[_ Old Earth _] the sun orbits the earth?

[Strangelove]

You are quite entitled to believe what you like. As you appear to believe that virtually all cosmology and the data that supports it are nothing more than a part of some global-spanning, satanic-led conspiracy, nothing I can show you will serve any purpose. If you prefer Late Bronze Age pre-scientific mythology (um...no, the Bible) to the understanding and Knowledge of the Enlightenment (Assumption based, theoretical science falsely so called), then that is your privilege and your loss.

Oh what? Dont tell me your giving up on me? Boo hoo.

But you cant possibly let all this "bunk, woo, junk science, nonsense and counterknowledge" go left unchallenged can you?

This doesn't look like anything like an account that explains the referred to observations in terms of a stationary Earth.

Indeed. I've stopped repeating myself and am now just amused by your continuous circular self deception.

You can add in anything you like, but simply stating that X provides proof of something is not the same as showing that X provides proof of that something.

LOLZ!

X = Assumption that Sun orbits the Earth in theoretical parallax observation.

Something = Assumption that Sun orbits the Earth

"X" (assumption) provides proof of "something" (assumption) = Circular reasoning!

Has the penny dropped yet Kalvan?

So theoretical science is what? A complete and utter waste of time, effort and resources? (YES!) Go tell the medical profession.(Huh? How does the medical profession directly apply theoretical science?) You're not an engineer by any chance, are you?

Engineer? Um...... Definition : The application of scientific and mathematical principles to practical ends.

Ok I'll roll with that. Thanks!

 

[lordkalvan]

To me you appear to inhabit an all too common gullible, overly trustful world. Trustful in manmade pseudo-science. Continue sleeping if you wish.

And yet none of your arguments to this effect bears very much scrutiny.

Lolz....have these visible objects been accidentally covered over with the computer graphics?

As you are well-aware, the graphics show (a) the features being referred to and (b) demonstrate the techniques used in analysis. As you are also undoubtedly well-aware, the photographs can be viewed on line without the explanatory and analytical computer graphics. Your point is, at best, a red herring and, at worst, deceitful.

 

[lordkalvan]

Thanks for bumping the headline!

Glad to be of service in pointing up woo.

 

[lordkalvan]

um...no, the Bible

Umm...yes, the Bible.

Assumption based, theoretical science falsely so called.

You mean in contrast to all your own assumptions?

Oh what? Dont tell me your giving up on me?

There's nothing to give up on.

But you cant possibly let all this "bunk, woo, junk science, nonsense and counterknowledge" go left unchallenged can you?

You may have noticed that I haven't.

Indeed. I've stopped repeating myself and am now just amused by your continuous circular self deception.

Well, I'm sure you believe this, but you have still neither shown that you understand what circular reasoning is nor have you offered any reasoned explanation to account for the observed data according to a geocentric viewpoint.

LOLZ!

X = Assumption that Sun orbits the Earth in theoretical parallax observation.

Something = Assumption that Sun orbits the Earth

"X" (assumption) provides proof of "something" (assumption) = Circular reasoning!

Has the penny dropped yet Kalvan?

You just continue to demonstrate that you don't understand that a hypothesis is something different from an assumption and that the data derived from observations of stellar parallax is independent of that hypothesis that is being tested, just like testing the claims of a clairvoyant card reader are independent of the hypothesis that s/he is actually clairvoyant (or not).

Engineer? Um...... Definition : The application of scientific and mathematical principles to practical ends.

Ok I'll roll with that. Thanks!

I'll take that as a yes.

 

[Strangelove]

As you are well-aware, the graphics show (a) the features being referred to and (b) demonstrate the techniques used in analysis. As you are also undoubtedly well-aware, the photographs can be viewed on line without the explanatory and analytical computer graphics. Your point is, at best, a red herring and, at worst, deceitful.

So....can you post the pictures that dont have the overlaid graphics so we can see all the landing equipment and wotnot?

Thanks ever so much.

