A
Psalm 99:1 The Lord reigns; Let the peoples tremble! He dwells between the cherubim; Let the earth be moved!
Does Science go against faith?
- Thread starter Blain
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
M
Empty could mean filled with ether, perhaps? 
Isn't this all based on the assumption the Earth is moving? Surely it would be easier to say (i.e. Occam's razor), there is an ether and the Earth doesn't move? (I prefer the 1700's scientists over the charlatans we see today, although there were bad ones then, also).
The meter ruler is an easy example. If suddenly you apply also a one second error in time measurement, and we're ultimately calculating speed, that error could be huge, depending on the actual time measured. (For example, a 1 meter measurement with 1 second time and an error of up to 1 second could give a huge error, from 100% (if the true time is 0), and downward). In most experiments, there are many variables and hence the potential error is quite high.
And yet you still insist that the Earth must rotate?
When you throw a baseball in the air, why doesn't it speed away at up to 465m/s (i.e. the same speed you claim we are spinning at)? If you claim its because the air is also spinning at this magnificent speed, what magical force can glue the air to the Earth so? And why does the air speed and direction change at different heights above the Earth? I'm not sure about satellites or water droplets. Geostationary satellites are probably the easiest to set up, because all you would need is some sort of blimp. I haven't observed any water droplets in free fall orbit, but I'm sure neither have you (directly).
Isn't this all based on the assumption the Earth is moving? Surely it would be easier to say (i.e. Occam's razor), there is an ether and the Earth doesn't move? (I prefer the 1700's scientists over the charlatans we see today, although there were bad ones then, also).
The meter ruler is an easy example. If suddenly you apply also a one second error in time measurement, and we're ultimately calculating speed, that error could be huge, depending on the actual time measured. (For example, a 1 meter measurement with 1 second time and an error of up to 1 second could give a huge error, from 100% (if the true time is 0), and downward). In most experiments, there are many variables and hence the potential error is quite high.
And yet you still insist that the Earth must rotate?
When you throw a baseball in the air, why doesn't it speed away at up to 465m/s (i.e. the same speed you claim we are spinning at)? If you claim its because the air is also spinning at this magnificent speed, what magical force can glue the air to the Earth so? And why does the air speed and direction change at different heights above the Earth? I'm not sure about satellites or water droplets. Geostationary satellites are probably the easiest to set up, because all you would need is some sort of blimp. I haven't observed any water droplets in free fall orbit, but I'm sure neither have you (directly).
M
Scripture agrees with this, and so do I.
Noted.
Agreed. But the Heavens and Earth were created on day 1, and sun and moon on day 4. It is more consistent with most (all?) scripture to believe the Earth is still (e.g. in Genesis 1, with a heliocentric view, what was the Earth orbiting for days 1 - 3?).
Strawman arguments are also a logical fallacy. I don't say "because the bible doesn't mention the Earth moves, it is stationary". I say "because the scriptures either imply or directly state that the Earth is stationary, it probably is, and true science is not in conflict with this".
Noted.
Agreed. But the Heavens and Earth were created on day 1, and sun and moon on day 4. It is more consistent with most (all?) scripture to believe the Earth is still (e.g. in Genesis 1, with a heliocentric view, what was the Earth orbiting for days 1 - 3?).
Strawman arguments are also a logical fallacy. I don't say "because the bible doesn't mention the Earth moves, it is stationary". I say "because the scriptures either imply or directly state that the Earth is stationary, it probably is, and true science is not in conflict with this".
