact and all challengers ridiculed endlessly for even bringing the topic up, Pray Tell...??? 

Sounds like "Propaganda" to me, you? It's mind numbing.

2.  You heard of Quantum Mechanics by chance?? ...

The 'Radioactive Decay Law', as is the case for ALL Physical Laws, is Consequent -- "Contingent" upon Quantum Mechanical Laws...

"The Laws of Physics are ALWAYS Quantum Mechanical Laws."
Ramamurti Shankar; Professor of Physics, Yale. 
Quantum Mechanics II.  (33:50 minute mark)

i.e., The following condition MUST EXIST (NECESSARY ANTECEDENT)before you can Appeal to the Radioactive Decay Law...it's kinda 'HARD to get Around':

According to Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Max Born, described by Erwin Schrodinger --- THEN...
Validated Repeatedly via Thousands of "EXPERIMENTS" without Exception(!!) for the past 100 years with the most successful branch of Physics in the History of "Actual" Science, Quantum Mechanics... : 
Independent of the KNOWLEDGE of the "Which-Path Information" -- or of it EXISTING... particles (Photons, All Elementary Particles, Atoms, Molecules) have no defined properties or location. They exist in a state of "A Wave Function" which is a series of Potentialities rather than actual objects. 
That is, "Matter" doesn't exist as a Wave of Energy prior to observation but as a Wave of Potentialities.  Wave "Functions" aren't "WAVES"(Classical Peak/Troughs) they are "Potentialities" i.e., Probabilities, they have no Mass/Energy. 
To put it another way, the "Wave" of a Wave Function is not a "Wave" in "Physical Space", it's merely an abstract mathematical construct.

So... "Matter" (Our Reality) doesn't exist without, FIRST:

*A "Knower"/Existence of the "Which-Path" Information.*

Read carefully...

“It begins to look as WE ourselves, by OUR last minute decision, have an influence on what a photon will do when it has already accomplished most of its doing… we have to say that WEourselves have an undeniable part in what we have always called the past. The PAST is NOT really the PAST until is has been *REGISTERED*. 
Or to put it another way, THE PAST has NO MEANING or EXISTENCE unless it exists as a RECORD in the present.”
Prof. John Wheeler "Referenced in"; The Ghost In The Atom; Page 66-68.

So... unless you can provide The Name of the Person who "Originally" Observed these Rocks/Light/Whatever, Date/Time Stamped -- REGISTERED and Recorded THEM (Then a Chain of Continuous Observational CUSTODY till current times) ...

Then you MUST provide: the "Decay Rate" for a Wave of Potentialities...?
 
It'll be easier Sprouting Broccoli from your ARMPITS !!!!

 

Quote

We can easily measure the Age of the Universe by the rate of expansion, and extrapolating backwards.

You can't, it's a Fairytale.  (See: Explanation above)

 

Quote

So you think the earth is older than the Sun

No "I KNOW" the Earth is older than the Sun by 3 Days since God told us it was.

 

Quote

and sits stationery at the center of the Universe on pillars? 

Well it's: Flat/Non-Spinning/Domed and Geocentric.

 

Quote

I didn't know I was dealing with primitive beliefs here.

Coming from someone who would FAIL 5th Grade General Science.

 

Quote

Science doesn't claim to know everything

Well "Science" doesn't claim anything .  "Science" isn't an ENTITY or a result, It's a Method; The Scientific Method.  "Science" doesn't: "CLAIM", say, jump, run, swim, point to, or do the hokey pokey.  To do such things takes, Sentience, Prescience, and Intelligence...to be ALIVE.  Science isn't ALIVE, Ergo...Reification Fallacy.

 

Quote

On the other hand, you PROVE to me that Creation happened exactly as Genesis says.

How would you like me to do that...? Isn't Genesis itself..."The Evidence"?

 

Quote

Oh by the way, Newflash - Birds are Avian Theropod Dinosaurs.  Look at their legs and claws.  Same as dinosaurs.

Where did this come from?  So from the Pseudo-Science Fairytale big bang -- to now the Pseudo-Science Fairytale "Birds are Dino's", eh?  smh

1.  Can you post the Scientific Evidence supporting your claim here...

a.  What Phenomenon was Observed...?
b.  Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then EXPERIMENT that validates your claim...?
c.  Highlight the "Independent Variable" that was used in the TEST...?
d.  Post the Null Hypothesis that was Rejected/Falsified...?

 

2. And smh...

Oregon State University. "Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-bird Links." ScienceDaily. 9 June 2009. ...

"But one of the primary reasons many scientists kept pointing to birds as having descended from dinosaurs was similarities in their lungs," Ruben said. "However, theropod dinosaurs had a moving femur and therefore could not have had a lung that worked like that in birds. Their abdominal air sac, if they had one, would have collapsed. That undercuts a critical piece of supporting evidence for the dinosaur-bird link."

And lol: “‘For one thing, birds are found earlier in the fossil record than the dinosaurs they are supposed to have descended from,’ Ruben said. ‘That’s a pretty serious problem, and there are other inconsistencies with the bird-from-dinosaur theories."

Parent Paper: Quick, D.E. and Ruben, J.A., Cardio-pulmonary anatomy in theropod dinosaurs: Implications from extant archosaurs, Journal of Morphology, 20 May 2009

 

Quote

Ever heard of Archaeopteryx?  What do you think that was?

Yea.  It was A BIRD. ...

"Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an Earth-bound, feathered dinosaur.  But it's not.  It is a bird, a perching bird.  And no amount of 'paleobabble' is going to change that."
Feduccia, A.; cited in: V. Morell, Arxhaeopteryx: Early Bird Catches a Can of Worms, Science 259(5096):764-65, 5 February, 1993.

 

Any more Fairytale PARROTED Pseudo-Science you need me to PUMMEL?

 

regards

22 hours ago, Hello Kitty said:

You cannot debunk the Big Bang and it wasn't 10 billion years ago. 

I just did. (See Previous Post)

 

Quote

It was 13.8 billion years ago

Really?  Please Provide Scientific Evidence...

a.  What Phenomenon was Observed...?
b.  Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then EXPERIMENT that validates your claim...?
c.  Highlight the "Independent Variable" that was used in the TEST...?
d.  Post the Null Hypothesis that was Rejected/Falsified...?

 

Quote

and it wasn't "nothing" that exploded because nothing created nothing.

 You wanna run that by us... one more time?

 

Quote

The Big Bang Theory is supported by overwhelming Scientific EVIDENCE. 

Sure.  I'd say there's a better chance of Liberace being resurrected sporting a purple tutu and jumping on a chartreuse hobbled unicorn and riding around the Sombrero Galaxy.

We're waiting...

a.  What Phenomenon was Observed...?
b.  Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then EXPERIMENT that validates your claim...?
c.  Highlight the "Independent Variable" that was used in the TEST...?
d.  Post the Null Hypothesis that was Rejected/Falsified...?

 

Quote

Here are several key pieces of evidence that support the Big Bang Theory.

Oh, I can't wait... 

 

Quote

1)  The fact that the Universe is expanding, proven with something called Red Shift. 

Red Shift has been "Debunked" by Anomalous Red Shifts.  I posted this here at Worthy a few years ago, here: Red Shift "Debunked"

If you'd like to sit back and listen, I debunked it here (You-Tube): Science vs. Scientism Episode 7 - Red Shift and the Nebular Hypothesis.

 

Quote

2) Cosmic Microwave background Radiation.

I also personally "Debunked" the CMB, here (You Tube): Science vs. Scientism Episode 6 - Speed of Light and the CMB.

 

Quote

3) Big Bang Nucleosynthesis.  Light elements (namely Deuterium, Helium, and Lithium) were produced in the first few minutes of the Big Bang, while elements heavier than Helium have their origins in the interiors of Stars which formed much later in the history of the Universe.

You have some BIG Problems:

Ahh, Nine Billion Years of MISSING METAL in a trillion stars (rotflol)...

"We're not saying there's a complete breakdown in the theory of galaxy evolution," says lead author and Indiana University astronomer John Salzer, "but that these objects do run counter to the standard model."
Salzer, J (as Quoted In); Clara Moskowitz; Newfound Spiral Galaxies Oddly Young; Space; 28 April 2009. Parent Paper....
Salzer, J et al; A POPULATION OF METAL-POOR GALAXIES WITH ~L* LUMINOSITIES AT INTERMEDIATE REDSHIFTS; The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 23 March 2009

and ...

- Mature galaxies exist where the BB predicts only infant galaxies (like the 13.2Bly-away EGS8p7) 
- An entire universe-worth of missing antimatter contradicts most fundamental BB prediction
- Observations show that spiral galaxies are the missing millions of years of BB predicted collisions
- Clusters of galaxies exist at great distances where the BB predicts they should not exist
- A trillion stars are missing an unimaginably massive quantity of heavy elements, a total of nine billion years worth 
- Galaxy superclusters exist yet the BB predicts that gravity couldn't form them even in the alleged age of the cosmos
- A missing generation of the alleged billions of first stars [Population III Stars] that the failed search has implied simply never existed
- Missing uniform distribution of earth's radioactivity
- Solar system formation theory wrong too
- It is "philosophy", not science, that makes the big-bang claim that the universe has no center
- Amassing evidence suggests the universe may have a center
- Sun is missing nearly 100% of the spin that natural formation would impart
- The beloved supernova chemical evolution story for the formation of heavy elements is now widely rejected
- Missing uniform distribution of solar system isotopes
- Missing billions of years of additional clustering of nearby galaxies
- Surface brightness of the furthest galaxies, against a fundamental BB claim, is identical to that of the nearest galaxies
- Missing shadow of the big bang with the long-predicted "quieter" echo behind nearby galaxy clusters now disproved
- The CMB and other alleged confirmed big bang predictions (Google: big bang predictions. See that we're #1.)
- These "shouldn't exist" – a supermassive black hole, an iron-poor star, and a dusty galaxy – but they do
- Fine tuning and dozens of other MAJOR scientific observations and 1,000+ scientists doubting the big bang.

http://kgov.com/evidence-against-the-big-bang

 

Quote

This link might be of interest ~http://www.esa.int/For_Media/Press_Releases/Planck_reveals_an_almost_perfect_Universe

Why?  More Pseudo-Science to Debunk??  Go ahead and pull out some "specifics" from your Elephant Hurling Fallacy here and I'll PUMMEL them into the Incoherent Oblivion!!

