False Science Exposed

Originally posted by RJHinds
Science does not work in providing the answer to the supernatural existence of life. Science does not work in providing the answer to the existence of something rather than nothing. Science does not work in proving or disproving the existence of God. Science does not work in proving the age of the universe or the earth. Science does not work in dating all ...[text shortened]... urpose of man's existence. Those answers are a part of speculation, philosophy, and religion. 😏

I'll give you half credit, since you're half right.

Unfortunately, this means you're also half wrong.

Originally posted by Suzianne
I'll give you half credit, since you're half right.

Unfortunately, this means you're also half wrong.

Elijah came near to all the people and said, "How long will you hesitate between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow Him; but if Baal, follow him." But the people did not answer him a word.

(1 Kings 18:21 NASB)

Originally posted by twhitehead
In that case, I apologize for being unintentionally annoying. I would still be interested in knowing why you brought up the moon in the first place if you are willing to tell me.

I was relating what I thought was an interesting factiod to JR. He said something about the moon, and so I said something about the moon. It was no big deal.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It was in response to my post in which I wrote the following:

The moon does not appear to be spinning because no one at any location of the earth ever sees the other side of the moon. However, the moon must turn in exact sync one rotation as it goes around the earth to keep the same side always pointing toward the earth.

[b]Notice what I s ...[text shortened]... be the exact size to cause eclipses. So I believe the mystery of the moon comment is solved. 😏

AAAAACK!! No, not exact... almost exact! I said almost exact! 😲 Or was that almost nearly exactly... perfect? Dang it, I forgot exactly what I said.

Originally posted by lemon lime
AAAAACK!! No, not exact... [b]almost exact! I said almost exact! 😲 Or was that almost nearly exactly... perfect? Dang it, I forgot exactly what I said.[/b]

What you said is on page 7 of this thread, here is a quote from it:

The moon always facing the same side to earth is a bit of an oddity. What is even odder though is the moon also just happens to perfectly cover up the sun during an eclipse... from our perspective here on earth, the diameter of the sun appears to be exactly the same as the moons diameter.

Maybe you meant "almost" and "nearly" but you forgot to include those words. However, you did say "appears". That's good enough for me to know you had not actually measured it like twhitehead seems to think. Don't worry about it.

Originally posted by RJHinds
What you said is on page 7 of this thread, here is a quote from it:

[quote] The moon always facing the same side to earth is a bit of an oddity. What is even odder though is the moon also just happens to perfectly cover up the sun during an eclipse... from our perspective here on earth, the diameter of the sun appears to be exactly the same as the moons d ...[text shortened]... e to know you had not actually measured it like twhitehead seems to think. Don't worry about it.

Yeah, it was a poor choice of words on my part because it's obviously not a perfect match. I usually try to resist the temptation to respond in kind, so... mmmph... no, I won't do it... I won't...

Ahhh, what the heck...


Exactly 12% variance in coverage? Not 11.8% or 12.3%, but exactly 12%? 😛

Originally posted by lemon lime
I was relating what I thought was an interesting factiod to JR. He said something about the moon, and so I said something about the moon. It was no big deal.

Fair enough. I clearly read more into it than was intended. You clearly read more into my response than was intended. Oh well, that kind of thing happens a lot around here.

Originally posted by Suzianne
You do have a valid point. Whatever gets the Word out to the most people who can understand it, I guess.

But let's not dumb down the message to incomprehensibility (edit: wow, 8 syllables! lol). That's when it goes too far. I've seen translations that do lose the point in some passages.

I didn't mean to give the impression a correct translation can take the place of meaning. In my book meaning is paramount. But in order to get there I need to be sure my mind is correctly interpreting the authors meaning and intent... and that can't happen by simply understanding the definitions of words. And this is rare, but sometimes context isn't enough either.

So I prefer to take this a bit further by not only considering context, but also putting myself in the authors shoes. This helps me to avoid making the mental mistake (for example) of reading while thinking "What does this mean to me?"... because what it means to me doesn't matter. I want to know what the author was thinking... I can always find out what I'm thinking, because as it turns out I just happen to always be available.

On the surface this might seem so obvious it's hardly worth mentioning, but misunderstanding passages can happen a lot when people don't consciously guard against it. A Bible passage JR recently showed is a good example of this:

Say among the nations, “The Lord reigns;
The world also is firmly established,
It shall not be moved;
He shall judge the peoples righteously.”

The ES version I have here at home reads:

(Psalm 16:10)
Say among the nations, "The Lord reigns!
Yes, the world is established; it shall never be moved;
he will judge the peoples with equity."

I read the whole Psalm this passage is found in today. There is nothing in that Psalm to suggest (from an astronomical point of view) the author was saying anything about the motion of the earth through space, or rotation along its axis or anything to do with the physics of motion. To think otherwise I would have to believe the author changed the subject for a brief moment in order to give us his take on the rotation of earth and its motion through outer space.

So I believe I got it right the first time when I guessed those two particular lines were saying the same thing:

The world also is firmly established,
It shall not be moved;

I already know that expressing the same idea, or repeating the same line twice in a row was common practice back then for denoting emphasis... so I'm inclined to believe what I was seeing in that brief passage was the idea of permanence (durability, long lasting, solid, etc).

Originally posted by twhitehead
Fair enough. I clearly read more into it than was intended. You clearly read more into my response than was intended. Oh well, that kind of thing happens a lot around here.

I was yanking your chain with that last one, so I hope you know I was being somewhat intentionally obnoxious... actually, I prefer the word mischievous.


