Hi Calminian, I am not really sure what you are asking. It is not akin. Fusion is the nuclear reaction that powers the sun. When you are looking at the full moon you are simply looking at daylight on the moon, the same as on earth. You may have noticed that during a crescent moon you can still make out the part of the moon that's in shadow. That's because the earth also reflects light back at the moon itself. If you were standing on the shadowed portion of the moon and looking up at a full earth your surroundings would appear bright as you would be bathed in earth-light.
Light -> Sun in Genesis.
- Thread starter Channa
- 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.
C
There are no young earth creationists that disagree with you about this, and there's nothing in scripture that disputes why the moon gives off the light it does. The ancients certainly understood the concept of reflection, and may well have known even then the mechanisms of the moon's light.
But even today, modern astrophysicists will use terms like moonlight in normal everyday conversations. It is entirely accurate to call a reflecting object a source of light, even though it is a secondary source. I'm just hoping this isn't somehow stumbling your faith in the inerrancy of scripture.
But even today, modern astrophysicists will use terms like moonlight in normal everyday conversations. It is entirely accurate to call a reflecting object a source of light, even though it is a secondary source. I'm just hoping this isn't somehow stumbling your faith in the inerrancy of scripture.
Ah indeed, this is the figure typically cited by modern theorists.
And this is how they are wrong. If we assume the earth is spinning at 1,000 mph there should be a constant wind near this speed coming from one direction. Yet on some days there is no wind at all, and of course on days there is wind the wind can come from various directions, not one uniform direction.
To make a comparison a Category 5 hurricane has sustained winds of about 150 mph. So at the equator you should have a constant wind about 7 times that of a category 5 hurricane. In theory, at your latitude you are spinning 700 mph, you should have a constant wind about 4-5 times that of a category 5 hurricane. Yet, in reality some days there is no wind, and on days there is wind, there has never been a wind close to this speed.
So it is very simple, the earth does not spin.
And this is how they are wrong. If we assume the earth is spinning at 1,000 mph there should be a constant wind near this speed coming from one direction. Yet on some days there is no wind at all, and of course on days there is wind the wind can come from various directions, not one uniform direction.
To make a comparison a Category 5 hurricane has sustained winds of about 150 mph. So at the equator you should have a constant wind about 7 times that of a category 5 hurricane. In theory, at your latitude you are spinning 700 mph, you should have a constant wind about 4-5 times that of a category 5 hurricane. Yet, in reality some days there is no wind, and on days there is wind, there has never been a wind close to this speed.
So it is very simple, the earth does not spin.
I believe it is a mistake to assume that in antiquity and earlier, particularly during the Bronze Age (which is the period from which I believe Genesis is derived) that anyone understood as we do that the moon shines by reflected sunlight. Too many from that era (among the most advanced cultures then on earth) believed the moon was a god for any of us to have the mistaken belief that anyone back then understood cosmology as we do.
Simply putting the creation of the sun, moon and stars four days after the creation of light is enough to show me scripture is not scientifically accurate. The real problem though is that Genesis presents a view of cosmology that reflects, not our modern understanding, but the view held by the Babylonians. Read carefully though it and you will see that the picture Genesis gives is the universe as a 'snow globe'. You've seen them before. They are for sale in novelty shops.
Simply putting the creation of the sun, moon and stars four days after the creation of light is enough to show me scripture is not scientifically accurate. The real problem though is that Genesis presents a view of cosmology that reflects, not our modern understanding, but the view held by the Babylonians. Read carefully though it and you will see that the picture Genesis gives is the universe as a 'snow globe'. You've seen them before. They are for sale in novelty shops.
Yet another problem with the notion that the Moon's light comes from reflected sunlight:
If we assume the Earth is larger than the Moon and we assume the earth is a spheroid; how then can the Moon reflect sunlight if the earth is blocking the sun at night? If moonlight were simply reflected sunlight then at night when the sun is on the other side of the earth, then the moon should not be visible ever in the night sky.
The modern scientific theory to explain this is that the moon is at about a 5 degree angle above the earth's orbital plane and thus sunlight could still reach the Moon. The only problem with this however is that would mean the Moon would only be visible in the northern hemisphere but not the southern hemisphere. Yet the same moon in the same phases can be seen in both north and south hemispheres at the same time. Therefore the only reasonable conclusion can be that the moonlight is not a reflection of the sun, but rather that the moon is made of some sort of luminous material.
If we assume the Earth is larger than the Moon and we assume the earth is a spheroid; how then can the Moon reflect sunlight if the earth is blocking the sun at night? If moonlight were simply reflected sunlight then at night when the sun is on the other side of the earth, then the moon should not be visible ever in the night sky.