 

[Strangelove]

the data derived from observations of stellar parallax is independent of that hypothesis that is being tested

You seriously dont get it do you?

Here it is one more time::::::::::::

Data derived from observations of stellar parallax = Is obtained by assuming the Earth orbits the Sun.

IS TOTALLY DEPENDANT ON:

hypothesis that is being tested = Assumption that Earth orbits the Sun

Heres the schematic again. Look at the bottom where the Earth is assumed to be orbiting the sun! Duh!

Hello? Earth to Kalvan? Are you recieving?

 

[lordkalvan]

You seriously dont get it do you?

Here it is one more time::::::::::::

Data derived from observations of stellar parallax = Is obtained by assuming the Earth orbits the Sun.

IS TOTALLY DEPENDANT ON:

hypothesis that is being tested = Assumption that Earth orbits the Sun

Heres the schematic again. Look at the bottom where the Earth is assumed to be orbiting the sun! Duh!

Hello? Earth to Kalvan? Are you recieving?

You seriously don't get it either, do you. The hypothesis being tested is demonstrated by the data observed and measured. There is no assumption built into the collection of the data: an inference is drawn from that data (observed and measured parallax) that either supports the hypothesis (Earth orbits the Sun) or doesn't support it (Earth doesn't orbit the Sun). The fact that this inference is supported by other observations and measurements independent of stellar parallax (stellar aberration, Doppler effect and the orbits of other non-stellar objects in this and other solar systems - I am assuming that you agree Earth is a non-stellar object, an assumption in this case that I am happy to acknowledge as such) provides a consilience of evidence that makes the inference drawn from measurements of stellar parallax more robust. The schematic you most simply illustrates the inference drawn from the observed data. Duh, indeed. I still suspect you may be a poe, by the way, in which case my congratulations on a job well done.

 

[lordkalvan]

So....can you post the pictures that dont have the overlaid graphics so we can see all the landing equipment and wotnot?

Thanks ever so much.

Here you go (again):

 

[Strangelove]

COMPROMISED CREATIONISM

Let us say right up front that the modern creationism movement has been a great
blessing to the world. Since the publication of The Genesis Flood by Whitcomb & Morris,
a large and productive world-wide network of truly Biblical scientists has arisen.

However, the mainstream creationists have completely dropped the ball when it comes
to the science of astronomy. By their acceptance of the heliocentric error, they
undermine the very things that they have worked so hard to demonstrate. This expose
gives us no pleasure, but it is the truth as we find it in God's Word.

As has been shown above, the Bible clearly teaches geocentrism. How do modern
creationists get around this? By using the same argument used by theistic evolutionists!
Whatever you don't like in Scripture is mere poetry - or worse, the misunderstanding of
"primitive" peoples.

Perhaps no living creationist is more well known than Ken Ham of the ministry Answers In
Genesis. I have heard his fine lectures on several occassions. One
point that Mr. Ham emphasizes is the sufficiency of Scripture. He quotes, with
disapproval, a soft evangelical theologian who admits that his theistic evolution requires
"hermeneutical considerations suggested by science". As we have seen above, the
greatest minds of all time - Luther, Calvin, Gillespie - each failed to find heliocentrism
in the Bible. It took the external suggestions of evil men, and then the clearly
geocentric passages were dismissed as "poetry".

An article in AIG's excellent magazine Creation showed how John Calvin held the same
exigetical positions as the modern creationism movement. However, the author
neglected to mention that the precise and stern exegete was also a geocentrist.

Johannes Kepler was a warlock and was excommunicated from the Lutheran Church. Yet
the AIG website praises him as a Christian. The bio of Kepler admits that he practiced
astrology - then justifies him by an appeal to medieval ignorance! "With such
present-day knowledge, legitimate conclusions based on the science of astronomy can
be distinguished from unfounded claims based on astrology. However, in Kepler's day
there was considerable confusion both in the general community and in universities
regarding the distinction between astronomy and astrology. With their limited
knowledge of the movements of the heavenly bodies, scientists were unsure which
events on earth were affected by events observed in the heavens, and which were not."

