- This topic has 6,414 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
PROCLAIMER, ARE YOU ABLE TO SEE FROM THE SCRIPTURAL WORDS ABOVE THAT, BEFORE THE APPEARANCE OF THE SUN, GOD CREATED LIGHT AND SEPARATED IT FROM THE DARKNESS?
ARE YOU ABLE TO SEE THAT HE CALLED THE LIGHT “DAY”, AND THE DARKNESS “NIGHT”?
AND ARE YOU ABLE TO SEE THAT HE CALLED THE VERY FIRST DAY-NIGHT CYCLE, WHICH INCLUDED A SINGLE MORNING AND A SINGLE EVENING, THE FIRST “DAY”?
Hi Mike. It is better to have one outstanding question. That way it is easier to keep track and you don’t have to moan about me not answering your questions because I have missed them. Anyway, I think you owe me about 6 answers to questions. So I will go next after answering these.
- Sorry Mike. God created the heavens and the earth. The sun is part of the heavens. If you are saying that the sun was created on the fourth day, then I contest that. What happened on the 4th day is that the sun was placed in the vault. So looking up from the earth’s surface, you can see the sun in the sky.
- Yes, I can see the light is called day and the darkness night.
- Yes, it is called a day. But a day to God is not like a day for us as already pointed out using scripture. And evening and morning are terms to express the beginning and end of each period. Today, we have morning, afternoon, evening, and night. But these says had a morning and evening. So God didn’t do anything in the night? Interesting. But as we know, a day to the LORD can be a thousand years. It’s so different for us because the sun dictates this to us. God is bigger than the sun. He is not a man that lives by the sun as you might think. God is way bigger and greater than a flat earth alien creator who us subject to the earth’s sun, even before the sun was supposedly created.
Okay, I answered 6 questions. So I have the next 6 questions. Thank you. Although you can respond to my answers. But no more questions please until we are even again.
1) Personal globe earth proof
Here are two photos that shows a volcano called Mount Taranaki that is partly obscured by the curve of the earth. One of these photos was taken by an ex-work colleague of mine. I am pretty certain he is not a shape shifter or elite who is trying to hide the globe from us. He is an ordinary bloke and he believes in God. The hill to the left in the first picture is Kapiti Island. Ignore that.
Mt Taranaki as seen from Paekakariki Lookout or lower down toward the Kapiti Coast just below the lookout
Closer views of Mt Taranaki showing that it is not an island
Question 1 of 6
You believe that the earth is flat, so please explain how this volcano that sits on land looks like it is in the middle of the ocean when viewing it from a distance that is beyond the horizon.
(Note: The Tasman Sea lies between the viewing platform and the volcano, so that is the body of water you can see. But the volcano sits on land which cannot be seen. It is on the same island as where the photos were taken.)
Proclaimer: Science means knowledge. But it is more accurately defined as the pursuit and application of knowledge.
Science does not mean knowledge, but you have already corrected yourself by accurately defining science as the PURSUIT of knowledge. Therefore, if someone claims that somebody else is “denying science”, the person making the claim is displaying an ignorance of what science actually is. Nobody can “deny” the act of pursuing knowledge. I hope you’ll now apologize for saying that I “deny science”.
Proclaimer: Science is not the truth itself…
Correct… just like I’ve been saying all along. Science itself doesn’t make conclusions or determine what is true. Science is merely the PURSUIT of knowledge, ie: the COLLECTION of raw data. Therefore, if someone says, “Science says Covid 19 is real”, that person is speaking out of ignorance, because SCIENCE doesn’t say anything at all – let alone make conclusions about what is real and what is not.
Proclaimer: The process goes something like this:
- Start with an idea or a question.
- Perform research.
- Establish your hypothesis.
- Test your hypothesis by conducting an experiment.
- Make an observation.
- Analyze the results and draw a conclusion.
- Present the findings.
Close. Here’s a diagram…
Both you and the diagram leave out the very important REPEAT. But listen carefully… Science begins with OBSERVATION. Then you must TEST. Then you must REPEAT the action during subsequent tests.