The modern scientific theory to explain this is that the moon is at about a 5 degree angle above the earth's orbital plane and thus sunlight could still reach the Moon. The only problem with this however is that would mean the Moon would only be visible in the northern hemisphere but not the southern hemisphere. Yet the same moon in the same phases can be seen in both north and south hemispheres at the same time. Therefore the only reasonable conclusion can be that the moonlight is not a reflection of the sun, but rather that the moon is made of some sort of luminous material.
New American Standard Bible 1 Corinthians 12:6
There are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons. (This is saying whatever the wind blows them towards, or to each its own way God works in them, but still going in the same direction.)
Fundamentalist Christian is sort of a person or a sect that does reject certain others perceptions of the scriptures because their perceptions are different, because anyone that is born of the spirit can flow at any direction, at any time. But if you feel to categorize me as a Liberal Christian, then go ahead, but I really believe that we aren't suppose to categorize Christians, because we are suppose to be one. But dividing up the house will cause the house to fall its says, and it also says that those that doesn't gather, are scattering and which that is not God's will.
There are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons. (This is saying whatever the wind blows them towards, or to each its own way God works in them, but still going in the same direction.)
Fundamentalist Christian is sort of a person or a sect that does reject certain others perceptions of the scriptures because their perceptions are different, because anyone that is born of the spirit can flow at any direction, at any time. But if you feel to categorize me as a Liberal Christian, then go ahead, but I really believe that we aren't suppose to categorize Christians, because we are suppose to be one. But dividing up the house will cause the house to fall its says, and it also says that those that doesn't gather, are scattering and which that is not God's will.
Strange! Humans Glow in Visible Light
A photon is an elementary particle, the quantum of light and all other forms of electromagnetic radiation, and the force carrier for theelectromagnetic force, even when static via virtual photons. The effects of this force are easily observable at both the microscopicand macroscopic level, because the photon has zero rest mass; this allows long distance interactions. Like all elementary particles, photons are currently best explained by quantum mechanics and exhibit wave–particle duality, exhibiting properties of both wavesand particles. For example, a single photon may be refracted by a lens or exhibit wave interference with itself, but also act as a particle giving a definite result when its position is measured. Photon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Orb artifacts are captured during low-light instances where the camera's flash is used, such as at night or underwater—or where a bright light source is near the camera.[SUP][citation needed][/SUP]
The artifacts are especially common with compact or ultra-compact cameras, where the short distance between the lens and the built-in flash decreases the angle of light reflection to the lens, directly illuminating the aspect of the particles facing the lens and increasing the camera's ability to capture the light reflected off normally sub-visible particles.[SUP][1][/SUP]
The orb artifact can result from retroreflection of light off solid particles (e.g., dust, pollen), liquid particles (water droplets, especially rain) or other foreign material within the camera lens.[SUP][1] Orb (optics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[/SUP]I believe that the lights in the beginning are different from the light that comes from the sun. This light we are so use of seeing it, that we doesn't comprehend it; but some claims that they see people walking about surrounded with a aura of different colors, but I does know that the light blue light keep, like from your laptop or phone, makes it hard for a person to fall asleep at night. Because it is something about the light blue light, it might be the color that gives us life. I noticed that the earth gives off a light blue tint of light as the full moon does as well, and which it is known that the full moon keeps us wired up at night. And so science should do a little more research about this light blue light.
Some folk stories and superstitions hold that a full moon affects people's sleep, and new research lends support to this idea.
In the study, researchers found that people slept for 20 to 25 minutes less on average on nights with a full moon, compared with how long they slept on nights with a quarter moon.
The people in the study also said they had more trouble falling asleep during the full moon than the quarter moon, according to the results, published July 8 in the journal Current Biology. Full moon looms large over your sleep - CBS News
C
But your conclusion is based on the assumption that the Bible is wrong and that early man was primitive. Looking at the Genesis record, these men of antiquity were our superior ancestors. They didn't have our technology nor resources, especially after the Flood, but they lived much longer and were much smarter. We see glimpses of this in magalith structures found all over the world, including submerged structures showing ancient man was busy at work right after the Flood during the ice age when ocean levels were lower. We see it in the pyramids, which boggle the minds of even modern engineers.
I recommend the book: The Genius of Ancient Man, by Don Landis
And the bronze age actually occurred before the Flood, as the early descendants of Cain were proficient in metal technology. After the flood it may have lapsed again, having the typography of the earth totally rearranged.