A
the baseball has not escaped the gravitational pull of the Earth.
why do things in a car not go flying at the speed they were going when thrown in the air?
try the moving car experiment, and come back with your results...........
this is done by the uneven heating of the Earth due to the tilt of a spherical earth and the Coriolis effect but you wouldn't be expected to understand such concepts because you would have to actually consider that the Earth might be spinning.
what about satellites and water droplets are you unsure about?
hmmmmm....... i'm sure there is more to this story that can be found in the conspiracy forum..........
why do things in a car not go flying at the speed they were going when thrown in the air?
try the moving car experiment, and come back with your results...........
this is done by the uneven heating of the Earth due to the tilt of a spherical earth and the Coriolis effect but you wouldn't be expected to understand such concepts because you would have to actually consider that the Earth might be spinning.
what about satellites and water droplets are you unsure about?
hmmmmm....... i'm sure there is more to this story that can be found in the conspiracy forum..........
M
They do when you throw them out the car window (i.e. the air resistance slows them down). Hence my question about what mysterious force that keeps the atmosphere magically glued to Earth.
Try it yourself. I am already clear on the result.
Okay. So there is a mysterious, magical force that holds the atmosphere to the Earth, so when we throw a baseball in the air, it encounters none of the air resistance we'd normally expect from traveling at such a speed. Yet this mysterious force is overcome by such things as uneven heating of the Earth? I say you believe what you do because of what people would think you if you didn't, not because it's true.
I stated I didn't know that water droplets in free fall orbited in epicycles. I've never observed a water droplet in free fall orbit, and I doubt very many others have, either.
You are correct. There is more conspiracy in the world than there is truth. You don't go to school to learn truth, you go to learn conspiracy theories. The most reliable source of truth in the world is the bible, and conspiracists are working even to undermine this.
Try it yourself. I am already clear on the result.
Okay. So there is a mysterious, magical force that holds the atmosphere to the Earth, so when we throw a baseball in the air, it encounters none of the air resistance we'd normally expect from traveling at such a speed. Yet this mysterious force is overcome by such things as uneven heating of the Earth? I say you believe what you do because of what people would think you if you didn't, not because it's true.
I stated I didn't know that water droplets in free fall orbited in epicycles. I've never observed a water droplet in free fall orbit, and I doubt very many others have, either.
You are correct. There is more conspiracy in the world than there is truth. You don't go to school to learn truth, you go to learn conspiracy theories. The most reliable source of truth in the world is the bible, and conspiracists are working even to undermine this.
http://ia600506.us.archive.org/23/items/a588333800huxluoft/a588333800huxluoft.pdf
here cycel you can read it for free
here cycel you can read it for free
A
~
Figurative language notice the use of the word "like" ....
talks about the setting sun, doesn't mean that it claims that the Earth doesn't move.......
i deleted a few verses they just talk about the rising and setting of the sun, which does not reflect either way on whether or not the Earth moves.
what does this verse have to do with if the sun or earth moves and how does that verse contradict accepted science?
repeat verses
perhaps I'll start a thread about Psalm 19 its one of my favorites.
Psalm 93:1
"...the world also is stablished that it cannot be moved...."
personification, do you know what kind of language that is or do you think the sun is an actual person/entity?
Figurative language notice the use of the word "like" ....
talks about the setting sun, doesn't mean that it claims that the Earth doesn't move.......
i deleted a few verses they just talk about the rising and setting of the sun, which does not reflect either way on whether or not the Earth moves.
what does this verse have to do with if the sun or earth moves and how does that verse contradict accepted science?
repeat verses
perhaps I'll start a thread about Psalm 19 its one of my favorites.
Psalm 93:1
"...the world also is stablished that it cannot be moved...."
personification, do you know what kind of language that is or do you think the sun is an actual person/entity?
Last edited by a moderator:
M
Perhaps we will have to agree to disagree also. I understand where you are coming from - that the gospel is salvation through Christ, and all other things are of lesser importance.
However, I also think the lesser things scripture teaches against often prove a stumbling block to unbelievers, whether such beliefs be evolutionism, old-earthism or heliocentrism. Christians accepting such (false) beliefs make it harder for unbelievers to see that Christians are right about salvation through Christ.
If God wants to convict you of this, I am sure He will show you in His time. For me, it is enough to say that scripture is 100% defensible, and true science is not contrary to true faith.