 

ProTip:  Mindless PARROTING Pseudo-Science Fairytale "Just-So" Stories are not gonna Fly here. 

 

regards

11 hours ago, Hello Kitty said:

It [big bang] is a Scientific Theory. 

  Crocheting is more Scientific!! 

1.  "Scientific Theories": "Explain" --- The "How/WHY"(mechanisms/ process) AND...Identify "The Cause" ; e.g., Germ Theory.  Scientific Theories are the Result of Validated/Confirmed Scientific Hypotheses that have been rigorously TESTED via The Scientific Method...

"A Scientific Theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with REPEATED TESTING." 
https://www.thoughtco.com/scientific-hypothesis-theory-law-definitions-604138

"A  Scientific Theory consists of one or more hypotheses that have been supported with REPEATED TESTING."
https://futurism.com/hypothesis-theory-or-law/

"A Scientific Theory represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been CONFIRMED through REPEATED EXPERIMENTAL TESTS."
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html

2.  Step 1 of The Scientific Method is: Observe a Phenomenon, Please post the Phenomena that was Observed at the big bang...? (Please include the Make/Model/Serial# of the Time Machine used...?)

3.  Since you can't even get to Step 1 of The Scientific Method; Ergo...you can't even Formulate a Viable Scientific Hypothesis; Ergo...you can't get to an Experiment (Hypothesis TEST); Ergo, no hope of a Scientific Theory... since they are the result of Validated Scientific Hypotheses.  Ergo...it's a Fairytale "Just-So" Story.

 

Quote

Please Google it so that you will know what it means.

Please "Google" and attempt to Scare Up some semblance of an "Actual" Science Acumen.

 

Quote

I don't have a problem with the Big Bang. 

If you had a 5th Grade General Science Acumen, you most certainly would.

 

Quote

I believe God spoke and created all things through the Big Bang. 

Really?

"big bang" --- Naturalistic Cause: singularity, quantum fluctuation, 'nothing' (lol) et al. (Also a 1LOT and Quantum Mechanics Violation)
GOD'S WORD --- GOD caused it.

"big bang" --- Billions of Years Ago. 
GOD'S WORD --- Thousands of Years. (Gen: 5, 10; Doctrine of Salvation)

"big bang" --- Sun before the Earth.
GOD'S WORD --- Earth before the Sun.

"big bang" --- Earth: Molten Rock First.
GOD'S WORD --- Earth: Water First.

"big bang" --- Fish before Trees.
GOD'S WORD --- Trees before Fish.

"big bang" --- Dinosaurs before Birds.
GOD'S WORD --- Birds before Dinosaurs.

So that Begs The Question:  Which 'god' are you talking about?

 

regards

2 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Okay, thank you. That settled matters for me.

I suspected with the 'delay' (since my last post PUMMELING each of your claims) that the "Jig was Up".

 

Quote

Since you are NOT WILLING to understand

I read through and PUMMELED each of your Nonsensical Claims.  What's to understand with this, Pray Tell...

Retrobyter: "Water draining down a drain doesn't go straight down. It SPINS counterclockwise down the drain. That SPIN is called the "Coriolis Effect."

??? For Goodness Sakes Sir, This is tantamount to asking a Carpenter for a hammer and he hands you a Chalk Line !!!  My responses to comments like these were measured and displayed considerable RESTRAINT, imho.

 

Quote

then there's no point of trying to continue with you.

There's no point in continuing because you got your Hat Handed to You.  (pssst...The Posts are still here, people can READ them)

 

Quote

You are adamantly set in your "little earth" ideas

My "little earth ideas"?  What on Earth are you talking about??

 

Quote

and refuse to think about matters

What?? 

Retrobyter: "In the Southern Hemisphere, the low pressure systems SPIN (the Coriolis Effect) in a clockwise direction, 2.) and therefore, the hurricanes that form there are likewise SPINNING in a clockwise direction!"

This  ^^^^ is Prima Facie Circular Reasoning.  What's there to think about?

 

Quote

and instead adopt a condescending, holier-than-thou attitude.

Ad Hom Fallacy (x2).  Often employed as 'The Last Port in the Storm' when their Deuce-Seven Offsuit gets called ALL IN!

 

Quote

If you're not seriously going to see things the way they are, then you will just have to go on believing as you do. 

I treated each of your comments seriously; Unfortunately, they had nothing to do with 'the way things are' and were rendered accordingly.

 

Quote

Someday, you'll encounter a Person greater than yourself to whom you MAY listen, but you are UNWILLING to do so now.

I listen carefully and intently to what every person that addresses me has to say, no matter their lot in life.  

Greater Person??  There is no person "Greater" than another (Post John The Baptist).  What do you mean by "Greater"?

 

Quote

It was fun, and it helped to refine my skills and hone my own belief system.

'Belief System'. <--- The Why's that SUPPORT this are that which are critically important.

 

Quote

May the LORD bless you and help you to grow day by day.

You also.

 

regards

1 hour ago, Retrobyter said:

Well, let's start over. You see, what I said had EVERYTHING to do with "your argument," and it's not "irrelevant" at all. You had mentioned three verses of Scripture that talked about the "world" when you were trying to make an argument for the "EARTH" being "stable." Observe:

(1 Chronicles 16:30) "Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be NOT-MOVED."

(Psalms 93:1) "The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it CANNOT BE MOVED."

(Psalms 96:10) "Say among the heathen that the LORD reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall NOT BE MOVED: he shall judge the people righteously."

In all three cases, it is the WORLD that is stable or stablished or established, not the EARTH! Understand? Therefore, those three Scriptures are IRRELEVANT to your argument that "The Earth doesn't Orbit the Sun. It's Stationary... Non-Spinning 'Immovable'."

Not the Earth, eh? 

"World" in all three passages: 

Strongs Hebrew: H8398
תֵּבֵל
têbêl
tay-bale'
From H2986; THE EARTH (as moist and therefore inhabited); by extension the globe; by implication its inhabitants; specifically a particular land, as Babylonia or Palestine: - habitable part, world.

 

Quote

Sure I did. In my very first paragraph, I began with "First of all,...."

Yes, but you had no point.

 

Quote

You're right; it was Joshua not Moses, but this is no "red herring"; your fourth verse quoted was Joshua 10:12 in which were the words "l`eeyneey Yisraa'eel," meaning "to-the-eyes of-Israel."

I don't care if it said "to the Eyes of Ground Squirrels".

 

Quote

 Thus, his command to the sun and the moon to stand still was from the perspective of Israel!

 Are you saying that, to the Amorites... it was the Earth standing still? 

 

Oh Brother...

Quote

 

Let's establish an understanding of a "frame of reference":

Let's say we have two trains traveling on parallel tracks, one going 60 mph (train A) and the other going 55 mph (train B). The trains ride very smoothly, and neither has any acceleration. An observer is on train A. The train A and the observer are BOTH traveling at 60 mph, but on the train (without looking out the window), if the observer was to drop a rock to the floor, it would fall straight down to his feet.

 

Another Red Herring Fallacy and a False Equivalence Fallacy.

How is this tied to your Argument??

 

Quote

That is his "frame of reference." Within the train car, he believes he is "stationary" with what happens within the train.

If the Train is Stationary it's NOT MOVING.  If "he" thinks he's Stationary when the Train's Moving... then "he's" a Moron.

 

 

Quote

Which one of these people is "stationary?"

The One that's NOT MOVING.

 

Quote

Water draining down a drain doesn't go straight down.

Profound.

 

Quote

It SPINS counterclockwise down the drain.

That depends on the Shape of the Basin.

 

Quote

That SPIN is called the "Coriolis Effect."

 What On Earth??

SPIN does not = Coriolis Effect. smh

This is the Coriolis Effect...

"CC.12 The Coriolis Effect :

When set in motion, freely moving objects, including *AIR* [Atmosphere] and *WATER* masses [Clouds/Water Vapor], move in straight paths while the Earth continues to 

                                                                      ROTATE INDEPENDENTLY.

Because freely moving objects ARE NOT carried with the Earth as it Rotates, they are subject to an APPARENT DEFLECTION called the “Coriolis Effect.” To an observer rotating with the Earth, freely moving objects that travel in a straight line appear to travel in a curved path on the Earth."
Segar, Douglas A; Introduction to Ocean Sciences, 2nd Edition: Critical Concept Reminders -- CC.12 The Coriolis Effect (pp. 313, 314, 323, 324), 
ISBN: 978-0-393-92629-3, 2007.
http://www.wwnorton.com/college/geo/oceansci/cc/cc12.html

 

Quote

I KNOW that! That's why I put the word "force" in quotation marks!

Ahhh, not a Chance.

 

Quote

"Apparent," though, doesn't mean it's "not real"; it means from a person's point of view, it "LOOKS LIKE" a force!

Right in the Face of...

"Within its rotating coordinate system, the object acted on by the CORIOLIS EFFECT APPEARS to deflect off of its path of motion. THIS DEFLECTION IS NOT REAL. It only APPEARS TO HAPPEN because the coordinate system that establishes a frame of reference for the observer is also rotating."
http://www.encyclopedia.com/earth-and-environment/atmosphere-and-weather/weather-and-climate-terms-and-concepts/coriolis-effect

Read this ^^^^^ Real Slow 5 Times.

 

Quote

No, that's not true. It IS a very real deflection

Right in the Face of...