Keep in mind also, Egypt, Greece and Ethiopia were among the post-diluvian grandsons of Noah (Gen. 10). These were the men that founded those ancient civilizations, according to the Bible. But again, you've chosen to believe other historical records over the Bible.
Total myth. There is nothing in Genesis that remotely lends itself to solid dome cosmology. This theory has been propagated by Paul Seely, Denise Lamoureux and others and is based on a pathetically poor exegesis of the terms raqiya and shamayim. The theory is easily refuted once you accept the definitions of these words, expressly given by God, Himself, in Gen. 1.
Here's a good article that goes into detail in this. Does Genesis teach solid-dome cosmology?
But I'm actually well versed on this issue. Tell me what convinced you the Bible teaches solid dome cosmology. In fact, I'd invite you to start a new thread.
I recommend the book: The Genius of Ancient Man, by Don Landis
And the bronze age actually occurred before the Flood, as the early descendants of Cain were proficient in metal technology. After the flood it may have lapsed again, having the typography of the earth totally rearranged.
Keep in mind also, Egypt, Greece and Ethiopia were among the post-diluvian grandsons of Noah (Gen. 10). These were the men that founded those ancient civilizations, according to the Bible. But again, you've chosen to believe other historical records over the Bible.
Total myth. There is nothing in Genesis that remotely lends itself to solid dome cosmology. This theory has been propagated by Paul Seely, Denise Lamoureux and others and is based on a pathetically poor exegesis of the terms raqiya and shamayim. The theory is easily refuted once you accept the definitions of these words, expressly given by God, Himself, in Gen. 1.
Here's a good article that goes into detail in this. Does Genesis teach solid-dome cosmology?
But I'm actually well versed on this issue. Tell me what convinced you the Bible teaches solid dome cosmology. In fact, I'd invite you to start a new thread.
Last edited by a moderator:
R
this seems pretty simple to me...you are assuming the sun and moon and stars are the only possible sources of life...but there is no reason to make that assumption...especially when we are talking about divine creation...
i can't be certain about what that light source actually was for the first three days...but i do know that some creation scientists believe that it was light produced by nuclear fusion of the water God created in the beginning into all of the chemical elements in the universe...
i can't be certain about what that light source actually was for the first three days...but i do know that some creation scientists believe that it was light produced by nuclear fusion of the water God created in the beginning into all of the chemical elements in the universe...
1
It's in reference to a concept I introduced here.
http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/99734-light-sun-genesis-2.html#post1700020
http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/99734-light-sun-genesis-2.html#post1700020
C
A new thread has been started here:
Does the Bible teach ancient solid-dome cosmology?
Does the Bible teach ancient solid-dome cosmology?
Your arguments do not take a number of things into account.
The Equator Water Experiment - YouTube watch water drain counter clockwise in southern hemisphere, clockwise in northern, and straight down at equator.
SNIPER 101 Part 73 - Coriolis Effects on Rifle Bullets - YouTube watch a long distance sniper explain how you have to take the rotation of the earth into account if you are to have any chance of hitting your target.
A ball dropped from a height of 520 feet departs by 1.08 inches from the vertical. There are many other empirical tests for the rotation of the earth. You will find a bunch of them at Earth's rotation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Sorry, GIS, it's not really a good use of my time to counter each of your points. If you really do believe the earth is motionless there are are all kinds of sites you can visit to set yourself straight. I spent some time locating the two links above and these alone should convince you. There is also the matter of of the ball dropped from 520 feet always drifting by a set amount in a set direction.
What is it you are trying to achieve? Are you demonstrating the strength of your faith by rejecting everything about modern science? Do you have a belief that the Bible says earth is stationary?
The Equator Water Experiment - YouTube watch water drain counter clockwise in southern hemisphere, clockwise in northern, and straight down at equator.
SNIPER 101 Part 73 - Coriolis Effects on Rifle Bullets - YouTube watch a long distance sniper explain how you have to take the rotation of the earth into account if you are to have any chance of hitting your target.
A ball dropped from a height of 520 feet departs by 1.08 inches from the vertical. There are many other empirical tests for the rotation of the earth. You will find a bunch of them at Earth's rotation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Sorry, GIS, it's not really a good use of my time to counter each of your points. If you really do believe the earth is motionless there are are all kinds of sites you can visit to set yourself straight. I spent some time locating the two links above and these alone should convince you. There is also the matter of of the ball dropped from 520 feet always drifting by a set amount in a set direction.
What is it you are trying to achieve? Are you demonstrating the strength of your faith by rejecting everything about modern science? Do you have a belief that the Bible says earth is stationary?
