Back to Bible Contradictions

Originally posted by chaney3
It's funny you bring that up. I recently viewed some video of the astronaut riding on the 'moon' with that rather large moon vehicle.

If you look at the size of the lunar module, it doesn't appear that vehicle would fit in there.

I think sonhouse is destined to find out that people he so trusted as scientists with integrity (some of which) have been lying to him his whole life.

For national security Uncle Sam will say damn near anything to get the world to think right.
"We beat the Russians to the Moon!"

Ironic - Jesus and the Bible told sonshouse the truth and some scientists (in conjunction with military men) lied their heads off to keep him thinking the way they wanted.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Ha ha, you're back talking about the moon are you? Did you run away from the science thread? I am still waiting for that reference.

As for the lunar module and vehicle, rather than deliberately trying to spread malicious lies about it here, why don't you simply Google how it was transported. Its really not that hard.

a ha, you're back talking about the moon are you? Did you run away from the science thread? I am still waiting for that reference.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I wasn't discussing it in the science thread. Was I?

And how did I conclude my exhanges with you on that?
As I recall I said that IF and WHEN I get persuaded that the moon landing was not a hoax I would let you know.

So I let you know that since then I have done more delving into it, and I am still skeptical.
If NASA did set men on the moon, they did themselves no favors with all the fishy special effects. And I have heard some good counter arguments. But they're not good enough yet.


As for the lunar module and vehicle, rather than deliberately trying to spread malicious lies about it here, why don't you simply Google how it was transported. Its really not that hard.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You've got a nerve talking about spreading malicious lies.

Anyway, what I said about the Moon I still hold.
When I get convinced of its authenticity I'll let you know.
Until then I question a lot of things that just do not add up.

And I don't think it was necessary for hundreds of people monitoring Apollo to be in on a fabrication. A few key people in key positions aided by the millions of dollars the US has to do intelligence work, could handle a deception.

Actually, pulling off the hoax may have been as incredible a feat as just going to the Moon - (maybe).

Originally posted by sonship
I think sonhouse is destined to find out that people he so trusted as scientists with integrity (some of which) have been lying to him his whole life.

For national security Uncle Sam will say damn near anything to get the world to think right.
"We beat the Russians to the Moon!"

Actually Sonhouse worked for NASA around the time of the Moon program.
You just watched a YouTube video by some nutjob. And you think you know better than him. 🙁

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke




In this case, I responded meekly, allowing you to ask yourself the most probing question. So,..how do you know that Job's abhorring of himself was really because of unrighteousness?[/b]

In chess we call it a 'waiting move:'

'a move that does not appear to contribute to the player's immediate tactical objectives, but instead shifts the burden of action to the opponent.'
---------------------------------------------------------

It wasn't that. It was my genuine interest in thinking there still could be an objection raised.
All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God is what you referred to in Romans.

I think I answered probably more on the side of Job realizing he fell short of the glory of God.

Sometimes I do step out on a limb. You see Ghost, it is not likely that any single loss of some argument is going to get Jesus out of my heart. Receiving Christ into your innermost spirit is something that the world's arguments cannot give. And the world's arguments cannot take it away.

I may have lost plenty of arguments around here.

Now to the self induced problem at hand.
What stronger evidence could be found that Job was unrighteous in that book ?
That is if that is the case.

I still need to take some time to consider it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Actually Sonhouse worked for NASA around the time of the Moon program.
You just watched a YouTube video by some nutjob. And you think you know better than him. 🙁

Twhitehead, over generlizations don't help.
Fanatics of course exist. But some other people do extensive research of the documents.
And not everybody who points out that some things don't add up is a nutjob.

Film experts who know the business of special effects have flagged fishy things in the footage. It doesn't help NASA apologists' case when as a result websites are updated and questioned things are taken down as if it is realized that that line will no longer work.

So you do not know what Youtube I watched.
So you don't know how MANY I watched.
And you don't know how I discriminated between ones which were worth the time and those which were not worth the time.