"Within its rotating coordinate system, the object acted on by the CORIOLIS EFFECT APPEARS to deflect off of its path of motion. THIS DEFLECTION IS NOT REAL. It only APPEARS TO HAPPEN because the coordinate system that establishes a frame of reference for the observer is also rotating."
http://www.encyclopedia.com/earth-and-environment/atmosphere-and-weather/weather-and-climate-terms-and-concepts/coriolis-effect

 

Quote

but it's not a single force called "the Coriolis FORCE" that deflects it!

 

Quote

It is a SYSTEM of forces that, acting together, give the appearance of a single force acting upon the deflection when it is really just inertia!

Factually Incorrect, AGAIN...

"CC.12 The Coriolis Effect :

When set in motion, freely moving objects, including *AIR* [Atmosphere] and *WATER* masses [Clouds/Water Vapor], move in straight paths while the Earth continues to 

                                                                      ROTATE INDEPENDENTLY.

Because freely moving objects ARE NOT carried with the Earth as it Rotates, they are subject to an APPARENT DEFLECTION called the “Coriolis Effect.” To an observer rotating with the Earth, freely moving objects that travel in a straight line appear to travel in a curved path on the Earth."
Segar, Douglas A; Introduction to Ocean Sciences, 2nd Edition: Critical Concept Reminders -- CC.12 The Coriolis Effect (pp. 313, 314, 323, 324), 
ISBN: 978-0-393-92629-3, 2007.
http://www.wwnorton.com/college/geo/oceansci/cc/cc12.html

 

Quote

No, silly. 1.) Hurricanes always SPIN (the Coriolis Effect) in a counterclockwise direction in the Northern Hemisphere 2.) because they are formed by low pressure systems.

You're calling me silly after this performance?  

1.)  SPIN does not = Coriolis Effect. (SEE above)

The conditions needed are:

Two differing Frames of Reference (One Rotating Coordinate System (Non-Inertial) --- The Earth and One Non-Rotating Coordinate System (Inertial) --- The Atmosphere...and anything in it).

2.) Scientifically Validate "The Cause" of the direction (Counterclockwise or Clockwise) of the Storm...

a.  What Phenomenon was Observed...?
b.  Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then EXPERIMENT that validates your claim...?
c.  Highlight the "Independent Variable" that was used in the TEST...?
d.  Post the Null Hypothesis that was Rejected/Falsified...?

Storms don't SPIN in a Direction "BECAUSE" they are formed by low pressure systems; it's Non-Sequitur Fallacy.

 

Quote

1.) In the Southern Hemisphere, the low pressure systems SPIN (the Coriolis Effect) in a clockwise direction, 2.) and therefore, the hurricanes that form there are likewise SPINNING in a clockwise direction!

1.)  SPIN does not = Coriolis Effect. (SEE above) 

1.) Premise and 2.) "Therefore"... are Non-Sequitur because they're Circular...

You essentially said: In the Southern Hemisphere low pressure systems spin in a Clockwise Direction; Therefore, the low pressure systems likewise are spinning Clockwise.

Round and Round you go. 

 

Quote

(More later.)

I can't wait. 

 

regards

3 minutes ago, Daniel 11:36 said:

Your flat earth idea is a sham

1.  Generalized Sweeping Ipse Dixit Baseless 'bare' Assertion Fallacy.

2.  It's not an "Idea".

3.  How/Why is the: Flat/Non-Spinning/Domed Geocentric Earth a sham...?

 

regards

On 11/21/2017 at 10:27 PM, Daniel 11:36 said:

Flat earth theory is an absurdity and false

1.  The Flat-Earth isn't a "theory".  And it's Flat/Non-Spinning/Domed and Geocentric.

2.  It's Scriptural and True.

Why is it absurd...?

How is it false...?

 

Quote

why are you teaching this idea?

Because it's Scriptural (God taught it) and True.

 

regards

On 11/17/2017 at 8:04 AM, SkyWriting said:

In addition, given all the lifeless space

Where?

 

Quote

this planet is quite exceptional.

The Earth isn't a "Planet" (Sphere/Ball), for goodness sakes.  To refute...

Please post ONE SHRED of "Scientific Evidence" for your 'Spinning-Ball' Religion...?  That is...

a.  What Phenomenon was Observed...?
b.  Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then EXPERIMENT that validates your claim...?
c.  Highlight the "Independent Variable" that was used in the TEST...?
d.  Post the Null Hypothesis that was Rejected/Falsified...?

 

Quote

It would take 30,000 years to get to the next star.

Alice in Wonderland has more veracity.

1.  Are Stars, Suns?  Please post the Scripture(s)...?

2.  So the nearest star is 30,000 years away?  I thought we measured "Distance" by: "distance = rate/time"... aren't you missing something?

Do people say: "I'm busy right now, come back in 35 Miles!" ??

3.  Show 'The Method' (rationale, calculations, ect) of how we ascertain then VALIDATE the distance to the Sun...? (Please rigidly define each term, Thanks)

Is it the same 'method' we use to calculate the distance to, let's say... Polaris?  Please compare and contrast...?

 

regards

On 11/18/2017 at 3:38 AM, SkyWriting said:

All of those things are subject to your understanding. 

Actually they are simply deduced from Scripture.

 

Quote

Without perfect understanding it's hard to make such concrete statements, like "God promised me that....."

 Say What?  This isn't a "Personal Reflection" it's about the Promises God made in Scripture.

 

Quote

Are you sure you got the message right?

Yes, 100%... they are in Scripture.

 

Quote

Becasue God's not really accountable to any person in this life.

And where did I even IMPLY otherwise OR Better Yet...have anything WHATEVER to do with my argument??

 

regards

13 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

First of all, there is a DIFFERENCE between "erets" and "teeVeel" in Hebrew! It's similar to the difference between the words "gee" (pronounced "gay") and "kosmos" in Greek! That's also why we have two separate words, as well: "earth" and "world." They are NOT the same thing, even if they are IGNORANTLY used as synonyms. It's BECAUSE of our simplistic, one-verse method of building theology that has led to this ignorance. You CAN'T yank a verse out of its context and expect it always to be clear in meaning! To yank one of the verses out of God's Word and attempt to use it for whatever our little pea-pickin' brains can come up with at the moment is SHEER FOLLY! God doesn't abide by our rules; we are to learn from HIM and follow HIS rules! Just because the two words, "earth" and "world," are used in the same verse does NOT mean that they mean the same thing! Strong's Dictionaries of the Hebrew and Chaldee Languages and of the Greek Language are weak on the matter, but even James A. Strong and his colleagues know that there's a difference:

OT:776 'erets (eh'-rets); from an unused root probably meaning to be firm; the earth (at large, or partitively a land):
KJV -  common, country, earth, field, ground, land,  natins, way,  wilderness, world.

OT:8398 teeVeel (tay-vale'); from OT:2986; the earth (as moist and therefore inhabited); by extension, the globe; by implication, its inhabitants; specifically, a partic. land, as Babylonia, Palestine:
KJV - habitable part, world.

OT:2986 yaaVal (yaw-val'); a primitive root; properly, to flow; causatively, to bring (especially with pomp):
KJV - bring (forth), carry, lead (forth).

NT:1093 gee (ghay); contracted from a primary word; soil; by extension a region, or the solid part or the whole of the terrene globe (including the occupants in each application):
KJV - country, earth (-ly), ground, land, world.

NT:2889 kosmos (kos'-mos); probably from the base of NT:2865; orderly arrangement, i.e. decoration; by implication, the world (in a wide or narrow sense, including its inhabitants, literally or figuratively [morally]):
KJV - adorning, world.

(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

[The italicized "V" is the "vet"; that is, it's the "bet" without the dot in the middle of the letter (the "dagesh"). While the "bet" carries a "b" sound as in "boy," the "vet" carries a "v" sound as in "voice." I represent it with a capital "V" to differentiate between the "vet" and the "vav" ("v"). Strong's doesn't know this rule in Hebrew. In both teeVeel and yaaVal above, the letter is the undotted form, "vet" ("V").]

It's just as the word "kosmos" is used in John 18:36:

John 18:33-38
33 Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews?
34 Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?
35 Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?
36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.
38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.
KJV

Yeshua` was NOT saying that His Kingdom was not of this EARTH (which would have been the Greek word "gee"); He was saying that His Kingdom is not of this WORLD-SYSTEM of government (the Greek word "kosmos")!

The Hebrew word "teeVeel" is similar to the Greek word "kosmos!"

Thus,...
"erets" = "gee" = "earth" = soil/dirt/land/earth, and
"teeVeel" = "kosmos" = "world" = inhabitants and their systems of government.

This has nothing Whatsoever to do with My Argument, it's Irrelevant IN TOTO. Ergo...

Red Herring Fallacy:  is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html

Leading to a Straw Man (Fallacy): when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

 

Quote

So, look at the first three verses you quoted, put them back in their contexts, and interpret them correctly as the words imply!

They "Stay" as they "Lay".  The Earth is Stationary.

 

Quote

Second, I've already addressed this

You didn't have a "First".  

 

Quote

, but it was the sun (shemesh) and the moon (yareeach) that appeared to the Israelites as though they were moving; therefore, Mosheh (Moses) addressed them in his command, adding the words "l`eeyneey Yisraa'eel," meaning "to-the-eyes of-Israel." Don't beat a dead horse.

Are you reading a different thread and responding here?   

btw: It was Joshua not Moses in the passage I referenced.

Ergo, yet another -- Red Herring Fallacy leading to a Straw Man Fallacy (SEE Above).

 

Quote

Fill a sink with water and, without adding any outside force to the water, pull out the plug. You will SEE the "Coriolis Effect" as the water spins down the drain. 

No that's called "Water Draining". 

 

Quote

Wikipedia gives us this at Coriolis_force:

So a 'wiki/google' Scientist, eh?

 

Quote

So, it is a "force" that is bent by the spinning motion of the earth.

No it's a "Pseudo" or "Fictitious" force.   Keeping with your 'wiki/google" acumen...

