So...how old is the Earth?

  • 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.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Arel

Banned
Sep 25, 2009
288
0
0
I'm a very highly religious person myself...and the disparaging comments toward science (mainly by Cup) are disturbing :eek:
 

Arel

Banned
Sep 25, 2009
288
0
0
Yes it failed because it set out to prove a moving earth, no experiment has ever proved a moving earth, it fact the opposite is the known result. (And don't even bother with Focault's Pendulum trick)
You are far behind the times. Galileo alone proved that the solar system is heliocentric and that the earth does, in fact, revolve around the sun.

You just hold to the false geocentric ideals of the church during his day.
 
C

Cup-of-Ruin

Guest
I'm a very highly religious person myself...and the disparaging comments toward science (mainly by Cup) are disturbing :eek:
"Science falsely called"
 
C

Cup-of-Ruin

Guest
You are far behind the times. Galileo alone proved that the solar system is heliocentric and that the earth does, in fact, revolve around the sun.
Galileo was a fraud, he repented.

You just hold to the false geocentric ideals of the church during his day.
No I will hold to the geocentric model of the Bible.
 
Jul 29, 2009
138
1
0
The experiment did not set out to prove a moving earth.

It set out to prove the existence of a physical medium through which light travels, which we know is not the case.

Of course the experiment failed, it set out to prove the existence of something that does not exist, regardless of the earth being in motion or not, it would fail.

Not even the original conclusions of the experiment suggested a geocentric universe.

Long story short: You're citing a bunch of superseded scientific theory that doesn't mean diddly squat.

Lets have a 'flat earth' geography lesson next. You can be the teacher, since you know so much and we are all so ignorant.
 

Arel

Banned
Sep 25, 2009
288
0
0
"Science falsely called"
It is not "falsely called" science.

Galileo was a fraud, he repented.
You don't know your history, do you? His only fraud WAS his repentance. He repented so that they would not execute him. Because he repented, they put him under house arrest, where he continued to write books about his discoveries until the day he died, something he would not have been able to do had he not pretended to repent.
 
C

Cup-of-Ruin

Guest
It is not "falsely called" science.



You don't know your history, do you? His only fraud WAS his repentance. He repented so that they would not execute him. Because he repented, they put him under house arrest, where he continued to write books about his discoveries until the day he died, something he would not have been able to do had he not pretended to repent.
So he is liar.
 
Jul 29, 2009
138
1
0
The fact that he lied in order to save his life from Christian persecution has no weight in this discussion.

What does is the fact that you have not responded to my post that shot your ideas down.
 
Jul 29, 2009
138
1
0
He lied to protect the truth. Ironic, but honorable.
Without question it was honorable. One cannot share the truth of the universe from the grave. A lie to ensure that he would be able to teach those that came after him? Worth it in my eyes, and most certainly forgivable in the eyes of a just God....
 
C

Cup-of-Ruin

Guest
The experiment did not set out to prove a moving earth.

It set out to prove the existence of a physical medium through which light travels, which we know is not the case.

Of course the experiment failed, it set out to prove the existence of something that does not exist, regardless of the earth being in motion or not, it would fail.

Not even the original conclusions of the experiment suggested a geocentric universe.

Long story short: You're citing a bunch of superseded scientific theory that doesn't mean diddly squat.

Lets have a 'flat earth' geography lesson next. You can be the teacher, since you know so much and we are all so ignorant.
M/M expected to measure different speeds of light in each direction, they found no discernable fringes indicating speed in any orientation or at any position of the earth if it was subject to annual orbit around the Sun. Of course the earth is stationary. "The earth is stablished so it cannot move"
 
C

Cup-of-Ruin

Guest
He lied to protect the truth. Ironic, but honorable.
Well that is what you believe, lying is honourable?, but that is exactly what I would expect from you.
 
C

Cup-of-Ruin

Guest
Without question it was honorable. One cannot share the truth of the universe from the grave. A lie to ensure that he would be able to teach those that came after him? Worth it in my eyes, and most certainly forgivable in the eyes of a just God....
He lied, he repented, then lied again, like a dog returning to it's own vomit.
 
Jul 29, 2009
138
1
0
M/M expected to measure different speeds of light in each direction, they found no discernable fringes indicating speed in any orientation or at any position of the earth if it was subject to annual orbit around the Sun. Of course the earth is stationary. "The earth is stablished so it cannot move"
That does not prove that the earth to be stationary, it simply proves the their 'Aether' does not exist.

Which we know to be God-given fact at this point, having spent a considerable amount of time outside of our own atmosphere.

You're making absurd conclusions.

'Argument from fallacy'

If A, then B
A is a fallacy
Therefor, B is false.

That's not how things work.
 
Jul 29, 2009
138
1
0
Well that is what you believe, lying is honourable?, but that is exactly what I would expect from you.
Drop the guise of civility, just call him a Jew already.

Yes it is honorable, if it means the preservation of an ULTIMATE TRUTH, one that God would certainly appreciate being shared with those he loves so dearly.
 
C

Cup-of-Ruin

Guest
That does not prove that the earth to be stationary, it simply proves the their 'Aether' does not exist.
No movement, earth stationary, is there something you don't understand about that, it's either one or the other.

Which we know to be God-given fact at this point, having spent a considerable amount of time outside of our own atmosphere.
LOL, you cannot go past the VanAllen radiation belts, except in the movies.

You're making absurd conclusions.
No, i'm stating truth.
 
C

Cup-of-Ruin

Guest
Drop the guise of civility, just call him a Jew already.

Yes it is honorable, if it means the preservation of an ULTIMATE TRUTH, one that God would certainly appreciate being shared with those he loves so dearly.
Lying is preserving truth???? oxymoron.
 

Arel

Banned
Sep 25, 2009
288
0
0
Well that is what you believe, lying is honourable?, but that is exactly what I would expect from you.
Dispense with the insults for a moment and think, hm? Imagine yourself in the late 1930s, early 1940s. You live in Berlin and are hiding some Jews in your house. The Gestapo comes banging on your door and asks if you are hiding Jews.

What do you do? Do you lie and save the lives of the Jews in your home? Or do you tell the truth and sign their death warrant?
 
Jul 29, 2009
138
1
0
No movement, earth stationary, is there something you don't understand about that, it's either one or the other.



LOL, you cannot go past the VanAllen radiation belts, except in the movies.



No, i'm stating truth.
Well, with that remark regarding the Van Allen radiation belts, I now know you don't know a thing regarding astronomy or space travel.

I can now officially disregard anything you say on the matter, and I strongly encourage other forum members to do the same.

I'll bet you think the moon landing was filmed in Hollywood, too.

What other crazy conspiracies do you appeal to? I love hearing you guys go on about that kind of stuff...
 
C

Cup-of-Ruin

Guest
Well, with that remark regarding the Van Allen radiation belts, I now know you don't know a thing regarding astronomy or space travel.

I can now officially disregard anything you say on the matter, and I strongly encourage other forum members to do the same.

I'll bet you think the moon landing was filmed in Hollywood, too.

What other crazy conspiracies do you appeal to? I love hearing you guys go on about that kind of stuff...
Of course the moon landing was faked, do you really believe astronauts did burn outs and donuts in moon buggies on the lunar surface? LOL, you're easy to fool.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.