The earth is flat and we never went to the moon--Part II

[JudgeRightly]

Oh my! You know, there was, as if, an overwhelming foreboding and nausea that came over me, noticing this thread was Part II. But over 5,000 posts? To quote Colonel Kurtz, "The horror... the horror." Well, I'm now feeling very pressed to run along and get some fishing in, before the oceans drain off the edge.

To be fair, there are plenty of excellent posts made by the opponents of the flat earth (can't say the same for the FE side, as it's mostly just repetitious arguments rehashing the same thing) and even some gems like Clete's post on the angle of the sun above the horizon being less than 1°.

 

[Tambora]

Yes


We live in a 3D world. Motion is also 3 dimensional. When we talk about the motion of a car on the road, we a simplifying to one dimension (the car is parallel to the road and is traveling along the road... i.e., the same direction).

So, as I said, I do NOT know what the orientation of the car is with respect to Pluto.

I realize that you think you're making some point here, but you're not.


Hence my explanation below.


DING, DING, DING.... that is how motion is DEFINED.


That is irrelevant. Motion is DEFINED by choosing a reference and calling it fixed BY DEFINITION.


:yawn:


There is none. That is NOT how motion is DEFINED.

So motion can only be described according to another moving object but never to a stationary object because, according to science, there is nothing stationary.
Or to put another way, there is no zero speed ever according to science.

Since the speed of the car changes depending on the reference point it is relative to, does the speed of light change depending on the relative reference point?

I realize that you think you're making some point here, but you're not.

I'm not making a point.
Just trying to get to the bottom of all this and find out just how calculating speeds according to a reference point could possible prove the shape of anything (such as globe shaped or flat disk shaped).

:yawn:

If helping me walk through this bores you I will leave it be and look for another to help me out.

It is important to me because I trust scripture, but science goes against scripture so much.

6 day creation
mankind all came from Adam & Eve
the flood
parting of the red sea at the exodus
the sun standing still for a day
virgin bith
resurrection
and on and on the list goes of scriptural truths that science data claims is impossible.
​

And I don't want to fall into the disbelief of saying "Did GOD really say ......?" by placing my trust in something that goes against so much of scripture.

 

[JudgeRightly]

So motion can only be described according to another moving object but never to a stationary object because, according to science, there is nothing stationary.
Or to put another way, there is no zero speed ever according to science.

Rather, there is no absolute frame of reference with with to measure all motion.

Since the speed of the car changes depending on the reference point it is relative to, does the speed of light change depending on the relative reference point?

Actually, light is a bit weird when it comes to physics.

Because photons have energy and momentum, but no mass, once emitted from a source, their speed and direction, their velocity, (in a vacuum) does not change, no matter the velocity of the source of the photon.

It is important to me because I trust scripture, but science goes against scripture so much.

Rather, all science confirms the Bible in some way or another.

It's people who reject the Bible who go against it.

Don't sell science short, because it fully supports the Bible. Beware of those who claim, "science!" when it is merely their beliefs.

6 day creation
mankind all came from Adam & Eve
the flood
parting of the red sea at the exodus
the sun standing still for a day
virgin bith
resurrection
and on and on the list goes of scriptural truths that science data claims is impossible.

Addressed in order:

https://rsr.org/old
https://rsr.org/mtEve
https://rsr.org/hpt
https://rsr.org/exodus
I'm gonna get back to you on Joshua 10. Asking Bob E if he has any material on it or can briefly explain it, but in the meantime you could consider reading through this: https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_625.cfm.
A supernatural event cannot be explained by natural means.
Same as virgin birth.
etc...

And I don't want to fall into the disbelief of saying "Did GOD really say ......?" by placing my trust in something that goes against so much of scripture.

As above, science only confirms scripture. It's people who reject God who try to use it to disprove it.

 

[Tambora]

As above, science only confirms scripture. It's people who reject God who try to use it to disprove it.

How does science confirm the virgin birth?

 

[The Barbarian]

How does science confirm the virgin birth?

Science can't explain miracles. Science can't deny miracles, either.

 

[JudgeRightly]

https://youtu.be/sNeou5p5f5s

Super cool! They basically took scans of Neil Armstrong's space suit and then 3D printed replicas, took a casting of the 3D printed model, used the molds to make replicas which will be shown across the country for the 50th anniversary of the launch of Apollo 11.

You should definitely watch it.

 

[JudgeRightly]

How does science confirm the virgin birth?

Basically this:

Science can't explain miracles. Science can't deny miracles, either.

A supernatural event cannot be explained nor refuted by natural explanations.

HOWEVER!...

The fact that science confirms portions of the Bible, and insomuch as we have confirmed the historicity of things in the Bible, they lend credence to the rest of the Bible being true, even those things that are untestable.

I recommend, if you have the time, to listen to this sermon where Bob goes through why we can know the Bible is true.

https://kgov.com/bel/20150806 (starting around 6 minutes in...)

 

[Tambora]

Basically this:A supernatural event cannot be explained nor refuted by natural explanations.

Then don't be making a blanket claim that science confirms scripture when the virgin birth was specifically one of things I listed.

The creation itself was a supernatural event.
Science gives explanations, but none of them agree with the 6 day creation of scripture.
Do you accept the science data or the data from scripture?

 

[The Barbarian]

Basically this:A supernatural event cannot be explained nor refuted by natural explanations.

HOWEVER!...

The fact that science confirms portions of the Bible, and insomuch as we have confirmed the historicity of things in the Bible, they lend credence to the rest of the Bible being true, even those things that are untestable.