"Motion relative to a rotating frame results in another fictitious force: the Coriolis force."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_force

It's actually not a Force at all but rather an "EFFECT".  And then it's only an "APPARENT"; "Apparent" meaning "NOT REAL".

"Within its rotating coordinate system, the object acted on by the CORIOLIS EFFECT APPEARS to deflect off of its path of motion. THIS DEFLECTION IS NOT REAL. It only APPEARS TO HAPPEN because the coordinate system that establishes a frame of reference for the observer is also rotating."
http://www.encyclopedia.com/earth-and-environment/atmosphere-and-weather/weather-and-climate-terms-and-concepts/coriolis-effect

You can't "bend" something that's NOT REAL. 

 

Quote

"Cyclones" are the cyclic motion of Lows and Highs in our atmosphere; when they dominate the weather patterns, we call the storms formed "tropical storms" or "hurricanes" in the Atlantic or "typhoons" in the Pacific. Living in Florida, we deal with the threat of these every year!

Profound.

 

Quote

They ALWAYS spin in a counterclockwise motion (in the Northern Hemisphere) because they are always formed by Lows (low-pressure systems)!

So Hurricanes always spin counterclockwise (Northern Hemisphere) because they are formed by low pressure systems? 

Define Non-Sequitur Fallacy...?

So Cyclones always spin clockwise (Southern Hemisphere) because they are formed by HIGH pressure systems ??  lol

 

Quote

1.) Thus, the Coriolis Effect is a reality for the clouds and the oceans upon the earth as the earth, 2.) being its reference frame AS THOUGH IT WAS STANDING STILL, 3.) since we, too, are seeing the earth AS THOUGH it was standing still, 4.) being stationary upon the turning earth and turning with it at the same rate!

1.) "Thus" is quite Inane; PLUS... you have no coherent Premises even to reach "Thus".

2.)  Being "its", What's "its"??  As Though "IT" was standing still?  What's "IT"??

3.) How can we be seeing the Earth "AS THOUGH" it was standing still if it wasn't...Standing Still?

4.) How can you be "Stationary" and turning at the same RATE (which ='s "MOVING")   and not PUMMEL the Law of Non-Contradiction into the Incoherent Oblivion?

 

Quote

Job 26:7
7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.
KJV

Another Red Herring Fallacy (Irrelevant).

However...the Earth hangs upon nothing in much the same way my chair "hangeth upon nothing" because it's Supported by Legs (Pillars).  Something Job Referenced in a few chapters prior...

(Job 9:6) "Which shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble."

 

Quote

Job 38:12-14
12 Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days; and caused the dayspring to know his place;
13 That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it [the earth]?

And yet another Red Herring Fallacy (Irrelevant). However, show the Ends of a Sphere...? 

 

Quote

 

You said, ...

"So, if the Coriolis Effect Exists (with Respect to the Earth), then a Flight from Charlotte North Carolina to LA (Non-Stop) traveling @ 500 mph (Air Speed) --- with both locations roughly 35th degree N Latitude, (i.e., both 'allegedly' spinning @ 860 mph ) should be ~ *1.5 hours!!* (But it's ~ *4.5 hrs!!*)

Charlotte to LA Flight: Air Speed 500 mph. Ground Speed: 500 mph + 860 mph "Alleged" rotation speed = 1360 mph."

 

Retrobyter: Using molecular theory... 

 

  Calling this a Red Herring Fallacy leading to a Straw Man Fallacy is a Colossal Understatement!!!  

 

Quote

1.) Using molecular theory there are approximately 1.09 * 10⁴⁴ molecules in the earth's atmosphere, 2.) and each one of those molecules have independent movement based upon the forces of the other molecules around it.

As Mentioned, yet another Inane Red Herring Fallacy leading to a Straw Man Fallacy.  However...

State "Molecular Theory"...?  Then Scientifically Validate it as an 'actual' Scientific Theory...?  THEN...

1.)  Confirm the number using "Molecular Theory"...?

2.) Confirm using "Molecular Theory"...?

 

Quote

As they collide and bump into each other, their forces are shared and exchanged and added together or subtracted from each other in all sorts of angles.

Profound.  What does this have to do with the Price of Tea in China??

 

Quote

There IS a general course of flow from west to east that is shared among the molecules of atmosphere, produced by the "Coriolis Effect,"

Non-Sequitur Fallacy.  How can an "EFFECT" -- Produce ("CAUSE") something...?

And smh... How can an "APPARENT DEFLECTION" ("The Coriolis Effect") CAUSE a Flow of Molecules from West to East...?

 

Quote

that produces a high speed area that shifts with the various eddies and whirls that is known as the "jet stream."

And another, in a LONG list of Red Herring Fallacies (Irrelevant/Diversions).

And... are you a Meteorologist??

 

Quote

So, the prevailing winds travel from west to east!

So how do you explain EAST, NORTH, and SOUTH winds at many levels of the Atmosphere...?

 

 

Quote

 

You said, ...

"So, if the Coriolis Effect Exists (with Respect to the Earth), then a Flight from Charlotte North Carolina to LA (Non-Stop) traveling @ 500 mph (Air Speed) --- with both locations roughly 35th degree N Latitude, (i.e., both 'allegedly' spinning @ 860 mph ) should be ~ *1.5 hours!!* (But it's ~ *4.5 hrs!!*)

Charlotte to LA Flight: Air Speed 500 mph. Ground Speed: 500 mph + 860 mph "Alleged" rotation speed = 1360 mph."

 

Retrobyter: Thus, you are wrong about adding their speeds. You should SUBTRACT their speeds!

 

1.  Non-Sequitur Fallacy. You have no "THUS" because you have no coherent "Premises".

2.  Subtract "WHAT" Speeds...from "WHAT"? smh

3.  Wind Speed has about as much to do with My Argument as the color of the In-Fight Meal Cart Wheels; Ergo...Painfully Incoherent Red Herring Fallacy leading to an Inane Straw Man Fallacy (AGAIN).

 

Quote

The plane's velocity doesn't have a tail wind but a HEAD WIND! Furthermore, you must consider that the jet will be crossing into other time zones, and despite the speed of the jet, the speed of the earth's rotation is faster.

1.  Another Red Herring Fallacy leading to a Straw Man Fallacy: Time Zones/Wind Speeds have about as much to do with my argument as the type of Sugar Substitute the Air Traffic Controllers are using at their respective airports.  For goodness sakes !!! smh

2.  Begging The Question Fallacy: "Earth's Rotation".  You're assuming the very thing you're attempting to prove.

 

Quote

Therefore, you do not see the sun go across the sky backward, but the sun still travels in the same direction, only slower.

I have No Words.

 

Quote

You've got this backward. First of all, it is the EARTH that is assumed to be the static frame from the observer's point of reference.

LOL  How can the Earth be assumed to be the "Static (NOT MOVING) Frame" when your religion states that it's MOVING??

 

Quote

It's the ATMOSPHERE and all the various molecules that make up the atmosphere that are moving in reference to that static frame - that "frame of reference."

Yes FINALLY...that's My Argument!!

Static Frame = The Earth.

 

Quote

Experiments such as this occur in a subject called "fluid dynamics."

1.  Cite the Experiments...?

2.  Even though Gases are arbitrarily classified as "Fluids", Liquids and Gasses are NOT the same.

 

Quote

I studied such motion in my Engineering core classes.

Engineering is NOT "Science"

 

Quote

Put a ball on the end of a drill. Then, fill a tub with water and wait until the water is still. Start up the drill slowly, and submerge the ball halfway into the surface of that water. You will find that the water begins to circulate with the spinning ball as the inertia of the ball is passed to the molecules of the fluid water. You can measure out five centimeters from the surface of the ball, and find when the water begins to circulate with the ball at that point.

Clumsy False Equivalence Fallacy:  SEE Above... Liquids are NOT Gases.

 

Quote

It's one molecule at a time in a fluid, but eventually the entire tub of water will be affected by the spinning ball.

1.  Clumsy False Equivalence Fallacy:  SEE Above... Liquids are NOT Gases.

2.  Put that ball on the end of your drill and place it in an Olympic Size Swimming Pool and let us know how long it takes for the ENTIRE POOL to be affected. 

 

Quote

East, north, and south winds occur because of the SPINNING of air in the atmosphere!

I suppose we can eliminate the previous question "Are you a Meteorologist", eh?

Factually Incorrect: Winds are CAUSED by Pressure and Temperature Gradients.

 

Quote

There are an infinite number of eddies and whirls in the atmosphere and at all levels of the atmosphere, which is a three-dimensional fluid!

There's no such thing as "Infinite", either in Mathematics or Reality.

 

Quote

When, you go for a canoe trip, you can see the eddies and whirls left by a paddle that is only moving in one direction. Any time you have a boundary between forces, you will have some sort of whirling motion.

And yet another Red Herring Fallacy leading to a Straw Man Fallacy; "Cherry-on-Topped" this time with a False Equivalence Fallacy:  SEE above Liquids are NOT Gases.

 

Quote

In the atmosphere, weathermen call these boundaries between air masses "fronts,"

Ay Carumba!!

 

Quote

And, there is a general tendancy for them all to flow, at different rates and with different speeds and in different concentrations, toward the east!

Ahh , Gases (Pressure/[] Gradients) flow from High Pressure to Low Pressure; it's called the Laws of Entropy. (SEE: The Second Law of Thermodynamics)

 

Quote

Technically and mathematically, there's no end to the thinning of the atmosphere; however, on a PRACTICAL level, there is an "end" at around an altitude of 200-250 miles.

Stone Cold 2nd Law of Thermodynamics Violation!!! 

"The Narrative" is we have a Vacuum ("Outer Space") attached to a Non-Vacuum ("Earth").
According to the Laws of Entropy: Unless "Physically" hindered, Gases will flow down a Pressure/[ ] gradient until Equilibrium is reached.