You don't know conversations I have had with a person who knows physics (and has military experience) who believes we DID go to the moon. Yet he admits that phony footage does exist and is likely NOT to be admitted [edited] until certain secrecy commitments of a military nature expire.

He admits phony footage while he has some reasonable science arguments in favor of the authenticity of Apollo moon landings.

Originally posted by sonship
Twhitehead, over generlizations don't help.

No, they don't. It is noted that you were very vague about whether you actually think the moon landings were faked or not. Covering your bases I suppose with generalisations.

And not everybody who points out that some things don't add up is a nutjob.
A little vague here, but I assume you are talking about the moon landings? Yes, I think that all people who 'point out that some things don't add up' are nutjobs. That it not to say that you can't have legitimate questions about certain aspects, but its the attitude that cheney had earlier where he was 'just pointing out' something that was realy his own ignorance but he wanted to portray as a genuine concern.

Film experts who know the business of special effects have flagged fishy things in the footage. It doesn't help NASA apologists' case when as a result websites are updated and questioned things are taken down as if it is realized that that line will no longer work.
I'll take it then that what you watched wasn't an official NASA document but something supposedly 'taken down'? And then you assumed NASA was the guilty party and not your source?

So you do not know what Youtube I watched.
No, obviously not. But it is clear that you did.

So you don't know how MANY I watched.
It doesn't matter. It is clear that your source is YouTube, whereas Sonhouse actually worked at NASA.

And you don't know how I discriminated between ones which were worth the time and those which were not worth the time.
Come on now, I know you quite well. I think I do know how you discriminated.

You don't know conversations I have had with a person who knows physics who believes we DID go to the moon. Yet he admits that phony footage does exist and is likely NOT to be denied until certain secrecy commitments of a military nature expire.
Well I take it that you are not quite as far gone as Freaky and his flat earth beliefs.

He admits phony footage while he has some reasonable science arguments in favor of the authenticity of Apollo moon landings.
Care to share this 'phony footage'? Is it from NASA or from some anonymous source on YouTube. Because I readily accept there is 'phony footage' on YouTube.

Originally posted by sonship
[b] In chess we call it a 'waiting move:'

'a move that does not appear to contribute to the player's immediate tactical objectives, but instead shifts the burden of action to the opponent.'
---------------------------------------------------------

It wasn't that. It was my genuine interest in thinking there still could be an objection ra ...[text shortened]... n that book ?
That is if that is the case.

I still need to take some time to consider it.[/b]

Perhaps one could view perfect/blameless as a quality in a person whose life shows integrity? (Rather than being sinless).

You could probably argue biblical support for this in Proverbs 29:10

'Bloodthirsty men hate one who is blameless and seek the life of the upright.'

Originally posted by twhitehead
Actually Sonhouse worked for NASA around the time of the Moon program.
You just watched a YouTube video by some nutjob. And you think you know better than him. 🙁

Actually Sonhouse worked for NASA around the time of the Moon program.

This is most likely athiest on atheist favoritism.
Do you think Sonhouse working at NASA makes it impossible that he could not be led to think something by the powerful United States military and intelligence apparatus?

Originally posted by twhitehead

Ignore the sensational Video titles and just digest the content.

YouTube

Originally posted by sonship
This is most likely athiest on atheist favoritism.

This is probably pathetic excuse making.

Do you think Sonhouse working at NASA makes it impossible that he could not be led to think something by the powerful United States military and intelligence apparatus?
No, not at all. But I do think it more likely that he is in a better position to judge whether or not NASA went to the moon at that time than you are.
I for one have not studied any of the video footage of the moon landings. My direct knowledge comes from satellite imagery of the moon which clearly shows the tracks of the moon buggies.
I always allow for the possibility that things like the moon landings could be faked, or that NASA could produce fake footage, but given that the default position is that the landing was genuine and there is a mountain of evidence for it, I need some really solid counter evidence before I favour the other option.

