August 6, 2018 at 6:28 am #833310
T8: Scientists believe the moon was not always tidally locked to the Earth…
Learn to recognize indoctrination phrases like “scientists believe”. The majority of all science articles include these words, but most don’t elaborate on them. For example, which scientists believe this? Do all of them believe it? Of the ones who do, on what did they base this belief? Is the belief based on empirical science, that can be observed, tested, and repeated? Or is it based on philosophy and a preconceived worldview? Is their belief the ONLY way it could have happened? Or are there other options that would work equally well?
These are a few questions you need to ask yourself anytime you see that phrase, T8… because the answers will shock you. For example, in this case, has any scientist actually observed the moon before it was “tidally locked”? Did anyone observe the moon going from a non-locked state to the current locked state? Can we test this transformation from non-locked to locked in a lab environment? Can we repeat the test multiple times to verify the same result occur each time? Because if the answer to any of these is “NO”, then these philosophical ponderings don’t even qualify as science to begin with, and the “belief” of these unnamed scientists is baseless and worthless. And no amount of computer simulations (which are designed specifically to get certain results) are going to change this fact.
Let me let you in on a little secret. It is a quote from Dr. Colin Patterson, a staunch evolutionist who was the curator of the prestigious British Museum of Natural History. Read it carefully…
“Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line–there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favored by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test…
If we accept Popper’s distinction between science and non-science, we must ask first whether the theory of evolution by natural selection is scientific or pseudoscientific (metaphysical)…. Taking the first part of the theory, that evolution has occurred, it says that the history of life is a single process of species-splitting and progression. This process must be unique and unrepeatable, like the history of England. This part of the theory is therefore a historical theory about unique events, and unique events are, by definition, not part of science, for they are unrepeatable and so not subject to test.”
Get the picture? Unique historical events are not even a part of science, because they cannot be observed, tested and repeated. Btw, do you realize that the people you are quoting are the same ones who say the moon was created when another planet crashed into the earth? These people don’t believe in a creator at all – let alone Jehovah. They laugh at you for believing in God. They think you’re a moron who’s made up an imaginary friend to make you feel like you’re special and not just some loser who is going to turn into worm food some day. These are the people you’re siding with in direct contradiction to the Bible, T8. Do you think that is a smart move? Do you think Jehovah would approve?August 6, 2018 at 2:09 pm #833337
Mike. The Solar System model explains eclipses visually and the visual representation fits the math or historical data.
So my question to you is this:
“Show me how the Flat earth model creates an eclipse?”
Then explain to me how it visually fits the data or historical data without relying on math alone. I want to see how the model fits the data and can be used to predict the data visually.
You can use the video I posted and start with the basics for me. How is the eclipse observation from our view created in the Flat Earth model because I cannot imagine it. Maybe I just lack imagination. Help me out here. Please stick to the FE model on this question rather than just attacking the Solar System model.August 8, 2018 at 2:31 pm #833402
Mike: 1. When was mankind finally able to PROVE that the earth is a spinning ball orbiting the sun and hurtling through space at millions of miles an hour?
2. Do you finally understand that any so-called “eclipse” will work on the flat earth model, since we agree with the scriptures that say the moon is its own light source, and therefore the patterns on it have nothing to do with light from the sun, or shadows from the earth?
I brought up the first, and you brought up the second. I am willing to discuss these things for as long as it takes, but I’m going to need some direct, succinct, and honest answers to them.
T8: So my question to you is this:
“Show me how the Flat earth model creates an eclipse?”
You have a couple of questions already waiting before you get to ask another. Besides, the second question (and my last post) answers your question. In summary, the shape of the earth has nothing to do with the light and dark patterns on the moon, since the earth has nothing to do with the light and dark patterns on the moon. Understand? How about lightning? Scripture says it lights up the sky from one part of the heavens to the other. How does God make that work? How does He control it, and make it occur where and when He wants it to? I don’t know the particulars. Nor do I know the particulars of how exactly God makes the light and dark patterns on the moon, or how He causes those patterns to change during the month. I only know that the moon is its own light, and that God has designed it so we could use it to mark times and seasons.
Hey, I just remembered there is a third question you haven’t answered yet…
3. What was your reaction to finding out that NASA has passed off these predictions as their own – the work of industrious mathematical geniuses – when they were really just copied and pasted from ancient Babylonian charts?August 16, 2018 at 11:07 am #833701
Tick-tock…August 23, 2018 at 10:55 pm #833864
- Not sure there was any one time. Evidence accumulation led to it probably.