However, I also think the lesser things scripture teaches against often prove a stumbling block to unbelievers, whether such beliefs be evolutionism, old-earthism or heliocentrism. Christians accepting such (false) beliefs make it harder for unbelievers to see that Christians are right about salvation through Christ.
If God wants to convict you of this, I am sure He will show you in His time. For me, it is enough to say that scripture is 100% defensible, and true science is not contrary to true faith.
A
when you throw the ball in the air, your still on the Earth (i.e the car) therefore until you toss it out of the car window (past the pull of Earth's gravity) it would at as it does inside the car.
yes but you choose to ignore the logic....
i say you don't have a clear understanding of concepts you just reject off hand and you don't really care to learn the theories you have misunderstood and misrepresented. you just want to argue and fight.
ok....
wow.
The Bible does have the truth, however many people twist God's truth to use it to reject observable facts about the world around them and to make themselves feel smarter and more spiritually pure then others and don't realize the trap or snare they have fallen into.
yes but you choose to ignore the logic....
i say you don't have a clear understanding of concepts you just reject off hand and you don't really care to learn the theories you have misunderstood and misrepresented. you just want to argue and fight.
ok....
wow.
The Bible does have the truth, however many people twist God's truth to use it to reject observable facts about the world around them and to make themselves feel smarter and more spiritually pure then others and don't realize the trap or snare they have fallen into.
Empty could mean filled with ether, perhaps?
Isn't this all based on the assumption the Earth is moving?
Isn't this all based on the assumption the Earth is moving?
what, you think this isn't accounted for? haven't you ever read the last pages of a lab report, where the error calculation is done? the % error accuracy isn't just a number 'pulled out of the air' to make a result sound plausible.
if you think that some unaccounted for variable zeroes out the results, you design an experiment that will show it. if you think they weren't accurate enough, find a better ruler. in the case of michaelson-morely, if they weren't accurate enough, the interaction of the aether with light is so weak it can never account for the precession of a foucault's pendulum (even though we still haven't heard how a stationary, flat, circular earth can have aether moving at speeds by, now we need a stationary aether that doesn't even deflect photons to move a heavy pendulum bob around in circles at different rates across this inert disc).
shearing & coriolis forces. why does fluid in a pipe move at different speeds according to distance from the center of the pipe?
here are some water droplets orbiting in space around a charged needle.
Water droplets orbiting a needle in space. [VIDEO]
notice they don't move in epicycles. if epicyclical motion is the natural orbital characteristic of a gravitational or magnetic interaction, what's with the keplarian motion?? must be fake since it's from NASA?
tossing a baseball into the air, it's motion is governed by the energy i give it, gravity of the earth and friction from the air. oh yes and possibly the immeasurably small force of aether, and if the ball is in the air long enough, we'll see some coriolis force. if gravity is causing planets to orbit in an infinite string of epicycles, shouldn't the baseball follow the same basic laws?
M
So, the math gives the same result, but you just prefer doing the extra because it fits in with your religion?
Actually, pretty often, it is. If the maximum error for each step were used, a lot of experiments wouldn't prove anything. So a number lesser than the maximum is chosen, but this still means there is a chance the experiment is out by more than its "experimental error". I'm sure you've heard of experiments that were found to be "out" by more than the published allowable error?
Why? Stopped is stopped to me. Whether the radio is making the car vibrate or not, it's still stopped. You're the one who insists that the experiment didn't prove the Earth was still, rather, it proved there was no ether. If that's your religion, that's up to you. Just don't tell me its unscientific to use Occum's Razor if I choose to cut out the superfluous Einteinian, relativity crud.
You keep going back to this Focault's pendulum. I don't accept it. I don't like it. I don't trust Focault, and I don't trust all the Copernican scientists that say his pendulum proves the Earth rotates. I have read enough scientists I trust who say the Focault pendulum results are not consistent to believe that they're not. Even if they were, it has as much to do with the Earth rotating or not as which side of an egg points up. If you must insist on continuously bringing it up, at least bring up some experimental records, or something falsifiable. I'm really getting to dislike this Focault...