This is not only hogwash; it is deconstructionism worthy of Tillich or Bultmann. God in
His Word clearly and repeatedly condemns the mediums and astrologers. His laws would
have been unfair if even the scholars couldn't seperate real science from astrology. The
Bible is not a collection of fallable errors held by ignorant "primitives". It is the perfect
word of God.

So much for AIG. Oberserving God's World, the 6th grade science text from Pensacola
Christian College (A Beka Book), is also painfully heliocentric. It declares that "The sun
rules our solar system." (pg. 41). Really? Where did God go? The text goes on to state
that "Until about three centuries ago ... men believed that the sun traveled around the
earth. How could they know anything else?" (pp.41-2). Perhaps by reading their Bibles,
which are clear enough! Next we learn that Egyptian and Chinese geocentrism were
"typical of man's misconceptions" (pg. 41). The self-sufficient Bible is infallible in all
matters; it is not a record of ancient myths and legends. Heliocentrist Christians are
embarrassed about the Bible.


crownofchrist.net/geocentrism.html

 

[Strangelove]

* There is no proof that the Earth rotates on an "axis" daily and orbits the sun annually. None.

* All calculations for eclipses, the space program, navigation, satellite movements - anything that demands precision and accuracy - are based on a non-moving Earth. Boiled down, heliocentric math is the same as Geocentric [ also called Geostatic ] math.

* NO EXPERIMENT HAS SHOWN THE EARTH TO BE MOVING (much less at 32 times rifle bullet speed [ 66,600 mph = 100 mph x 666!!! ] in solar orbit and at 250 times RBS around a galaxy.

* Multiple experiments have shown the Earth to be stationary.

* Revisionist history reveals the roles that Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Sagan et al have played in foisting this LIE on mankind.

* The logic against a moving Earth is overpowering.


* Star speeds are not a problem when the thickness of the universe is seen to be what it really is, that is, LESS than half a light day thick (eight billion mile radius).

* NASA's space program is labeled "Origins Research" and costs taxpayers mega-bucks. Computerized telescopes are programmed to send back "synthesized images". The "image warper" permits "geometric transformations" while "origins technology...... configures the multiple small mirrors......" in these telescopes. Talk about a con job!

* The Bible says The Earth is NOT Moving and cannot be moved. What'll it be folks? False science as the source of absolute truth...... or God's Word?

 

[Free]

The self-sufficient Bible is infallible in all
matters; it is not a record of ancient myths and legends. Heliocentrist Christians are
embarrassed about the Bible.

That says all anyone needs to know about that site.

Trustful in manmade pseudo-science.

And yet you're trusting in pseudo-theology. In no way does the Bible state the earth is the center of the universe nor is it ever even implied. Your whole position is based on a poor biblical interpretation and trying to push Scripture to become something it is clearly not, namely, a book of science. You are doing a great disservice to both Scripture and science.


lordkalvan,

Is it just me or does the shadow on the LM appear to be going in the opposite direction as the rest?

 

[Strangelove]

You seriously don't get it either, do you. The hypothesis being tested is demonstrated by the data observed and measured. (No it isn't, not unless you assume heliocentricity in the first place) There is no assumption built into the collection of the data: (you assume heliocentricity) an inference (means an assumption) is drawn from that data (observed and measured parallax) that either supports the hypothesis (Earth orbits the Sun) or doesn't support it (Earth doesn't orbit the Sun). The fact that this inference is supported by other observations and measurements independent of stellar parallax (stellar aberration, Doppler effect and the orbits of other non-stellar objects in this and other solar systems - (Theres no support) I am assuming that you agree Earth is a non-stellar object, an assumption in this case that I am happy to acknowledge as such) provides a consilience of evidence that makes the inference drawn from measurements of stellar parallax more robust. (about as robust as a wet paper bag) The schematic you most simply illustrates the inference drawn from the observed data. Duh, indeed. I still suspect you may be a poe (?), by the way, in which case my congratulations on a job well done. (uh thanks I guess?? Is a poe a truthteller?)