This is true, as far as we can test. Most creation stories have the (whatever) moving around, making things bit by bit, until it's all done. Some things got made as an afterthought or because of errors, and living things get made in a haphazard way, one at a time. In Genesis, everything comes forth from the initial creation, as God intended from the beginning. Creation unfolds from the potential He created from the start.

And it's intriguing that science is beginning to realize that the earth really did bring forth life as God made it to do.

We should be careful to not extend that too far; if we do, we can open our faith to criticism by those who know better.

 

[The Barbarian]

Science gives explanations, but none of them agree with the 6 day creation of scripture.

Most Christians don't assume the "yom" of the creation story are literal days.

Do you accept the science data or the data from scripture?

Scripture is not data. It's God's word.

 

[Right Divider]

So motion can only be described according to another moving object but never to a stationary object because, according to science, there is nothing stationary.
Or to put another way, there is no zero speed ever according to science.

You are speaking irrationally.

Since the speed of the car changes depending on the reference point it is relative to, does the speed of light change depending on the relative reference point?

No, the speed of light is determined by choosing an appropriate reference point.

I'm not making a point.
Just trying to get to the bottom of all this and find out just how calculating speeds according to a reference point could possible prove the shape of anything (such as globe shaped or flat disk shaped).

Nobody that I know of has made such a claim. The primary point is that Dave continually tries to use the earth as a reference point to prove that the earth is not moving. Illogical and invalid, that claim is.

If helping me walk through this bores you I will leave it be and look for another to help me out.

No need to get snippy... I'm still here trying to help you, but you don't really seem to like being helped.

It is important to me because I trust scripture, but science goes against scripture so much.

6 day creation
mankind all came from Adam & Eve
the flood
parting of the red sea at the exodus
the sun standing still for a day
virgin bith
resurrection
and on and on the list goes of scriptural truths that science data claims is impossible.
​

Do you think that I don't trust scripture?

No it does not... science does NOT disagree with any of those things. Some peoples twisted "science" might, but real science does not.

And I don't want to fall into the disbelief of saying "Did GOD really say ......?" by placing my trust in something that goes against so much of scripture.

Your argument is not with science, but with some peoples twisted take on "science".

There are numerous real science observations that show that the earth is a spinning globe. If you reject those, it's our own fault.

A really simple one is the apparent motion of the stars at night. That alone completely debunks a "flat earth", and there are many, many more.

 

[Right Divider]

A supernatural event cannot be explained by natural means.
Same as virgin birth.
etc...

There are different types of science. The kind that most people think of is the type of science that is based on repeated and repeatable observations. This is the same kind of science that brings us technology, computers, etc.

One time events do not fall under that kind of science. Those require historical science. That typically means that someone needs to have observed and understood the event at the time that it happened, since it cannot be repeated to "experiment" on.

 

[Right Divider]

How does science confirm the virgin birth?

See this post: http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...moon-Part-II&p=5346161&viewfull=1#post5346161

 

[Right Divider]

Then don't be making a blanket claim that science confirms scripture when the virgin birth was specifically one of things I listed.

The creation itself was a supernatural event.
Science gives explanations, but none of them agree with the 6 day creation of scripture.
Do you accept the science data or the data from scripture?

Once again, you are confusing real science with fake science.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Then don't be making a blanket claim that science confirms scripture when the virgin birth was specifically one of things I listed.

"All science supports the Bible" is not the same as "everything in the Bible can be explained using science."

The creation itself was a supernatural event.

Right, but even the laws of the physical universe prohibit anything but a supernatural cause to the universe.

Science gives explanations, but none of them agree with the 6 day creation of scripture.

Rather, the explanations of the people who reject God as the Uncaused Cause, those people's interpretations of the evidence do not agree with the 6 day creation.

Do you accept the science data or the data from scripture?

I accept both, because the evidence says that the Bible is correct.

 

[Right Divider]

I accept both, because the evidence says that the Bible is correct.

We should probably also note that it was unbelieving skeptics that started the idea that "science" and the Bible disagree.

 

[Tambora]

No need to get snippy... I'm still here trying to help you, but you don't really seem to like being helped.

If that is what you think I'm doing then I won't bother you any more with questions.

 

[Tambora]

"All science supports the Bible" is not the same as "everything in the Bible can be explained using science."

Science does not support the 6 day creation, nor the virgin birth, so no, all science does not support the Bible.
I don't know why you would claim that all science support the Bible when you know very well it does not.

Right, but even the laws of the physical universe prohibit anything but a supernatural cause to the universe.

That's not the conclusion science comes up with.

Rather, the explanations of the people who reject God as the Uncaused Cause, those people's interpretations of the evidence do not agree with the 6 day creation.

Does science claim that the universe was created by GOD or not?

I accept both, because the evidence says that the Bible is correct.

Not the science evidence that says the earth is millions of years old.

 

[Tambora]

Most Christians don't assume the "yom" of the creation story are literal days.

Most I know do.
There is no other length of time given in scripture for the creation except for 6 days.

Scripture is not data. It's God's word.

Scripture is information. The word of GOD is information.

 

[Right Divider]

Science does not support the 6 day creation, nor the virgin birth, so no, all science does not support the Bible.
I don't know why you would claim that all science support the Bible when you know very well it does not.

That's not the conclusion science comes up with.

Does science claim that the universe was created by GOD or not?

Not the science evidence that says the earth is millions of years old.

Once again, science does not say that the earth is millions of years old. SOME people claim that it does, but it does not.

Operational science, the kind that give us computers, etc. is about repeated and repeatable observations. One time events do NOT fall under that kind of science.