I have a belief common sense and reason says the earth is stationary. I noticed you cannot refute my single point that if the earth is spinning on its axis at the speeds you claim it is there ought to be winds greater than a category 5 hurricane every day from one constant direction. (And that is without even going into the much more absurd claims that the earth travels 65,000 mph around the sun)
Nevertheless:
Coriolis rebutted with simple science experiment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kekbR9kToj8
[video=youtube;kekbR9kToj8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kekbR9kToj8[/video]
Nevertheless:
Coriolis rebutted with simple science experiment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kekbR9kToj8
[video=youtube;kekbR9kToj8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kekbR9kToj8[/video]
When the sun, earth and moon line-up we observe a lunar eclipse. Every year there are at least two and as many as five.
You have not explained what you think causes the lunar phases. If not the sun then what is it? Note that for an eclipse to occur there must be a full Moon. If the Moon shines by its own light, as you claim, then eclipses should occur in all phases. They do not.
I don't know why I am arguing this. No one here but you believes this.
You don't understand. Earth's shadow is quite narrow. The Sun's angular diameter in the sky is about the same as the Moon, though sometimes one or the other is larger. Five degrees is plenty to illuminate the Moon and make it visible from both hemispheres.
Of course it is visible from both hemispheres and of course it is seen in the same phase. Mercury and Venus are seen in the same phase as well from both hemispheres.
That's not what the Moon rocks show, but then you probably don't believe in Moon rocks.
By the way. Do you believe the world is flat?
Also, why do you think Mercury and Venus go through phases but not the outer planets?
You have not explained what you think causes the lunar phases. If not the sun then what is it? Note that for an eclipse to occur there must be a full Moon. If the Moon shines by its own light, as you claim, then eclipses should occur in all phases. They do not.
I don't know why I am arguing this. No one here but you believes this.
You don't understand. Earth's shadow is quite narrow. The Sun's angular diameter in the sky is about the same as the Moon, though sometimes one or the other is larger. Five degrees is plenty to illuminate the Moon and make it visible from both hemispheres.
Of course it is visible from both hemispheres and of course it is seen in the same phase. Mercury and Venus are seen in the same phase as well from both hemispheres.
That's not what the Moon rocks show, but then you probably don't believe in Moon rocks.
By the way. Do you believe the world is flat?
Also, why do you think Mercury and Venus go through phases but not the outer planets?
"The "Scientific American" suggests "it should happen, theoretically" ....that is, coriolos "forces" SHOULD effect water rotation, but may not given other influencing factors
So let the "Engineering American" tell you what I have observed:
I am a controls engineer. I have traveled to Perth and Melbourne several times a year since 2001. And without knowing this was a controversial topic, I paid attention to the direction of water rotation in the "dunnies," showers and sinks in Oz.
Recently, one of my son's 12-yr old friends told my son that water rotation was unaffected....that this theory was bunk. And so I decided to make videos of what I had observed hundreds of times before in the past
Namely this: that the water draining down toilets, bathtubs and sinks in Oz, at least as far south of the equator as Perth (31 deg S) and Melbourne (37 deg S), rotates CLOCKWISE. The rotation effect develops more quickly in Melbourne and is easier to observe. Perform the same experiment at least 32 deg north of the equator in the US and you will see water rotate COUNTERCLOCKWISE.
Either there is a bathroom fixture manufacturer conspiracy at play here, or water rotation IS affected. You decide!"
Can somebody finally settle this question: Does water flowing down a drain spin in different directions depending on which hemisphere you're in? And if so, why? - Scientific American
So let the "Engineering American" tell you what I have observed:
I am a controls engineer. I have traveled to Perth and Melbourne several times a year since 2001. And without knowing this was a controversial topic, I paid attention to the direction of water rotation in the "dunnies," showers and sinks in Oz.
Recently, one of my son's 12-yr old friends told my son that water rotation was unaffected....that this theory was bunk. And so I decided to make videos of what I had observed hundreds of times before in the past
Namely this: that the water draining down toilets, bathtubs and sinks in Oz, at least as far south of the equator as Perth (31 deg S) and Melbourne (37 deg S), rotates CLOCKWISE. The rotation effect develops more quickly in Melbourne and is easier to observe. Perform the same experiment at least 32 deg north of the equator in the US and you will see water rotate COUNTERCLOCKWISE.
Either there is a bathroom fixture manufacturer conspiracy at play here, or water rotation IS affected. You decide!"
Can somebody finally settle this question: Does water flowing down a drain spin in different directions depending on which hemisphere you're in? And if so, why? - Scientific American