Now if you were actually proffering up evidence for your case, then I would look at it. But that is not what you did. Instead, you didn't like one of Sonhouses posts so you lashed out at him by suggesting that you were more knowledgeable than him about the moon landings. I thought it pertinent to note that that is highly unlikely.

Originally posted by twhitehead
This is probably pathetic excuse making.

[b]Do you think Sonhouse working at NASA makes it impossible that he could not be led to think something by the powerful United States military and intelligence apparatus?
No, not at all. But I do think it more likely that he is in a better position to judge whether or not NASA went to the moon at that time ...[text shortened]... tain of evidence for it, I need some really solid counter evidence before I favour the other option.

I for one have not studied any of the video footage of the moon landings.

I've seen hours of close examinations of footage which left me suspicious.

My direct knowledge comes from satellite imagery of the moon which clearly shows the tracks of the moon buggies.

I saw those too. I could be wrong.
And you admit that you could be too below -

I always allow for the possibility that things like the moon landings could be faked,

So you could be wrong also.
And some of the people complaining could be on to something.

Maybe the real truth is somewhere in the middle.
But I am not taking it hook, line, and sinker even if sonhouse was the Director of NASA in 1969.

Now if you were actually proffering up evidence for your case, then I would look at it. But that is not what you did. Instead, you didn't like one of Sonhouses posts so you lashed out at him by suggesting that you were more knowledgeable than him about the moon landings. I thought it pertinent to note that that is highly unlikely.

You left the door open to possibility that you could be mistaken.
And so could sonhouse be mistaken.

Consider some objections. Stay clear of the obnoxious ones. They don't help their case with belligerence. Check the objective and well reasoned ones.

Don't just glance at the advertizing titles

Go to 26/39 and comment on the reflection briefly of a cable attached to simulate high jumping.

Check the hammer and feather falling at the same rate discussion.
The whole video is 1 hour and 57 minutes.
If you're really open to entertain that it could have been faked, you'd watch the entire discussion.

Watch 33/56 and the phony being lifted up from stumbling apparently done with unseen cables.

YouTube&t=2677s

Originally posted by sonship

I for one have not studied any of the video footage of the moon landings.

I've seen hours of close examinations of footage which left me suspicious.

My direct knowledge comes from satellite imagery of the moon which clearly shows the tracks of the moon buggies.

I saw those too. I could be wrong.
And you admi ...[text shortened]... ling apparently done with unseen cables.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aIFhlv457U&t=2677s

The lunar module is small, yet inside with crammed astronauts you have moon buggies, flags, golf clubs, etc.

Very fishy.

Since twhitehead brought up my thread on the science forum, which I would not do, I would invite believers to read over it and contribute if desired.

While I am not a scientist, and may have argued my points differently than others, my thread does show the extent atheists will go to in order to disprove creation.

Their argument focuses purely on speculation, probability and luck.

Originally posted by chaney3
Since twhitehead brought up my thread on the science forum, which I would not do, I would invite believers to read over it and contribute if desired.

While I am not a scientist, and may have argued my points differently than others, my thread does show the extent atheists will go to in order to disprove creation.

Their argument focuses purely on speculation, probability and luck.

You just haven't been listening.

Originally posted by sonship
So you could be wrong also.
And some of the people complaining could be on to something.

Sure they could, but if they had any real evidence, it would be making waves rather than remaining tucked away in some anonymous YouTube video.

Maybe the real truth is somewhere in the middle.
Maybe, but unlikely.

But I am not taking it hook, line, and sinker even if sonhouse was the Director of NASA in 1969.
Nobody said you should. What you shouldn't do however is pretend that you have some special insight that sonhouse does not whilst simultaneously not presenting it.

Check the objective and well reasoned ones.
I will if I ever see any.

If you're really open to entertain that it could have been faked, you'd watch the entire discussion.
As always, my conditions for watching long videos posted by you are that you agree in advance to actually discuss it honestly afterwards.

Do you agree?