A geocentric Earth is not the same as a flat Earth. I don't understand many of the natural phenomena around us, but I don't go around saying their existence proves crazy things that they don't.
Friction.
As I said, I don't trust NASA. They've been caught out lying at least once before, and have never openly repented. Why should anyone trust anything they have to say again, ever?
You never did tell me how the atmosphere/air is magically glued to the Earth. If you stick your head out of a moving car, you feel the air rushing past.
Actually, pretty often, it is. If the maximum error for each step were used, a lot of experiments wouldn't prove anything. So a number lesser than the maximum is chosen, but this still means there is a chance the experiment is out by more than its "experimental error". I'm sure you've heard of experiments that were found to be "out" by more than the published allowable error?
Why? Stopped is stopped to me. Whether the radio is making the car vibrate or not, it's still stopped. You're the one who insists that the experiment didn't prove the Earth was still, rather, it proved there was no ether. If that's your religion, that's up to you. Just don't tell me its unscientific to use Occum's Razor if I choose to cut out the superfluous Einteinian, relativity crud.
You keep going back to this Focault's pendulum. I don't accept it. I don't like it. I don't trust Focault, and I don't trust all the Copernican scientists that say his pendulum proves the Earth rotates. I have read enough scientists I trust who say the Focault pendulum results are not consistent to believe that they're not. Even if they were, it has as much to do with the Earth rotating or not as which side of an egg points up. If you must insist on continuously bringing it up, at least bring up some experimental records, or something falsifiable. I'm really getting to dislike this Focault...
A geocentric Earth is not the same as a flat Earth. I don't understand many of the natural phenomena around us, but I don't go around saying their existence proves crazy things that they don't.
Friction.
As I said, I don't trust NASA. They've been caught out lying at least once before, and have never openly repented. Why should anyone trust anything they have to say again, ever?
You never did tell me how the atmosphere/air is magically glued to the Earth. If you stick your head out of a moving car, you feel the air rushing past.
A person using good operational science can determine that the earth rotates, and revolves around the sun. Scripture does in no way specifically agree to a geocentric model. The Bible is a Historical book, not a scientific text that changes. The arguments I have seen are the same arguments used for the heavens being perfect - ie the universe. All of which plays no account for the fall of man - sin corrupting all of creation.
Some are taking poetry and trying to make it literal - this is where Flat Earth theories originally came from - people wrangling with words of Scripture that were poetic. Genesis is literal historical for example, and a general outline of creation.
The only qualm/arguement that Christians have with people using the tools of science, is when they extrapolate history onto the origin of the universe, and man.
While I love apologetics, that in itself is not an end. Jesus Christ is that end- that if you don't get the Gospel out to those who you are debating, you have done absolutely nothing for the Kingdom.
If you don't understand that the natural man is hostile towards the things of Scripture and of God, and temperate that in your apologetic either, you will find yourself in a predicament of trying to win an argument vs win a soul.
Some are taking poetry and trying to make it literal - this is where Flat Earth theories originally came from - people wrangling with words of Scripture that were poetic. Genesis is literal historical for example, and a general outline of creation.
The only qualm/arguement that Christians have with people using the tools of science, is when they extrapolate history onto the origin of the universe, and man.
While I love apologetics, that in itself is not an end. Jesus Christ is that end- that if you don't get the Gospel out to those who you are debating, you have done absolutely nothing for the Kingdom.
If you don't understand that the natural man is hostile towards the things of Scripture and of God, and temperate that in your apologetic either, you will find yourself in a predicament of trying to win an argument vs win a soul.