"Thus the diffusion of solute particles takes place DOWN the Concentration Gradient (A *PRESSURE GRADIENT* with respect to partial pressure of GASES ) until uniform concentration is achieved". 
[ i.e., until EQUILIBRIUM is reached ]
Chatterjea, MN., Shinde, R: Textbook of Medical Biochemistry; 8th Edition, p. 817

According to "The Narrative": Interstellar Space Pressure = 10^-17 Torr.

Ergo, Equilibrium MUST = 10^-17 Torr.
Ergo, Sea Level MUST BE ...10^-17 Torr !!
But...The Surface Pressure on the Earth is 760 Torr.
Therefore, either 'The Narrative' is False OR The Laws of Entropy are False.

Guess where my money's going, ALL IN!!
End of Story!  
You Live in a Fairytale.

You also have another BIG Problem...

How do you have a GAS PRESSURE (Atmospheric Pressure) WITHOUT a Container...."TO BEGIN WITH" ?? When...

"The "PRESSURE OF A GAS" is the force that the gas exerts on the WALLS OF IT'S CONTAINER". 
http://chemistry.elmhurst.edu/vchembook/180pressure.html

Please, I can't wait to hear this Yarn...? ?
Basically, explain how you can have a "Tire Pressure"... 

                      WITHOUT THE TIRE !!! 

 

 

Quote

Eventually, they thin out until you only have a molecule or two that escapes earth's gravitational pull to exist in the vacuum of space, and even they will be pulled back into the collective mass after time passes.

1.  Which 'gravity'... Einstienian or Newtonian ??

a.  Is gravity a Force?
b.  Is 'gravity' a Scientific Law or Scientific Theory?
c.  What is the CAUSE of 'gravity'...?

2.  Oh Never Mind...

"A GAS is a sample of matter that conforms to the shape of a CONTAINER in which it is held and acquires a uniform density inside the CONTAINER, EVEN IN THE PRESENCE OF GRAVITY and regardless of the amount of substance in the CONTAINER. If not confined to a CONTAINER, gaseous matter, also known as vapor, WILL DISPERSE INTO SPACE."
http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/gas

You can confirm this yourself.  Go out and depress the pin on your Tricycle Tire and tell us what happens...?

3.  There is no "Vacuum of Space".  (SEE Directly above: Stone Cold 2nd Law of Thermodynamics Violation!!!)

 

Quote

Sir Newton was indeed a "free Mason" but that is a FAR DIFFERENT breed of "free Masonry" than is prevalent today.

Really, How so...?

 

Quote

So he knew that mutual attraction without some forces involved was all theory without substance. That doesn't negate the fact that his laws of gravitation still WORKED!

A Scientific Theory without "Substance" is tantamount to Water without Hydrogen.

Do you even know what an "Actual" Scientific Theory is?  If so, Please...?

Then, Post these 'Laws of Gravitation' and HOW they work...?

 

Quote

That is, they FIT THE FACTS OF THE OBSERVED AND MEASURED INTERACTIONS!

Well Invisible Fire Breathing Dragons "FIT THE FACTS OF THE OBSERVED AND MEASURED INTERACTIONS!" of Large Burn/Scorch Marks on my Garage Wall.

Do you know the difference between "Science" and Fairytale "Just-So" Stories? (Obviously Rhetorical at this point):  Ya See, it's all in "The Method"...

"Science" -- The Method: The Scientific Method.

Fairytale "Just-So" Stories --  The Method: Imagination.

So please, RE-Compute.

 

Quote

And, as far as "the Scientific ('Pseudo' or otherwise) Community not following Newtonian gravity," they DO FOLLOW IT at the practical level!

Really?  Citation Please...?

And, Errr...What other "Level" is there?

 

Quote

Personally, I've never held to the General Theory of Relativity.

Me Neither because it's NOT a Scientific Theory in the First Place!!

 

Quote

I believe that the same results that are actually measurable and observable can be seen in the Four Field Vector Theory that has been promoted by scientists within the Institute for Creation Research.

Really, Do Tell...?

 

Quote

Furthermore, their Theory fits the facts BETTER than do Einstein's General Theory

Probably as good as FIT THE FACTS of Invisible Fire Breathing Dragons above, I'd bet.

 

Quote

even to the point of "predicting" the Special Theory of Relativity, namely, E = mc².

Please Define:

1.  "Scientific Prediction"...?

2.  "POST"- diction...?

3.  Jeanne Dixon/Jimmy The Greek/Carnival Tent "Prediction"...?

4.  Cyclic Repeat - diction...?

Now Juxtapose the Characteristics of each and place Your "predicted SR" trainwreck in the appropriate category...?

5.  E = mc² .  Each term in Mathematics MUST BE rigidly defined.  So Please...

E ...?
m...?
c²...?

 

Quote

the phenomenon observed was the BACK-TRACKING of the planets among the backdrop of the stars. The fact that the planets would be generally moving in one direction, STOP, and REVERSE COURSE for a brief time, and then STOP AGAIN, and continue on in the ORIGINAL direction! What causes that?!

1.  Begging The Question: "Planets".

2.  That's my question to you!!  So Scientifically Validate "The Cause"...

a.  What Phenomenon was Observed...?
b.  Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then EXPERIMENT that validates your claim...?
c.  Highlight the "Independent Variable" that was used in the TEST...?
d.  Post the Null Hypothesis that was Rejected/Falsified...?

 

Quote

The Formal Scientific Hypothesis, the Independent Variable, and the Null Hypothesis, to my knowledge, were never formed

Ergo... FAIRYTALE.  Crocheting is more Scientific!!!

 

 

Quote

, having been discovered LONG before such procedures were adopted. However, they tried various possibilies - various scenarios - testing whether they would get the same results. What we learned through the course of time is that the planets, EARTH INCLUDED, travel on basically the SAME PLANE in their trips around the sun and that the planets all move at different speeds and generally the farther planets take much longer to complete a revolution around the sun than do the inner planets! Therefore, we are looking at "circles" (elipses) edge-on when we look at the planets in the sky! At one time, the earth will be behind the planet, "catching up" to its current position in the circle; at another time, the earth will have caught up to the planet in their respective orbits, and then at a later time the earth will be leaving the planet "in the dust," so to speak. It's hard to explain in words, but a good demonstration can be found at what-is-retrograde-motion at EarthSky.org. 

Translation:  Fairytale.

 

 

Quote

Again, NONSENSE! Nine thousand km² is only 1,859.5 mi²,

Actually 9000 km² is 3474.9 mi².  So who's NONSENSE! is it again?

 

Quote

which in a square plot of ground would be 43.12 miles by 43.12 miles! The 43.12 miles in a circumference of 24,902 miles would only be 0.6234 degrees of the earth's circumference! That would be practically NEGLIGIBLE!

Your calculations are WRONG, smh.  Even with them, your Fairytale is CRUSHED...

43.12 miles would equal 1239 feet of curvature or 377 Meters.  The Salar shows less than 1 METER!!

KaBooM!!!

 

Quote

In #2 above, if 43.12 miles was negligible, 35 miles certainly would be!

It wasn't Negligible even with your corrupt calculations.

 

Quote

You really don't know what you're talking about

 

Quote

And, just why do you think the radar tracking height would be 80 feet?

Well I gave the benefit of the doubt of 80 feet for Tracking Radar (not Radar Tracking, lol)...which includes the height of the ship from Sea LEVEL.

 

Quote

However, you don't know what you are talking about!

Really?  How so...?

 

Quote

Because they are constantly flying at the same altitude above the curvature of the earth, gravity does the "adjusting" for them!

1.  You can't fly over a CURVE without "Altitude Adjustments"; this is Prima Facie Indubitable to an Incoherent 2nd Grader.

2. Show the GRAVITY Controller, lol...?  This is tantamount to saying: the SPEEDOMETER controls how fast I'm going!!!

3.  Which 'gravity'... Einstienian or Newtonian ??

a.  Is gravity a Force?
b.  Is 'gravity' a Scientific Law or Scientific Theory?
c.  What is the CAUSE of 'gravity'...?

 

Quote

In #4, it is a COLUMN of air that is weighed against the GROUND! That's how air pressure is measured. It's reported as, for instance, 14.70 pounds per square inch!

Profound.  What does this have to do with the color of Bertlmann's Socks ?

 

Quote

You waste too much time fighting against the truth - kicking against the ox-goads, as Paul would say. It's time to give it up.

It's Patently Obvious you waste too much time PARROTING 'wiki'/google.

 

regards

30 minutes ago, MorningGlory said:

Kindly don't try to derail Zorgblar's thread into another flat earth mess. 

I'm not derailing; he commented, he needs to SUPPORT those comments.   It's just that simple.

 

Thanks for your concern.

On 11/19/2017 at 2:11 AM, Retrobyter said:

I DO believe in heliocentrism, that is, that the sun is at one of the focal points of the eliptical orbit of the earth at both perigee and apogee.

The Earth doesn't Orbit the Sun. It's Stationary...

 

And it doesn't 'rotate' either:

Not "Spinning":

For the Coriolis Effect to Exist, you MUST HAVE (i.e., the "Necessary Conditions"): 1. Two differing Frames of Reference (One Rotating Coordinate System (Non-Inertial) --- The Earth  and One Non-Rotating Coordinate System (Inertial)-- The Atmosphere ...and anything in it)...

"CC.12 The Coriolis Effect:

When set in motion, freely moving objects, including AIR [Atmosphere] and WATER masses [Clouds/Water Vapor], move in straight paths while the Earth continues to

                                                                                 ROTATE INDEPENDENTLY.

Because freely moving objects ARE NOT carried with the Earth as it Rotates, they are subject to an apparent deflection called the “Coriolis effect.” To an observer rotating with the Earth, freely moving objects that travel in a straight line appear to travel in a curved path on the Earth."