Drat, there's no mischievous looking smiley down there.

Originally posted by lemon lime
I didn't mean to give the impression a correct translation can take the place of meaning. In my book meaning is paramount. But in order to get there I need to be sure my mind is correctly interpreting the authors meaning and intent... and that can't happen by simply understanding the definitions of words. And this is rare, but sometimes context isn ...[text shortened]... o I'm inclined to believe that's exactly (yes, exactly) what I was seeing in that brief passage.

Yes, you are correct. Hebrew poetry often states the same idea in two ways. So the meaning is the governments of the world or nations are fimly established and God is in control and his judgement over them will be righteous because he does not change or something like that.

I believe Jesus or Paul made reference to the rulers having their position of power over the people because God allowed it and that the people are to submit themselves to the governments laws. I would have to look it up to get the exact quote. But I think it is basically the same meaning being expressed in poetry.

So I agree with you that it is not really talking about the movement of the planet earth at all. However, we have many people that don't have any understanding of Hebrew songs and poetry and they see "the world can not be moved" as meaning "the planet earth can not be moved."

You did a very good job to figure that out and also to think of convincing proof that the earth does move, which I provided you with the Youtube video reference to teach and hopefully convince everyone.

But isn't it strange how the Holy Bible is full of things that can get people off on wild goose chases, like the gap theory between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. That argument is what got me on this exercise with the geocentric theory.

😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
Yes, you are correct. Hebrew poetry often states the same idea in two ways. So the meaning is the governments of the world or nations are fimly established and God is in control and his judgement over them will be righteous because he does not change or something like that.

I believe Jesus or Paul made reference to the rulers having their position of po ...[text shortened]... is 1:1 and 1:2. That argument is what got me on this exercise with the geocentric theory.

😏

This is the first I've heard of a "gap theory", but I think I know what this might mean.

Modern day readers like ourselves are accustomed to reading books that relate events in a strictly chronological order. But I've noticed how the Bible often jumps around, back and forth, and then repeating something from a previous page... that sort of thing. When I first started reading Genesis I was easily confused, until I understood how the writing style was very different from what I was accustomed to seeing.

So this is something else I try keeping in mind when reading the Bible. I'm always having to remind myself that this was written a long time ago, and by people from a very different culture and world view than my own. It took a while for me to catch on to their particular way of communicating ideas and relating events.

Edit: We're also accustomed to a smoother writing style. Ancient peoples only recorded significant information (significant to them). So although there appears to be some similarity to the big bang theory (Genesis) no one should be surprised to see what looks like a spotty account, events out of order, and missing most of the relevant details described in the bb theory... I would think that should go without saying, but experience has shown me this does need to be explained now and then.

Originally posted by lemon lime
...so I hope you know I was being somewhat intentionally obnoxious... .

Yes, you seem to do that rather a lot. I guess maybe you do deserve the troll label on occasion.

Originally posted by Suzianne
"And that is why you fail."

"We"? What about "I"? (I ask, even though the answer seems obvious.)

When I said "we" I was including the entirety of human kind from the first humans to the last.

You are thus included.

You do not know anything through faith.

Originally posted by lemon lime
I didn't mean to give the impression a correct translation can take the place of meaning. In my book meaning is paramount. But in order to get there I need to be sure my mind is correctly interpreting the authors meaning and intent... and that can't happen by simply understanding the definitions of words. And this is rare, but sometimes context isn ...[text shortened]... seeing in that brief passage was the idea of permanence (durability, long lasting, solid, etc).

Yes, this is the mistake of the literalist. They glean an all-too literal meaning from the words and miss the intent.

A near-last step in figuring intent and meaning is to consider the era when it was written and understanding cultural norms of the time. This is where all those who say "The Bible God supports and defends xxxxxxx!!" (substitute slavery, or the oppression of women, or "genocide", or even terrorism) make their mistake. (Today, one could make the same mistake by substituting capitalism, conservatism or even Republicans.)

Originally posted by googlefudge
When I said "we" I was including the entirety of human kind from the first humans to the last.

You are thus included.

You do not know anything through faith.

"Au contraire, mon frere."

(Token George Carlin quote, chosen because Carlin, like you, refused to partake of the entirety of knowledge available to us.)

I know that the Creator of the universe loves me and watches over me (as you say, I am included in "the entirety of human kind" ). I know that this universe and reality was created for us, the beloved of God. I know that God will not abandon His people, even if they abandon Him. I know this includes the Hebrew, the Jew and the Gentile. I know that God has given His only begotten Son that we might have life, and to have it more abundantly. I know that eventually mankind will return to his Creator and live with Him in Harmony and Love forever.

I embrace both fact and faith, so I know all that you know plus all these things that you, through your ignorant denial of faith, refuse to know.

While you know all manner of the details of our environment and our existence on this lonely orb orbiting an average star in an average galaxy, I understand the entire purpose of man and his place in this environment. While you know only the "how" of where we are and of our dirt-scratching mortal existence on this ball of dirt and water, I also know the "why" of our purpose and our destiny. All that you know is only half of the equation, since you refuse to pierce the veil separating you from the rest of the truth. And the half of the equation that you are so proud of knowing is only the basic, least interesting and least important part.

One could say that "You do not know anything through science."

One outstanding difference between us is that I do not consider your lack of faith 'dangerous' to me. Not yet, anyways. That day will no doubt come, and probably sooner rather than later, but that day is not here yet.