M
It had nothing to do with why the pharisees cruxified Christ. I'm not sure what Bible you're reading, but in mine, all I find is that Jesus was put on trial and executed for claiming to be God. That's why the pharisees got so angry with Jesus in the early parts of the Gospels and why they plotted so much to kill Jesus. It had nothing to do with "poor science and logic."
M
This is so true, and you see it all the time with non-believers. They go as far as to say Jesus never existed, and all that stuff about salvation isn't true. When asked why they don't believe, a common response from the atheists nowadays is. "I don't believe because science..." It's a great example of this passage.
If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things?
John 3:12
If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things?
John 3:12
i take it you haven't done any of the math. Kepler's model of the universe is miles simpler than Ptolemy's or any semi-ptolemic model, plus, Kepler's model is accurate and Ptolemy's and Copernicus' hybrid ptolemic model aren't accurate.
the extra work is to try to make to make observation fit a stationary earth. you can put a record on a record player and watch it spin, or you can assume the record remains stationary and the entire world spins around the record. guess which model is more cumbersome? for a two-body system, the result will be the same whether you put the origin on one or the other body. it's arbitrary. when you try to describe more complicated systems, or systems with very high velocities, you have to start being careful about having an inertial reference frame. since you can't understand whether a stationary phonograph is more complicated than a stationary phonographic record, i'm not going to waste time teaching you higher mathematics. go take a calculus-based physics class.
if you can't do the math yourself but you don't trust any result anyone with a college degree puts out, how am i supposed to reason with you?
you still don't understand what experimental accuracy and margins of error mean. you think it means when i measure something with a yard stick, i could be 6 km off of the true reading?
if you think Michelson-Morley were wrong, then why don't you point out what you think they missed, instead of waving your hand at any result that doesn't agree with your preconception and saying "it's possible they are light-years off in there calculations so i don't trust any result whatsoever"
you still don't understand what Michelson-Morely set out to measure, and what their results mean. the thinking of the day was that there is an aether that exerts a measurable drag force on matter & energy as they move through it, or if you like to make the math more complicated and probably run into discontinuities, as the aether moves past it. the experiment showed that there was no such effect anywhere near the magnitude it was expected to be. this proves that there are one of two explanations:
there is no measurable drag force produced by any all-pervasive aether
or the aether and the earth are not in motion relative to each other.
prior and subsequent experiments showed that a drag-imposing aether and the earth cannot be motionless with respect to one another.
this has nothing to do with whether the earth is in motion or not.
i know i've explained this more than once to you, but i don't think you are reading too carefully what i actually say.
you claimed that the aether caused foucault's pendulum to precess, and not the rotation of the earth.
is it that now that it is becoming clear this is not possible that you decide every focault's pendulum ever built is a lie and a hoax, all experimental data are forgeries, and only you and zone have the true knowledge of physics?
how about you build one yourself and come back to us in a week or so with the results? i walk past one 5 days a week. want picures?
i'm sorry, but IIRC in an earlier thread on the same subject, you are espousing a flat earth. before that you were claiming the earth is hollow and the universe is inside it. have you been brought around to spherical now? with us living on the surface?
i guess i am wrong to think you would be consistent in your beliefs.
guess why clouds move at different speeds in the atmosphere.
you don't trust NASA, you don't trust video, you don't trust written records, you don't trust your own eyes, you don't trust logic and reason, you don't trust any "scientist," you don't trust any pendulum, you don't trust a map, you don't trust ...
why aren't you out there doing experiments for yourself instead of in your armchair saying anything that doesn't agree with your worldview is a forgery and a hoax?
again, go build a pendulum, build it well, watch it for a few days, tell us what the rate of precession is, then explain why it is precessing. then you don't have to trust any one of the millions of foucault's pendulums other people have built. then you don't have to trust your obscure conspiracy theory websites and you-tube videos. you can trust what you actually see and do.
when you stick your head out of a "moving car" is the air rushing past or are you rushing past the air?
what is in space that would exert a force on the atmosphere?
what keeps the atmosphere from blowing off a stationary earth if the universe is rotating around it?