Segar, Douglas A; Introduction to Ocean Sciences, 2nd Edition: Critical Concept Reminders -- CC.12 The Coriolis Effect (pp. 313, 314, 323, 324), ISBN: 978-0-393-92629-3, 2007.

http://www.wwnorton.com/college/geo/oceansci/cc/cc12.html

 

In other words, anything not "Tethered" to the Earth is 'Freely Moving'.

2. The Object in question not Physically Attached to the Rotating Coordinate System appears to deflect (i.e., Moves Independently of the Rotating Coordinate System) from the vantage point anywhere on the rotating coordinate system -- aka: the 'Coriolis Effect'.

So, if the Coriolis Effect Exists (with Respect to the Earth), then a Flight from Charlotte North Carolina to LA (Non-Stop) traveling @ 500 mph (Air Speed) --- with both locations roughly 35th degree N Latitude, (i.e., both 'allegedly' spinning @ 860 mph ) should be ~ *1.5 hours!!* (But it's ~ *4.5 hrs!!*)

Charlotte to LA Flight: Air Speed 500 mph. Ground Speed: 500 mph + 860 mph "Alleged" rotation speed = 1360 mph.

So in my example:

1. Two differing Frames of Reference: (Earth and Atmosphere -- and everything in it) 2. The Plane in the Atmosphere is "Freely Moving" (not attached) to the Rotating Coordinate System and is flying in a straight path. In other words, Based on the Law of Non-Contradiction each (The Coriolis Effect and the Charlotte Flight at 1.5 hours) are either: Both TRUE or Both FALSE.

The Flight is most assuredly FALSE!! 

In conclusion, the Earth is *NOT* "Spinning"; ERGO..."The Ball" goes by way of the DoDo Bird or you're a Stationary Ball Geo-Centrist. Voila.

The only way the above can be refuted is if you're of the position that the Atmosphere 'spins' with the Earth. So then:

1. Please explain how the Coriolis Effect can EXIST when the NECESSARY CONDITIONS for it to EXIST are Two Differing Coordinate Systems (Reference Frames) -- One Rotating --"Earth" and One Non-Rotating-- the "Atmosphere" and everything in it...?

2. Show the Experiment where 'Gases'/Gas rotate in Lock-Step with a Rotating Solid Body just 5 cm above the surface, then provide the mechanism....?

3. Please explain "EAST/North/South" Surface Winds...?  

(Bonus Question: How you can have different wind speeds and directions simultaneously at differing elevations of the atmosphere while the atmosphere is collectively 'spinning' East, in Unison "The Same"...?)

btw, These are Contradictory Statements:

1. The Atmosphere 'spins' in Lock-Step with the Earth.

2. The Existence of "EAST/North/South" Surface Winds.

Which do you think is FALSE?

MOREOVER, following the 'yarn'... Every Cubic Nanometer of atmosphere traveling horizontally from the equator to the center of rotationMUST HAVE differing Tangential Speeds; and every Cubic Nanometer of atmosphere rising in elevation from each respective horizontal Cubic Nanometer of atmosphere MUST HAVE differing Tangential Speeds (In fact, the higher the elevation... the faster they'll need to travel to keep up !!); and all of this rolling along at differing speeds... in Unison, EAST?? 

This is so far beyond Preposterous Ludicrousness Absurdity, 'evolution' (whatever that is??) and Multiverses... are BLUSHING!!

AND, does anyone know how far up this 'Increasing Speed' Rope-A-Dope Fairytale Spinning Atmosphere ENDS?? I'd like to see that...it'll give a Whole New Meaning to Guillotine "WIND SHEAR"!! Goodness Gracious People.  

ps. Are the Gas Molecules attached to each other by: Velcro?? Glue?? Pixie Dust?? Other?? And where is the energy coming from for the continuous "Shot in the Arm" injections needed to keep each successive Cubic Nanometer of atmosphere higher elevation brethren in tow?

Alice in Wonderland is more tenable than the "Spinning-Ball" religion.

 

Quote

However, it wasn't Copernicus who convinced me of this; it was Sir Isaac Newton, a wonderful Christian "Renaissance man," whose laws of gravitational force convinced me.

Sir Isaac Newton was a Free Mason (SEE: Lucifer Worshiper) and didn't believe in the 'gravitational' nonsense to begin with...

In a letter to Dr. Richard Bentley on Feb. 25th, 1692, Isaac Newton says: 

"Tis inconceivable that inanimate brute matter should (without mediation of something else which is not material) operate upon and affect other matter without mutual contact... 
“That gravity should be innate inherent and essential to matter so that one body can act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without mediation of anything else by and through which their action or force may be conveyed from one to another is to me SO GREAT AN ABSURDITY that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it."
Scheurer, PB., Debrock, G: Newton's Scientific and Philosophical Legacy, 1988, p.52

The Pseudo-Scientific Community doesn't follow Newtonian 'gravity' anyways...

"...Einstein created his GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY —which provides OUR MODERN UNDERSTANDING of gravity —with the express purpose of expunging nonlocality from physics. Isaac Newton's gravity acted at a distance, as if by magic, and general relativity snapped the wand in two by showing that the curvature of spacetime, and NOT AN INVISIBLE FORCE, gives rise to gravitational attraction."
Musser George: How Einstein Revealed the Universe's Strange "Nonlocality"; Scientific American, November 2015.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-einstein-revealed-the-universe-s-strange-nonlocality/

And 'general relativity' was PUMMELED by 3rd Graders at recess before Quantum Mechanics chopped it's head clean off.

 

Quote

In the geocentric model, what is causing the retrograde motion of the planets?

There are No "Planets" just "Lights in the Sky".

Please provide Scientific Evidence of what's causing the retrograde motion of 'planets' in the "Heliocentric" (aka: Sun Worshipping) Model...

a.  What Phenomenon was Observed...?
b.  Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then EXPERIMENT that validates your claim...?
c.  Highlight the "Independent Variable" that was used in the TEST...?
d.  Post the Null Hypothesis that was Rejected/Falsified...?

 

And 'models' are demonstrable Pseudo-Science...

Please show "models" in the Scientific Method...? (and not "Ball-Stick" Airplane 'Models' Either !!! lol)...?

"A model is used for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has a LIMITATION ON IT'S VALIDITY." 
https://www.thoughtco.com/hypothesis-model-theory-and-law-2699066

Allow me to translate: "Pseudo-Science"...There is no such animal as a Scientific Hypothesis with 'limited validity' it's tantamount to a woman being 'A LITTLE' PREGNANT !! 
REAL Scientific Hypotheses are either CONFIRMED or INVALIDATED, PERIOD...End of Story!! 
Furthermore, Scientific Hypotheses do not exist in PERPETUITY or wait for more DATA !!! 'Data' comes *FROM* Experiments - ( Hypothesis TESTS).
A "Model" is conjured when the 'alleged' Hypothesis is UN-TESTABLE!!! That means, there never was an 'ACTUAL' Scientific Hypothesis to begin with !!

 

Quote

It wasn't until Copernicus (and some of his colleagues) pointed out that the planets revolving around the sun would explain the retrograde motion from our perspective.

They conjured a "Just-So" Story and passed it off as "science"; Crocheting is more Scientific !!

 

Quote

a flat earth does not adequately explain why we see the sun in our locations but cannot see the sun from other places' locations.

Scientifically Validate...

a.  What Phenomenon was Observed...?
b.  Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then EXPERIMENT that validates your claim...?
c.  Highlight the "Independent Variable" that was used in the TEST...?
d.  Post the Null Hypothesis that was Rejected/Falsified...?

 

Quote

1.) If the earth is indeed flat, 2.) then we should be able to see the sun no matter what time of the day or night it is.

1.) It is.

2.) Why?

Here, take a shot at these...

Flat: 

1.  "The salar de Uyuni in the Bolivian Andes is the largest salt flat on Earth, exhibiting LESS THAN 1 M OF VERTICAL RELIEF over an area of 9000 km2" ..."Longer wavelengths in the DEM [Digital Elevation Model] correlate well with mapped gravity, suggesting a connection between broad-scale salar topography and the geoid similar to that seen over the oceans."

Borsa A. A., et al: Topography of the salar de Uyuni, Bolivia from kinematic GPS; Geophysical Journal International Volume 172, Issue 1, p. 31-40 http://gji.oxfordjournals.org/content/172/1/31.full

This is a Geometrical Flat Plane.

You can have a myriad of Topographical Features on a Sphere: Mountains, Ridges, Saddles, Spurs, Depressions, ect ect; Ya know what you CAN'T HAVE (??) ...

"A Geometrical Flat Plane" 

And this one is over *"9000 km2"!!!!*

Therefore, how can you Blindly Adhere to a Sphere that has one of it's Foundational Tenets "Vertical Drop" and yet at the SAME TIMEhave a FLAT PLANE with less than *1 METER VERTICAL DROP* over 9000 km2, pray tell??

** The Entire Globe Charade is actually OVER right here. 

 

 

2.  Sea Sparrow (NATO): 

 

 

3.  Flight:  Since the Earth is, as we're TOLD, a Sphere 25,000 miles in circumference... radius 3959 miles, then Pilots traveling @ a typical cruising speed of 500 mph --- to simply maintain altitude, would constantly have to adjust their altitude downwards, (to Compensate for the Curvature) and descend 2,777 feet over half a mile every minute !!!

500 miles² x 8 inches/12 inches = 166,666 Feet of curvature ---Total Drop needed in one hour to Maintain Altitude.

166,666 feet/60 minutes = 2777 feet per minute altitude descent to Maintain Altitude.

A flippin Roller Coaster would be placid serenity(!!) in comparison.  The nose of the plane on a typical flight would never get above horizontal, save for takeoff. 

 

4.  Vacuum of Space:

1. How do you have a GAS PRESSURE (Atmospheric Pressure) WITHOUT a Container...."TO BEGIN WITH" ?? When...

"The "PRESSURE OF A GAS" is the force that the gas exerts on the WALLS OF IT'S CONTAINER". 
http://chemistry.elmhurst.edu/vchembook/180pressure.html

Basically, explain how you can have a "Tire Pressure"... 