- I understand your point, but it fails. The Globe Earth model visualises the predictions of eclipses in the future (and past) with 100% logical accuracy while the Flat Earth model cannot make one demonstrable visual prediction. That is, you cannot demonstrate it visually with your model. That’s a huge fail Mike, it really is.
- I like most people do not care if NASA came up with the figures or just use already known math. The point is they publish this and you can reference it and it is 100% as far as I can tell at least. I don’t think the Babylonians have a website where they publish this info.
Fact: The globe model can visually explain the math, while the Flat Earth model cannot.August 23, 2018 at 11:20 pm #833865
“Show me how the Flat earth model creates an eclipse?”
Please show me a video or a gif of how an eclipse happens in the Flat Earth model.
Then explain how it fits the math. The Globe Earth model can demonstrate this. If the Flat Earth model cannot, then it is a failed model.August 26, 2018 at 4:25 am #833907
T8: Not sure there was any one time. Evidence accumulation led to it probably.
So you believe in a spinning ball orbiting the sun and flying through an endless vacuum at millions of miles per hour because “evidence accumulation led to it probably“? But you can’t provide the pièce de résistance – the one undeniable piece of empirical scientific evidence that settled the issue once and for all? Uh… that’s because there is no such thing. Never has been, and never will be. Time for you to face the facts, T8: If you cannot point me to the moment or experiment or observation that proved the helical model beyond any doubt, then you need to man up and accept the fact that this nonsensical, anti-Biblical model has never been proven. I’m only laying truth on you, dude. Whether or not your indoctrination allows you to accept that truth has no bearing on the matter.
T8: I understand your point, but it fails. The Globe Earth model visualises the predictions of eclipses in the future (and past) with 100% logical accuracy while the Flat Earth model cannot make one demonstrable visual prediction. That is, you cannot demonstrate it visually with your model. That’s a huge fail Mike, it really is.
They also “visualize” how space clouds squished together to make the sun without a Creator, right? Does that make it reality? Is the fact that we cannot demonstrate how God created the sun a huge fail on our part? Again…
1. NASA’s predictions come from the saros cycle that was used by flat earthers everywhere for centuries before Jesus was made flesh and dwelt among us.
2. NASA’s visualization model is demonstrably false, since it can be shown via observation that the sun is not what lights the moon, and the earth is not what causes the light and dark patterns on it.
Can you really not understand this? You say you see my point, but if my Bible-based point is accurate, then the model that NASA presents of the sun lighting the moon and the earth causing eclipses on it is false. And therefore it doesn’t matter which model they “visualize”, since the underlying premise is flawed. They could “visualize” that it is really a dark moon in the sky that eclipses the bright moon, and make all kinds of mathematical formulas to support that model. Would this “visualization” prove that there really is a dark moon that eclipses the bright one? Of course not.
This is my Bible-based statement: The sun is not what lights the moon, nor does the earth ever cause a shadow on it. The moon is it’s own light source, and the patterns of light and dark throughout the month are built into it by God.
T8: I like most people do not care if NASA came up with the figures or just use already known math. The point is they publish this and you can reference it and it is 100% as far as I can tell at least. I don’t think the Babylonians have a website where they publish this info.
Really? 😀 The Babylonians didn’t have a website, therefore NASA wins? LOL. Just know that the precise predictions were worked out millenia ago by flat earthers, and that NASA leads people to believe that their ingenious mathematicians worked these things out based on the heliocentric model – because they are an organization based on deception.
Think about it… you didn’t know about the ancient saros cycle until I told you about it. All your life you’ve believed that brilliant NASA scientists figured out how to predict eclipses based on the heliocentric model – when nothing could be further from the truth. You believed that because it’s exactly what they wanted you to believe. And now you say you “do not care” that they deceived you your entire life. So sad.August 26, 2018 at 4:55 am #833910
T8: Show me how the Flat earth model creates an eclipse?
Okay. Here’s the new moon phase…
Understand? The object is its own light source, and has been programmed to display different patterns of light and dark throughout a given time period. When part of it is dark, it doesn’t mean the whole thing’s really light and something is shadowing the dark part. It means that it was pre-programmed to be part light and part dark at that particular time.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.