In other words, if a thing is not OBSERVABLE, TESTABLE, and REPEATABLE, it is not a part of SCIENCE. This is exactly what I told you – and you said my claim was “incorrect”. Yet you yourself put OBSERVATION and TEST on your list. So concerning the big bang idea… can we possibly OBSERVE it? TEST it? REPEAT it? No. So it’s not a part of science. And the same goes with deep time uniformitarianism (which invented the idea of billions of years) and common descent evolution. We cannot possibly OBSERVE man evolving from an amoeba over billions of years. We cannot TEST this idea – nor can we REPEAT it to make sure the first test was accurate.
Read every word of this…
The modern-day Francis Bacon is Professor Karl Popper, German-born philosopher of science now living in England. He has made great contributions to our understanding of science. Nobel Prize winner Peter Medawar calls Popper “incomparably the greatest philosopher of science who has ever lived.”
Popper strongly supports the idea that a theory in science must be testable and, for the tests to be valid, they must be capable of falsifying the theory if it is not correct. It follows that a true scientific theory, in order to be tested, must be about a process that can be repeated and observed either directly or indirectly. One-time-only historical events may be true, but they are not part of science for there is no way of repeating them, observing them, and subjecting them to testing.
Do you understand those words? How can we test the big bang idea? Or uniformitarianism? Or common descent evolution? True or not, we can’t possibly repeat those events under observation to test our ideas about them. We have no way to FALSIFY our ideas about those alleged events, and so they are not a part of science. Now read this statement from a world-renown scientist and expert on Darwinian evolution…
“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.” – Dr. Colin Patterson, Curator of England’s Museum of Natural History, Expert Paleontologist, Author of many books on evolution
I realize that you will kick and scream and do anything else to avoid admitting that I was right about this all along – but I truly hope that, even though you won’t admit it right now, you’ll remember it and not make the same mistakes with other people in the future.
Proclaimer: So let’s look at the Big Bang. It is true that we cannot view the Big Bang directly or indirectly…
Then it’s not a part of science – plain and simple.
Proclaimer: However, with the map of the background radiation coupled with the evidence for an expanding universe, you only need to play the movie backwards to see that everything started at the same point.
Really? Static noises coming into large audio antennae? And what “evidence” that it’s expanding? Redshift? Did you know that if we can detect “redshift” at all, there are at least FOUR different reasons for it… and only ONE of those reasons is that the object is moving AWAY from us. So the entire “expanding universe” idea is based on accepting one possible reason out of four. And what if that ASSUMPTION is correct? Does the fact that something is moving away from us now mean that it has ALWAYS been moving away from us? What if the “expansion” only began in 1955 – when the redshift was “detected” and the ASSUMPTION was made that it signified “expansion” as opposed to the three other alternatives?
Are you seeing the flaws now? This is the problem with uniformitarianism. It is the ludicrous idea that just because something is happening a certain way or at a certain rate now, it has ALWAYS occurred in that certain way and at that certain rate. But how could you possibly prove that, Proclaimer? You can’t. And that’s why radiometric dating is a farce. Listen… even if we could detect that C14 decays at a certain rate today, how could we honestly extrapolate that rate back into time? What if some C14 leached into or out of the fossil 500 years ago? What if C14 used to decay much faster or slower? What if some catastrophic event (like a worldwide flood) reset the decay dials?
It is the same with big bang. Even IF we could conclusively prove that lights in the sky are moving away from us now, we couldn’t possibly extrapolate that current movement 14 BILLION YEARS into the past and conclude that these lights were once all at one location. It’d be like observing that your son grew a foot taller from age 13 to age 14, extrapolating that growth rate back to when he was born, and concluding that he came out of the womb at only one millimeter tall! 😂
Proclaimer: Then God is unscientific.
Correct. The existence of God is not a part of science.
Proclaimer: But he is observable through the things he has made. So I cannot see him, but I know he is there.