                      WITHOUT THE TIRE !!! 

2. How can you have a Vacuum (Outer-Space) attached to a Non-Vacuum (Earth) WITHOUT a Physical Barrier in the same system simultaneously, without Bludgeoning to a Bloody Pulp... the Laws of Entropy (2LOT) ??

a.  In other words, How are you still Breathing and adhering to the fairytale 'Narrative'... BOTH, at the same time??

b.  Then, Define the Law of Non-Contradiction...?

c.  Then, please list each fairytale associated with "Outer-Space" that gets taken out back to the Woodshed and Bludgeoned Senseless as a result of the fairytale "Vacuum of Space" VAPORIZING....?

3. Have you ever heard: "Nature Abhors a Vacuum", by chance?  Why is that...?

 

If you can't provide Coherent/Substantive Falsifications of the 5 PROOFS (#5 is "Not Spinning" mentioned previously) above then your Spinning Globe Earth Position is UNTENABLE.

It's just that simple. 

Capisce?

 

Quote

No, the flat earth theory leaves us with more questions than it answers! 

It actually doesn't and lines up perfectly with Scripture.

 

regards

5 hours ago, Dennis1209 said:

During the dark ages sailors and most people thought the earth was flat and they would fall off the earth if they went to far.

Why'd they think that?

What if the entire plane was encircled with ice beyond which it was too inhospitable to go?

 

Quote

It was the dark ages and people were ignorant because the Bible was outlawed from the common man

Well it was the Bible which told them it was Flat/Non-Spinning/Domed and Geocentric in the first place...

 

 

Dr. Michael S. Heiser (Renowned Bible Scholar)...

"The issue is how “literal creationists” are actually only selective literalists (or, as I would call them, “inconsistent literalists”). If one was truly consistent in interpreting the creation description in Genesis 1 at face value (along with other creation descriptions in both testaments), you’d come out with a round, flat earth, complete with solid dome over the earth, and earth supported by pillars, with Sheol underneath, etc.  But creationists who claim the literal mantel don’t do that, since the results are clearly non-scientific. My view, as readers know, is that we ought to simply let the text say what it says, and let it be what it is. It was God’s choice to prompt people living millennia ago to produce this thing we call the Bible, and so we dishonor it when we impose our own interpretive context on it. Our modern evangelical contexts are alien to the Bible. Frankly, any context other than the context in which the biblical writers were moved to write is foreign to the Bible.  So, who’s the literalist now?"  

http://drmsh.com/interpreting-genesis-1-literalist/

 

Quote

There's some very interesting and deep scientific studies that can be done in the Book of Job, such as; the pillars of the earth, the corner stone of the earth

How can you have "Pillars" and a "Cornerstone" on a Sphere?

 

regards

16 hours ago, GandalfTheWise said:

If I talk about science, they hear "to believe the Bible about science means that I have to believe that the earth is flat".

1.  "Science" isn't an ENTITY or a RESULT, it's a Method: The Scientific Method.

If you talk about "Science" in "church"??  Why would you?   It's tantamount to bringing up Gasket Sealing at a Rib-Eye Conference.

How does it go, someone's talking about how Christ is the Way, Truth, and the Life and you chime in with what is the Dependent Variable?? (I doubt that you even know what it means to begin with).

It's Non-Sequitur... on Nuclear Steroids!!

 

And forgive me but, What on Earth does this mean...

2. they hear "to believe the Bible about science" ??

To believe the Bible about science??   The Bible doesn't speak to The Scientific Method ("Science"). However, it does speak directly to Pseudo-Science...

(Timothy 6:20) O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called.

Is that what you're talking about? (most assuredly Rhetorical)

 

3.  The Flat/Non-Spinning/Domed Geocentric Earth (or the 'Spinning-Ball' religion) isn't "Science" to begin with.

To know with absolute certainty that HE Created a Flat/Non-Spinning/Domed Geocentric Earth is to just take God at His Word.  Would you like ~65 Examples??

 

As for the OP specifically, I live Smack Dab in the middle of what is called "The Bible Belt" (Central Missoura).  I have been in and out of at least 50 "churches" in the past 10 years.  They are literally infested with the Paradox (brought to you by the serpent): 

1.  Take God at His Word, OR...

2.  Believe the Nonsensical Buffoonery from the Pseudo-Sciences -- ( astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, paleontology, geology, anthropology, archaeology, evolutionary biology (lol), theoretical physics.) ...That's Pontificated from Rooftops, over and over and over and over and over again.

Both can't be True.

Ya see, the majority of people know with absolute certainty that there is "A CREATOR" because they can 'Fog a Mirror' (and God has shown them:  See: Romans Chapter 1). HOWEVER, Indoctrination (no matter how moronic ) from Diapers is an EXTREMELY Powerful influence and tactic...most can't break-away.  So many "Mind Numbingly" attempt to reconcile The Word of God with "Science" (aka: Pseudo-Science) which breeds utter chaos and discord!!  It'd be easier reconciling Married Bachelors.

99.99999999999% of the Problem is Right Here ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^.

 

Let's Reason Together, shall we??   God has already warned and told you that satan is the most beautiful and WISEST of all his Creations.  Moreover, God has given you satan's Two Common Tactics...

1.  Create Doubt ("Hath God Said...??").

2.  Outright Denial of The Word of God ("...you will not surely die".)

There's nothing new under the sun.

So, put yourself in satan's shoes:  The Creator of the Universe has just Declared War on You (YIKES !!!) See: Genesis 3, and the vehicle of your destruction is the 'seed of the woman' (Jesus Christ).

So what are you gonna do??  I don't know bout you, but practically and tactically my 1st/2nd/3rd/4th/180,000th ect act is gonna do everything in my power to CORRUPT THE SEED OF THE WOMAN.  'duh' Right?  (See: Genesis 6, Flood, Entire Old Testament).

satan tried and failed miserably but the end is not yet (Another Topic).  He knows that his 'goose is cooked' and since he hates MAN with a passion, he's gonna do everything in his power to take as many down with him as he can, so it's back to the Ole Tried and True...

1.  Create Doubt ("Hath God Said...??").

2.  Outright Denial of The Word of God ("...you will not surely die".)

We already know he and his minions are the "Powers Behind" all the Empires (Governments) of the World, Right?  Cause again, GOD TOLD YOU !!! (See: Daniel Chapter 10)

So do you think that satan and his minions behind the World's Governments are gonna focus their attack on:

A.  The Maytag Repairman et al.

or 

B. ALL the Upper Echelon of: The Higher Institutes of Learning (Infiltrating Public Schools), Media, Seminaries, Hollywood, ect ect ... Maybe employ some 'Artistic Licence' with Secular History a bit?

????????

pssst...

WAKE UP !!!!!                                          

 

Hope it Helps

Have a Nice Day.

 

 

12 hours ago, Abdicate said:

Hebrews 5:8 (KJV)
Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;  

Well obviously I used "Learning" as in Gaining Knowledge.

To be extremely technical about it, you don't "Learn" Obedience in much the same way as you don't "Learn" to be quiet...you just "Shut Up"; it's an act of Volition, not a gain in knowledge.

regards

14 hours ago, dprprb said:

OK THANKS Enoch

You're welcome.

 

Quote

Most of what i said is a direct verbatim from "Fabric of Reality" by David Deutsch

Well then call/email/carrier pigeon 'David Deutsch' and tell him to fix his trainwreck.

In the future, should we contact David Deutsch to ascertain what YOU believe??

 

Quote

and not my own tab dropping.

What does this mean?

 

Quote

My take away from his work was that Many Worlds is an interpretation- just like the Copenhagen interpretation which is a representation -and conjectured from the basis of all paths taken by a photon which causes the cancellation in the double slit experiment from Feynman.

Well his "Take" and your "Take" are conjured fairytales as I explicitly explained and illustrated.

 

Quote

in the double slit experiment from Feynman.

The Double Slit Experiment was done long before Richard Feynman popped on the scene.

 

Quote

Since it is an ad hoc device to explain results it is given no substantial basis

I Rest My Case.

 

Quote

just as virtual particle is virtually synonymous with real particle. 

There's no such thing as a Virtual Particle; it's Oxy-Moronical on it's face.  Married Bachelors are more coherent.

 

Quote

I think that you see no point to doing anything with my narrative

Other than laugh at it, No ...since I already PUMMELED it.

 

Quote

and no further conversation is necessary

Then why are you still attempting to resurrect it?

 

Quote

In response to some of Enochs critique I would like to point out that Scripture is part of my set of assumptions

Can I be brutally honest?  What on Earth are you TALKING ABOUT !!! 

 

Are you reading a different thread then commenting here?

 

regards

1 hour ago, dprprb said:

1. Geology- I will use what can be deduced from empirical crossections that are visible or possible to reconstruct from interpolated core drills around the globe.-physical  time is required not a resolution to whether something is science or not.

1.  Empirical means -- Observable, TESTABLE, Repeatable, and Falsifiable.  So "Empirical Cross-Sections" is Non-Sequitur.

2. "can be deduced" and "interpolated" = "Just-So" Stories.

3.  There is No "Globe".

4.  Time is NOT Physical, for goodness sakes.  To refute, please post the: Chemical Formula/Structure, Charge, Mass, Momentum, Spin, OR... Kcals/Joules/meV for "Time"...?

 

Quote

2. The unfordable Gap -I thought you meant- between the YEC literal and traditional understanding from Scripture (approx 4000BC) and the body of interpretations of OEC  Day AGE versions, Gap theory, and what you or anyone else deems as pseudoscientifc conclusions.

Huh??  You even said....: "because someone over reacts to my use of the word 'geology' anywhere near the word 'science'."

Then you said: "You were the one that said 'unfordable' gap."

Yes, that was the conversation we had where I Illustrated quite explicitly that there was an 'Unfordable Gap' between geology and "Science".  