when you throw a baseball, why doesn't it just keep going?
you are hip to very old Greek models of the universe. are you also hip to very old Greek models of teaching?
the extra work is to try to make to make observation fit a stationary earth. you can put a record on a record player and watch it spin, or you can assume the record remains stationary and the entire world spins around the record. guess which model is more cumbersome? for a two-body system, the result will be the same whether you put the origin on one or the other body. it's arbitrary. when you try to describe more complicated systems, or systems with very high velocities, you have to start being careful about having an inertial reference frame. since you can't understand whether a stationary phonograph is more complicated than a stationary phonographic record, i'm not going to waste time teaching you higher mathematics. go take a calculus-based physics class.
if you can't do the math yourself but you don't trust any result anyone with a college degree puts out, how am i supposed to reason with you?
you still don't understand what experimental accuracy and margins of error mean. you think it means when i measure something with a yard stick, i could be 6 km off of the true reading?
if you think Michelson-Morley were wrong, then why don't you point out what you think they missed, instead of waving your hand at any result that doesn't agree with your preconception and saying "it's possible they are light-years off in there calculations so i don't trust any result whatsoever"
you still don't understand what Michelson-Morely set out to measure, and what their results mean. the thinking of the day was that there is an aether that exerts a measurable drag force on matter & energy as they move through it, or if you like to make the math more complicated and probably run into discontinuities, as the aether moves past it. the experiment showed that there was no such effect anywhere near the magnitude it was expected to be. this proves that there are one of two explanations:
there is no measurable drag force produced by any all-pervasive aether
or the aether and the earth are not in motion relative to each other.
prior and subsequent experiments showed that a drag-imposing aether and the earth cannot be motionless with respect to one another.
this has nothing to do with whether the earth is in motion or not.
i know i've explained this more than once to you, but i don't think you are reading too carefully what i actually say.
You keep going back to this Focault's pendulum. I don't accept it. I don't like it. I don't trust Focault, and I don't trust all the Copernican scientists that say his pendulum proves the Earth rotates. I have read enough scientists I trust who say the Focault pendulum results are not consistent to believe that they're not. Even if they were, it has as much to do with the Earth rotating or not as which side of an egg points up. If you must insist on continuously bringing it up, at least bring up some experimental records, or something falsifiable. I'm really getting to dislike this Focault...
is it that now that it is becoming clear this is not possible that you decide every focault's pendulum ever built is a lie and a hoax, all experimental data are forgeries, and only you and zone have the true knowledge of physics?
how about you build one yourself and come back to us in a week or so with the results? i walk past one 5 days a week. want picures?
i'm sorry, but IIRC in an earlier thread on the same subject, you are espousing a flat earth. before that you were claiming the earth is hollow and the universe is inside it. have you been brought around to spherical now? with us living on the surface?
i guess i am wrong to think you would be consistent in your beliefs.
guess why clouds move at different speeds in the atmosphere.
you don't trust NASA, you don't trust video, you don't trust written records, you don't trust your own eyes, you don't trust logic and reason, you don't trust any "scientist," you don't trust any pendulum, you don't trust a map, you don't trust ...
why aren't you out there doing experiments for yourself instead of in your armchair saying anything that doesn't agree with your worldview is a forgery and a hoax?
again, go build a pendulum, build it well, watch it for a few days, tell us what the rate of precession is, then explain why it is precessing. then you don't have to trust any one of the millions of foucault's pendulums other people have built. then you don't have to trust your obscure conspiracy theory websites and you-tube videos. you can trust what you actually see and do.
when you stick your head out of a "moving car" is the air rushing past or are you rushing past the air?
what is in space that would exert a force on the atmosphere?
what keeps the atmosphere from blowing off a stationary earth if the universe is rotating around it?
when you throw a baseball, why doesn't it just keep going?
you are hip to very old Greek models of the universe. are you also hip to very old Greek models of teaching?