Correction: You can observe things that clearly indicate an intelligent designer (like your circle of apples coupled with footprints), but you BELIEVE He exists by faith. Your conclusions concerning God are rational, but they are not a part of science. Your conclusion about the apples is rational, but not a part of science.
Proclaimer: The Big Bang is like that. There are multiple pieces of evidence for it.
No there isn’t. And more importantly, the Bible completely contradicts it. We each have to choose our ultimate authority on things we can’t possibly know for sure.
Proclaimer: I do not agree with your definition.
Irrelevant since my definitions have been the same from the start, and they are correct.
Proclaimer: Science is the application and process of gaining knowledge, particular natural knowledge.
See? Even you keep repeating my definitions. So tell me once again how exactly I “deny” the “process of gaining knowledge”. Because that’s what you’re saying when you say I “deny science”. So which processes of gaining knowledge do I “deny”? If you cannot list any, then admit your former ignorance of what science really is, and apologize for how you continue to misuse it in personal attacks against me (that actually say much more about you than me).
Proclaimer: Scientism is believing that science is the only way we can gain knowledge. Some definitions simply say that it is an excessive trust in science.
As I’ve been telling you (and as you have slowly come to understand), science is the “process of gaining knowledge”. So therefore, believing that the “process of gaining knowledge” is the only way we can gain knowledge is NOT Scientism. Nor is Scientism an excessive trust in the “process of gaining knowledge”. Nor can anyone “deny” the “process of gaining knowledge”.
Scientism isn’t a belief in the “process of gaining knowledge”, Proclaimer. Everybody knows that knowledge is gained through a process. Scientism is the faith-based belief in the INTERPRETATIONS of the data that were collected via the “process of gaining knowledge”.
For example, a flawed human being may actually INTERPRET the observed data of your son’s one foot growth from age 13 to age 14 as truly meaning that he was only one millimeter tall when he was born. SCIENCE didn’t say that he was one millimeter tall when he was born. A flawed man’s INTERPRETATION of the data said that. SCIENTISM is the faith-based believe IN THAT INTERPRETATION of the data.
Case in point: Flawed and biased men have INTERPRETED redshift to mean that the universe is expanding. Other flawed and biased men have INTERPRETED this alleged expansion as meaning we could extrapolate the expansion back through time and arrive at a point where everything in the universe was at one spot.
Scientism is your faith-based belief in those INTERPRETATIONS. Not in the redshift itself that we can allegedly observe… but in the INTERPRETATIONS by flawed and biased men about what that redshift MEANS.
So your faith-based belief in the INTERPRETATIONS of flawed and biased men concerning big bang, deep time uniformitarianism, and common descent evolution (none of which are a part of science) is SCIENTISM.
And SCIENTISM does NOT align with the Biblical account – plain and simple. Again, everyone has to choose for themselves who or what their ultimate authority on these matters will be. I choose God and the Bible over Scientism. You currently do not. I hope to change that.
Proclaimer: For me, science is the study of natural phenomena.
You did it again. You agreed with MY definition that science is STUDY… the collection of raw data through observation, testing, and repetition. Yet then you turn right around and say I “deny science”… apparently STILL oblivious to the fact that you are actually saying that I deny “the study of natural phenomena”. 🤔
Proclaimer: But I have faith that there is more to reality and existence than the physical realm. I believe in God and the spiritual realm.
As do I. I believe in the God of the Bible by faith. I do not hold that same faith-based belief in Scientism as you do.
Proclaimer: Science isn’t really designed for non-physical realities.
Science doesn’t exclude non-physical or spiritual things, otherwise they’d have to exclude minds and, God forbid, dark matter and dark energy. 😉
Proclaimer: You most certainly deny science. Even the most predictable and repeatable of observations are denied by you.
😅😂🤣 After all that kicking and screaming and finally reluctantly agreeing with what I’ve been saying about science all along, you STILL erroneously think that someone can “deny” what you yourself called the “pursuit of knowledge”, the “process of gaining knowledge”, and the “study of natural phenomena”! 😅😂🤣
Btw, name one single “REPEATABLE OBSERVATION” that is denied by me? (Try to remember that the observation itself is NOT the same thing as a flawed and biased human being’s INTERPRETATION of what that observational data means.)