This had nothing to do with YEC or it's comparison with anything else.

 

Quote

(radiometric dating etc)- the difference necessary to have any reconcilition is time.

Radiometric Dating is a Demonstrable Fairytale.

 

Quote

We can have the same dreary converse and go our separate ways agreeing to disagree.

Well this isn't a Subjective "Agree/Disagree" Topic.

 

Quote

I dont think I can factor primes either.

So what does this have to do with the price of frogs legs in china?

 

Quote

My proposal is a different way to insert time into the narrative (such as a Day Age or Gap thoery is inclined to do) that does not violate Scripture and the traditional 4000BC style interpretation with 7 24 hr days of Creation.

 Why do you need to 'insert' time in, when it's the Conceptual Medium in which all events take place in this universe ?  It's tantamount to 'inserting' water in to study Snowflakes; You don't need to... it's a Contingent Necessity.

The 'Day Age' and 'Gap Theory' are feebly contrived Fairytales introduced to 'grease the skids'...laughingly attempt to reconcile the Mother Fairytale ... 'evolution' (Whatever that is??) with Scriptural Doctrines. 

 

Quote

There are separate historical lines that part and reconverge with paradoxically observables that are not truth defeating.

Only if you're on Shrooms.

 

Quote

In fact, parallel world interpretations of quantum mechanics(QM)

Ahhh, not a Friggin Chance!!  lol...

The Many Worlds/Multiverse was first CONJURED then published IN a Comic Book... All-Star Comics #3 in 1940 !!!

It's a Textbook Argument from Complete Ignorance (Fallacy) from the Black Lagoon and the most EGREGIOUS Violation of Occam's Razor ever CONJURED then Foisted --- on the generally incoherent and scientifically challenged public--- in the history of ground squirrel level reasoning...by introducing untold number of entities that can neither be confirmed or falsified!!

"One tiny atoms quantum behavior replicates the entire universe and defines each alternative by all the possible consequences of that behavior.  But at any moment within each human body, there on on the order of a billion times a billion times a billion atoms, each making quantum transitions.  In the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, every human being, therefore, creates a billion times a billion times a billion alternative universes every second." 
Bernard Haisch (PhD Physics); The God Theory, p. 135.
A TEAR JERKIN BELLY LAUGHER !!!

Since the Majority of 'Scientists' --- (which they're not) have an "a priori" adherence to their fairytale religion "Philosophical Naturalism/Realism" aka: atheism... the Irrefutable Experimental Evidence in the Literal Thousands Without Exception --- of Quantum Mechanics (The most successful branch of Physics in History) stands in DIRECT CONTRADICTION to " IT ".

That puts them in a very Uncomfortable Position ("VISE like")...you can either RECKON with The Scientific Evidence and adjust your World-View accordingly OR....Close your eyes, put your fingers in your ears and Say La La La over and over and let Cognitive Dissonance Rule the Roost!! Since that playground nonsense is laughed at by anyone who can 'Fog A Mirror', they MUST THEN...

Float Mind-Numbing-- conjured from thin air, 'Interpretations'... Many Worlds ('Multiverses')  as a 'get of Incoherent Jail Free Card' to cloak their mind numbing adherence to Fairytales with the facade of 'science' (which are merely clumsily contrived "Just-So" Stories) to obfuscate having to give coherent account for their ludicrous Scientifically Falsified stance.  They're BUSTED, and they know it!!!

 

Quote

and yes I understand that it is assumed to be non interacting parallel worlds except that they do influence the outcome of an experiment. (which equals the double slit results)

  Really??  Well Please do, Show and Tell...?

You'd have better chances showing the 'influence' of Alexander The Greats Horse's Mane Color had on Aunt Jenny's late summer Tomato Haul in Tupelo Mississippi !!

 

Quote

So they influence the outcome here in our observables right?

No, 'they' are Fairytales

 

Quote

Ive never seen you disagree with that.

Can you show where I 'Agreed' with that Buffoonery?

 

Quote

Now lets give it divine purpose if that can be coherent.

You wanna give "Many World's" Divine Purpose?  This is akin to giving Phlogiston and Alice in Wonderland "Divine Purpose". 

 

Quote

Can it be done?

Only with a heavy mix of LSD, Peyote, and Shrooms with a Grandpa's Cough Medicine kicker.

 

regards 

On 11/14/2017 at 7:57 PM, Abdicate said:

Revelation 8:12 (KJV)
And the fourth angel sounded, and the third part of the sun was smitten, and the third part of the moon, and the third part of the stars; so as the third part of them was darkened, and the day shone not for a third part of it, and the night likewise.  

After the two mountains and star hit the earth, a third of the day and a third of the night are removed. Those are time-based reference therefore, a 24 hour rotation period will need to be increased by a third.

The Earth doesn't 'rotate' , it's Stationary.  To Refute, then:

1.  Please post the Scripture(s) denoting rotation...?

2.  Or reconcile this...

For the Coriolis Effect to Exist, you MUST HAVE (i.e., the "Necessary Conditions"): 1. Two differing Frames of Reference (One Rotating Coordinate System (Non-Inertial) --- The Earth  and One Non-Rotating Coordinate System (Inertial)-- The Atmosphere ...and anything in it)...

"CC.12 The Coriolis Effect:

When set in motion, freely moving objects, including AIR [Atmosphere] and WATER masses [Clouds/Water Vapor], move in straight paths while the Earth continues to

                                                                                 ROTATE INDEPENDENTLY.

Because freely moving objects ARE NOT carried with the Earth as it Rotates, they are subject to an apparent deflection called the “Coriolis effect.” To an observer rotating with the Earth, freely moving objects that travel in a straight line appear to travel in a curved path on the Earth."

Segar, Douglas A; Introduction to Ocean Sciences, 2nd Edition: Critical Concept Reminders -- CC.12 The Coriolis Effect (pp. 313, 314, 323, 324), ISBN: 978-0-393-92629-3, 2007.

http://www.wwnorton.com/college/geo/oceansci/cc/cc12.html

 

In other words, anything not "Tethered" to the Earth is 'Freely Moving'.

2. The Object in question not Physically Attached to the Rotating Coordinate System appears to deflect (i.e., Moves Independently of the Rotating Coordinate System) from the vantage point anywhere on the rotating coordinate system -- aka: the 'Coriolis Effect'.

So, if the Coriolis Effect Exists (with Respect to the Earth), then a Flight from Charlotte North Carolina to LA (Non-Stop) traveling @ 500 mph (Air Speed) --- with both locations roughly 35th degree N Latitude, (i.e., both 'allegedly' spinning @ 860 mph ) should be ~ *1.5 hours!!* (But it's ~ *4.5 hrs!!*)

Charlotte to LA Flight: Air Speed 500 mph. Ground Speed: 500 mph + 860 mph "Alleged" rotation speed = 1360 mph.

So in my example:

1. Two differing Frames of Reference: (Earth and Atmosphere -- and everything in it) 2. The Plane in the Atmosphere is "Freely Moving" (not attached) to the Rotating Coordinate System and is flying in a straight path. In other words, Based on the Law of Non-Contradiction each (The Coriolis Effect and the Charlotte Flight at 1.5 hours) are either: Both TRUE or Both FALSE.

The Flight is most assuredly FALSE!! 

In conclusion, the Earth is *NOT* "Spinning"; ERGO..."The Ball" goes by way of the DoDo Bird or you're a Stationary Ball Geo-Centrist. Voila.

The only way the above can be refuted is if you're of the position that the Atmosphere 'spins' with the Earth. So then:

1. Please explain how the Coriolis Effect can EXIST when the NECESSARY CONDITIONS for it to EXIST are Two Differing Coordinate Systems (Reference Frames) -- One Rotating --"Earth" and One Non-Rotating-- the "Atmosphere" and everything in it...?

2. Show the Experiment where 'Gases'/Gas rotate in Lock-Step with a Rotating Solid Body just 5 cm above the surface, then provide the mechanism....?

3. Please explain "EAST/North/South" Surface Winds...?  

(Bonus Question: How you can have different wind speeds and directions simultaneously at differing elevations of the atmosphere while the atmosphere is collectively 'spinning' East, in Unison...?)

btw, These are Contradictory Statements:

1. The Atmosphere 'spins' in Lock-Step with the Earth.

2. The Existence of "EAST/North/South" Surface Winds.

Which do you think is FALSE?

MOREOVER, following the 'yarn'... Every Cubic Nanometer of atmosphere traveling horizontally from the equator to the center of rotationMUST HAVE differing Tangential Speeds; and every Cubic Nanometer of atmosphere rising in elevation from each respective horizontal Cubic Nanometer of atmosphere MUST HAVE differing Tangential Speeds (In fact, the higher the elevation... the faster they'll need to travel to keep up !!); and all of this rolling along at differing speeds... in Unison, EAST?? 

This is so far beyond Preposterous Ludicrousness Absurdity, 'evolution' (whatever that is??) and Multiverses... are BLUSHING!!

AND, does anyone know how far up this 'Increasing Speed' Rope-A-Dope Fairytale Spinning Atmosphere ENDS?? I'd like to see that...it'll give a Whole New Meaning to Guillotine "WIND SHEAR"!! Goodness Gracious People.  

ps. Are the Gas Molecules attached to each other by: Velcro?? Glue?? Pixie Dust?? Other?? And where is the energy coming from for the continuous "Shot in the Arm" injections needed to keep each successive Cubic Nanometer of atmosphere higher elevation brethren in tow?

Alice in Wonderland is more tenable than the "Spinning-Ball" religion.

 

regards

2 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

I am talking about the false teaching on THIS thread by skywriting.   I am talking about the fact that you complained against the people actually standing against his false teaching while you, yourself did nothing to counter his false teaching.   The only people you sought to correct were the ones correcting skywriting because you didn't like how they said what they said.  The fact you did nothing to counter his teaching says a lot.

Exactly! 

 

regards