Ready, set, GO!
If you cannot, then please, for God and as an attempt to salvage your own crushed reputation, admit your ignorance about what you thought science was, and apologize for all the times you irrationally claimed that I could somehow deny “the pursuit of knowledge”.
Proclaimer: The thing is, if you test something multiple ways and it always comes out as true, then that goes a long way to prove a truth about the physical universe.
Let me share some more knowledge with you…
- Science is NEVER “settled”. Even the most accepted conclusions in history are often later proven wrong. Science is an ONGOING process of data collection, so there is no such thing as “settled science” – just so you know.
- Science can never PROVE anything, because to do so would mean that we know for a fact that there is absolutely ZERO other explanations for the phenomenon. And to know that, we’d have to know EVERYTHING.
So take “gravity” for instance. You’d have to first prove that there is NO other explanation for why heavy things go down, and light things go up. And that means you’d have to know about and test EVERY OTHER possible explanation for the phenomenon. And of course we can’t even begin to KNOW all the other possibilities – let alone TEST them.
So is “gravity” a proven fact? Of course not. Uniformitarianism? Nope. Big bang? Not a chance. The speed of light, or the supposition that it is constant? Not even close. Etc, etc, etc…
Proclaimer: If under some conditions the answer is different, then either the theory is wrong or it needs to be tweaked.
Atta boy! Just look at you go! 👍👍👍 Now, how do we test the big bang under any condition – let alone other conditions? How could we possibly FALSIFY the idea? Because if a theory does not offer a way to possibly FALSIFY it, that theory is not a part of science. All scientific theories must contain a way, through repeatable testing, to either confirm or falsify them. Since this does not apply to big bang, uniformitarianism, or common descent evolution, none of them are a part of science.
Proclaimer: Hi Mike. It is better to have one outstanding question. That way it is easier to keep track and you don;t have to moan about me not answering your questions because I have missed them.
Well let’s see… I asked if there was any reason for you to suspect that the daily earth-sun cycles were longer than 24 hours during the creation period. You refused to answer that ONE question, and so I answered it for you.
Then I asked if there was any reason to suspect that the daily day-night cycles were longer than 24 hours before the appearance of the sun. Your answer was a scoff – LOL! Day and night before the sun? LOL
So it wasn’t even an answer to that ONE question.
So then I put up a quote of the actual scriptural passage that says there WERE day-night cycles before the sun, and asked THREE simple yes or no questions about whether or not you could see with your own eyes in the scripture above that there WERE day-night cycles. I mean, they were right there in the post, plain as day. It would have taken you all of 1 minute to say, “Yes I see that. Yes I see that too. Yes, I see that also.”
And that’s where we are. A month in, and I’ve asked a total of five yes or no questions – two of which you didn’t even answer. So sorry for putting such mental duress on you. 🙄
Okay… time to go and see if you’ve addressed my latest post with actual answers…
Mike: PROCLAIMER, IS THERE ANY SCRIPTURAL REASON FOR YOU TO SUSPECT THAT THE DAILY SUN-EARTH CYCLES – OR THE LIGHT-DARK CYCLES THAT PRECEDED THE APPEARANCE OF THE SUN – WERE ANYTHING OTHER THAN 24-HOUR CYCLES DURING THE CREATION PERIOD? IF SO, PLEASE PRESENT THAT SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE.
PROCLAIMER: WHAT? LOL. DAY AND NIGHT CYCLES BEFORE THE SUN?
Mike: Yes Proclaimer, according to the Bible, there were day-night cycles before the sun.
Genesis 1:3-5… And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. And God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day,” and the darkness He called “night.”
And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
ARE YOU ABLE TO SEE THAT HE CALLED THE LIGHT “DAY”, AND THE DARKNESS “NIGHT”?
Proclaimer: Yes, I can see the light is called day and the darkness night.
Mike: AND ARE YOU ABLE TO SEE THAT HE CALLED THE VERY FIRST DAY-NIGHT CYCLE, WHICH INCLUDED A SINGLE MORNING AND A SINGLE EVENING, THE FIRST “DAY”?
Proclaimer: Yes, it is called a day.
Wow! You answered two whole questions directly – and it took you a whopping 19 words to do it! You must be exhausted! (Btw, you’ll notice that the original ONE question at the top remains unanswered to this day – as does that question’s predecessor about whether there is any reason to suspect that sun-earth cycles were longer than 24 hours during the creation period. Keep that in mind when I respond to your ludicrous claim that I must now answer 6 questions from you before I ask another. YOU HAVEN’T EVEN ANSWERED EITHER OF MY FIRST TWO!)
Now let’s get to a few of the elephants in the room that would have been dealt with MONTHS ago if you would have only engaged in an honest and respectable discussion from the start. But we’ll do that in a new thread where I make sure I set the rules from the start. Here is that thread, and according to your own HN rules, it requires that you answer my question before you can post a single word on any other thread…
Proclaimer: You believe that the earth is flat, so please explain how this volcano that sits on land looks like it is in the middle of the ocean when viewing it from a distance that is beyond the horizon.
It’s a combination of visual acuity, air conditions, and perspective. For example, looking down straight railroad tracks, the two different rails don’t really merge together in the distance – but perspective makes it appear as if they do. Perspective works the same way up and down as it does right to left with the railroad tracks.
Any artist will tell you that when drawing perspectives, they place the horizon at eye level, and everything left, right, above, and below that horizon will be drawn as slowly moving towards the center point of that horizon.
But as you are looking at that horizon in the distance, you are looking through haze and dust and other particles that blend together where the land/sea and the sky meet. For example, looking down a highway on a hot day, you’ll see what looks like water on the road in the distance. It’s not really water (as you know), but a merging of the ground with the sky in the haze and dust.
With boats on the sea, you’ll see them appear to start disappearing from the bottom up, because the bottom is the closest to where the sky and sea merge into a haze on your horizon. Visual acuity plays a part as well, because the human eye can only see details on things that are a certain size. The farther away a thing gets, the less our eyes can make out the details of that thing. So even without haze and dust, the details of that object will eventually blend together into a blur of colors.
Anyway, the boats disappearing from the bottom up used to convince ignorant people that they were disappearing over a curve. Today we know they are not, because we can zoom them back into full view with cameras. Eventually, they’ll get so far away that even fully zoomed in, the same effect will happen in the camera like it does with our naked eyes from a much closer distance.
As for not seeing the land in the photo… the land is flat. We are looking straight along a long distance of flatness from a great distance away. As such, the land will not “register” in our view. You can do this on a countertop at your house. Look at it from up high. Put a small object at the opposite end. Then lower your eyes down to the level of the countertop or table. You’ll still see the object in the distance, but you’ll no longer see the six feet (or whatever) of countertop between you and the object. If you happen to have a 20 foot long countertop or table, you can actually start the object close to you, have someone drag it across the surface away from you, and observe that the object starts to disappear from the bottom up – just like boats.
I addressed this a long time ago in the Flat Earth thread, and even posted some video experiments. One of them was a guy walking away on a perfectly flat football pitch (field for us Americans), dragging a 2×4 board on a rope behind him. The camera was very low to the ground. At first, you could see all of the 2×4. Then 10 feet later, you could only see the top of it. Another 10 feet and the board was gone – along with the guys lower legs. A while later, and he looked like a legless man sitting waist-down on the field.
Now obviously this man wasn’t disappearing over a curve in the middle of a perfectly flat field. But that’s just how the combination of perspective, visual acuity, and air quality work with our eyes.
Proclaimer, now that I’ve answered your question to the best of my ability (without going into minute details), do yourself a favor and before making claims that this or that “proves” a ball earth, and ask yourself the question: Is a spinning water ball orbiting the sun the ONLY POSSIBLE explanation for the phenomenon of not seeing the land in front of the volcano?
Nice chat. Please remember to answer my FIRST question in the new thread before posting a single thing anywhere else on the site – as per your own rules.
Incorrect Mike.
Close. Here’s a diagram…
Lol. It is the same. Just different wording.
Well let’s see… I asked if there was any reason for you to suspect that the daily earth-sun cycles were longer than 24 hours during the creation period. You refused to answer that ONE question, and so I answered it for you.
Pay attention Mike. It has already been answered. I won;t repeat myself, but hopefully this jolts your memory. Scientists believe that days were not always 24 hours in the history of our planet.
So then I put up a quote of the actual scriptural passage that says there WERE day-night cycles before the sun, and asked THREE simple yes or no questions about whether or not you could see with your own eyes in the scripture above that there WERE day-night cycles.
I can’t be bothered trying to figure out what you are getting at here, but I told you that I do not believe the sun was created on the fourth day. So if that negates your question, then move on. If not, then please explain further.
Science is NEVER “settled”. Even the most accepted conclusions in history are often later proven wrong. Science is an ONGOING process of data collection, so there is no such thing as “settled science” – just so you know.
Perhaps sometimes, but most of the time, not quite. The most accepted are usually tweaked to cater for a rare occurrence that the theory doesn’t explain. This happened with Newton’s theory of gravity. It worked nearly all the time but an addition was made to make it work every time, at least so far. As for Evolution, that is purely interpretation of the evidence. You can also interpret a creator from the data, so it is often left to your belief structure at that point. Given that you understand that science should always be testing its own conclusions, then why not apply this noble standard to your own experiments, observations, and beliefs regarding a 6000 year old Frisbee earth. Because I have lost count of the times you have been debunked and other flat earthers have been debunked. I have posted many videos over the years where even one of these videos completely debunks the flat earth. Further, you guys do not have a single flat earth model. You have to come up with different models to explain each point, with each model not being compatible.
The evidence is so overwhelming for a globe earth, and flat earth scientism has been so thoroughly debunked, that only the most deluded of your community have continued to believe and teach it.
Proclaimer: Pay attention Mike. It has already been answered. I won;t repeat myself, but hopefully this jolts your memory. Scientists believe that days were not always 24 hours in the history of our planet.
You pay attention. The question was if there was any reason to suspect that the days were LONGER THAN 24 hours during the creation period. And no scientist says that days have ever been LONGER THAN 24 hours on earth. (I’m glad to see you’re using “scientists believe” instead of the common “science says”. You’re coming along nicely – despite all the kicking and screaming.)
Btw, you are not allowed to post on this thread or any other until you answer the question in the new Hot Seat thread. Those are YOUR rules, dude. Aren’t you going to honor YOUR OWN rules?
Hi Mike.
Since you have created a new topic of debate to replace this one, should I merge this into the Conspiracy Theory topic. What do you think? Actually, the Flat earth topic would be a better option. I may do that. but feel free to put your point of view forward.
You pay attention. The question was if there was any reason to suspect that the days were LONGER THAN 24 hours during the creation period. And no scientist says that days have ever been LONGER THAN 24 hours on earth.
Okay, so you cannot extrapolate a conclusion from what was said. I will spell it out for you. If the hours of a day have changed in the past, then it would be simple to conclude that the length of a day changing doesn’t rule out longer or shorter days. I just assume you had the intelligence to figure that out. So I will cater for your lack of understanding next time and spell everything out which will lead to less questions being answered due to longer periods required to hold your hand through the answers.
The speed of the Earth’s rotation actually varies from day to day
One reason for earth rotation speed variations is due to celestial bodies gravitational pull. For example, the Moon when closer to earth ever so slightly changes the shape of the Earth resulting in lower rotational speed. Another way of saying that the day will be slightly longer. Note that the distance between Earth and Moon changes constantly.
How long was the day today?
“Today is predicted to be 0.1728 ms (milliseconds) or 0.0001728 seconds longer than 24 hours. This is the time it takes Earth to rotate 8.04 cm (3.16 in), as measured at the equator. This means that today lasts:
- 24.0000000480 hours or
- 24 hours and 0.17 ms
On average, a mean solar day in the last 365 days was -0.19 ms under 24 hours, so today’s day length is above average. Over this period, 95 days have been longer than today, while 271 have been shorter than today.”
Some statements in this post were sourced here:
https://www.timeanddate.com/time/earth-rotation.htmlConclusion
Anyhow, you are asking about the creation period. I do not know what the length of earth days were exactly, but you say the sun was created on the fourth day, so I ask you to answer this impossible conundrum you have presented. I imagine that earth days during creation would be wildly different. I envision a dense atmosphere that is clearing and allowing celestial bodies to be viewed. Yes the earth spins around the sun, even if you cannot see it, but as for the exact length of days, that would be too hard to know from scripture and science I imagine. at least for me it is.
Proclaimer: So let’s look at the Big Bang. It is true that we cannot view the Big Bang directly or indirectly…
Then it’s not a part of science – plain and simple.Incorrect Mike.
Science is not the scientific method. Yes, it is an effective method by which we can prove things in science, but not all things can be tested. The scientific method was developed by Newton and science existed before Newton. I can assure you of that.
Further, not all things can be tested by man but that does not negate something as science. For example. You cannot test God, but you can see him indirectly too, through that which he has made. So in your bias to win a point here, you have indirectly made the case that God is unscientific. Lol. You have lost the plot. Caught out by your own craftiness Mike.
Really? Static noises coming into large audio antennae? And what “evidence” that it’s expanding? Redshift? Did you know that if we can detect “redshift” at all, there are at least FOUR different reasons for it… and only ONE of those reasons is that the object is moving AWAY from us. So the entire “expanding universe” idea is based on accepting one possible reason out of four. And what if that ASSUMPTION is correct? Does the fact that something is moving away from us now mean that it has ALWAYS been moving away from us? What if the “expansion” only began in 1955 – when the redshift was “detected” and the ASSUMPTION was made that it signified “expansion” as opposed to the three other alternatives?
Incorrect Mike.
Evidence for a beginning and an expanding universe is as follows:
- As you mentioned, the map of the background radiation which was predicted to be there if the universe had a beginning. And what we observe in that map is a hotter universe meaning objects were closer together or more dense.
- The red shifted spectrum of all distant objects is the biggest proof. Wavelengths will stretch when objects move away from you. Listen to the siren of a police car approaching you versus moving away from you. The siren’s sound is constant, but to the listener it changes in pitch. The waves are smaller in frequency or closer together as they approach you because the vehicle is moving toward you. Likewise, it is longer when it is moving away from you. This effect happens with light too with everything we observe in the distant universe, not just some things. The light of distant objects is red shifted meaning that we are seeing the longer wavelength of light vs the shorter if everything was moving toward us or if the universe were contracting. It’s like baking raisin bread. As the dough gets warm and rises, it expands, and all of the raisins begin to move apart from each other without the raisins themselves expanding.
- The further we look into space, the more distant the past. And what do we observe? A more denser universe. We see galaxies clustered closer together.
While there are other explanations as to these observations, the expanding universe ticks all the boxes. Other ideas do not tick all the boxes. For example, you could get red shift from distant galaxies losing energy as they travel through space, but that explanation doesn’t explain the other observable points. Further, the red shift of any distant object matches the distance and the observed expansion rate, no matter how far away the object. Imagine the coincidence if this happened to all objects without an expanding universe because they were slowing down at the exact same rate or a rate proportional to their distance.
Of course, you have to factor in that closer objects do not fully comply with this visually because they are moving large distances across our sky, in sometimes multiple directions from our perspective like the moon for example. But when the distance is great enough, all galaxies are moving away from our galaxy because the expansion of the universe. To make it a bit simpler, that police car that is moving toward you and then away might be travelling fast, but when you observe that police car from high up in the air, it hardly moves. Yet, imagine if it moved much quicker and the further up you go, even quicker again. Then you would have to come up with an explanation as to why. A speeding up expansion of the universe provides an explanation for all the observations we see in the distant universe.
Remember that God stretches out the heavens too Mike. Your superior life form that created a static snow globe type world hypothesis does not comply with observation, mathematics, and science. It is a form of flat earth scientism for those that are caught up in the flat earth cult. My advice is to come out of that cult and ask God for your ability to reason to return.
It’s a combination of visual acuity, air conditions, and perspective. For example, looking down straight railroad tracks, the two different rails don’t really merge together in the distance – but perspective makes it appear as if they do. Perspective works the same way up and down as it does right to left with the railroad tracks.
Any artist will tell you that when drawing perspectives, they place the horizon at eye level, and everything left, right, above, and below that horizon will be drawn as slowly moving towards the center point of that horizon.
Incorrect Mike.
There is a huge difference between merge and disappear. Notice that the railway tracks do not disappear over a horizon, but just merge from our perspective. Yes, they will disappear eventually because of the horizon, but they will merge way before then and become to small to see. And does the left rail disappear and not the right? The answer is no, they equally merge. So if it is the same for up and down, then Mt Taranaki would eventually merge, but not disappear from the bottom up.
But you say that anyone can demonstrate this on a football pitch. I disagree with this. The reason you get a result of something disappearing from the bottom on a football pitch is simply because no land is exactly flat. Ignoring that the earth is a globe for a moment, a football pitch is not perfectly flat. There will be slight high points and low points. I am betting that if you were able to get a perfectly flat pitch without grass, and a surface that had no reflection, then the bottom of the end of the pitch would not disappear at all because light travels in straight lines if not interfered with. It would simply merge, not disappear. At ground level, it only takes a slight rise here or there to obscure what is behind these rises if the camera was placed on the ground. But if you lift the camera higher, then those slight imperfections of rises and troughs will disappear and you will see the bottom of the field merging closer to the rest of the field.
I already proved this with my own experiment using marbles on a flat table that you asked me to do.
So to conclude. The photos of Mt Taranaki are not taken at sea level so these slight imperfections with the football pitch analogy are not an explanation for a good portion of the volcano’s base sinking below the horizon. Because even though the waves can obscure things, a standing person at sea level will likely be high enough to overcome obfuscation caused by the waves. So the fact that the volcano disappears quite a bit at its base fits perfectly with a globe earth, not a flat one. You argued earlier on that we should do our own tests and experiments and this is why my direct evidence favours photos that I have taken or friends have taken. Of course, I like to post videos from others as an aside just to bury your hypothesis completely. So your football pitch analogy falls way short of explaining it Mike. It simply is not science. It is flat earth scientism.
Finally. Remember how ludicrous the flat earth sounded to you when you first heard it? Well, after all your evidence, I and most others still think it is just as ludicrous.
Proclaimer: Okay, so you cannot extrapolate a conclusion from what was said. I will spell it out for you. If the hours of a day have changed in the past, then it would be simple to conclude that the length of a day changing doesn’t rule out longer or shorter days.
According to Scientism, the early days on earth were always SHORTER than 24 hours – and didn’t approach the 24 hour mark until right after man had evolved. I posted this information in the other thread a LONG time ago while we were first discussing this. Of course, because of the way you have behaved yourself during this entire debate, that has now been about 2 months ago.
http://www.iea.usp.br/en/news/when-a-day-lasted-only-four-hours (Read the last paragraph.)
So since Scientism says the days of the earliest earth lasted about 4 hours, and there’s nothing in the Bible to say the regular sun-earth cycles were EVER longer than 24 hours (except for the one day in Joshua 10), my question was whether or not YOU had any reason whatsoever to suspect that the sun-earth daily cycles were ever LONGER than 24 hours.
You see how I did my homework? You see how I specifically worded the question to avoid you saying that the length of days could have been DIFFERENT?
So it’s not a matter of you having to hold my hand through this, because I’ve been running circles around you. It is a matter of me having to keep holding YOUR hand and begging and pleading for you to just answer a damn question!
So let’s keep the record straight, shall we?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