Heliocentricity is not logically plausible based on what is available without assuming that what you do not have is real. Your position makes no sense without assuming that heliocentricity is preferred first...... which is what everything that led up to and including today's model of heliocentricity was developed to prove in the first place. The problem is that nothing ever did prove heliocentricity without assuming that heliocentricity was the preferred conclusion to begin with, which is what it is trying to prove! Why is it so hard for you to grasp your arguments utter ridiculousness? Until you have observations and experience for Earth's movement your position is as plausible as aliens and abductions...... thus we should build our lives around the "fact" that they are the most reasonable and plausible explanation for all unknown phenomena!? Your arguments and examples are in fact examples, not of heliocentricity's plausibility, but rather foolishness of the highest order. Demonstrate or concede but don't use Geocentrism's evidence for heliocentricity by begging the question that heliocentricity is preferred...... because until you have that evidence for heliocentricity all the evidence supports Geocentrism without assuming anything. Starting with the very first observation ever made namely the sky is moving around you but you have no sensation of movement. All subsequent observations and experiments have been consistent with no movement of the Earth and not one has shown itself to be for heliocentricity without assuming heliocentricity is preferred first, which is the question you beg and the circular fallacy you without fail, must invoke!

 

[lordkalvan]

...lordkalvan,

Is it just me or does the shadow on the LM appear to be going in the opposite direction as the rest?

I don't think so. Assume for the sake of this point that lunar north is to the top of the photograph. The light is shining from the west and the western crater walls cast shadows eastwards, leaving the eastern interior edges of the craters in sunlight. The LEM shadow is clearly lying to the east of the LEM. That's my interpretation anyway.

 

[Strangelove]

And yet you're trusting in pseudo-theology. In no way does the Bible state the earth is the center of the universe nor is it ever even implied. Your whole position is based on a poor biblical interpretation and trying to push Scripture to become something it is clearly not, namely, a book of science. You are doing a great disservice to both Scripture and science.

You call belief that the the Word of God is correct in all matters pseudo-theology?

Saying the bible is Truth in all matters is a disservice?
Double

I think Earth at the centre of the universe is most certainly implied by the bible:

1) Heaven--God’s present location (throne room) at the very extremity of the third zone of the firmament--is only conceivable when considered from the vantage point of a stationary earth at the center of the universe.

2) God changes His location from that extremity of the third zone of the present Heaven in this first creation to a new location on the promised New Earth where it is stated that He will dwell with mankind eternally (Rev. 21:3). (Q.) But where is that New Earth to be located relevant to the New Heavens? (A.) The Center, just as in the Old Earth pattern.

3) We read that this old earth is dissolved and melts away (II Pet. 3:10-13), and that it flees away and is never seen again (Rev. 20:11) nor is even "remembered nor comes to mind" (Is. 65:17). So there is a certain place in these old heavens where this first earth is located in God’s "stage one" Plan for Eternity...before it is destroyed and removed from that location forever. (Q.) Where is that spot? (A.) Scripturally, the center of the universe.

4) John, The Revelator, said: "...I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away....And I, John, saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven...." (Rev. 21:1,2). (Q.) Down to where? (A.) The New Jerusalem that "comes down" rests on the ground of the New Earth in the same way the Old Jerusalem is built on the ground of this Old Earth. When the city "comes down out of heaven", the New Earth on which it sets comes with it. The statement that the New Earth with the New Jerusalem "comes down out of heaven", i.e., out of the most elevated part of the "heaven/ firmament" of the present structure, indicates that it is coming to the same structural location in the New Heavens as the old earth Biblically occupies in the present heavens (until it flees away and is forgotten: Rev. 20:11; Is. 65:17), i.e., the center of the (New) Universe.

5) "...Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself shall be with them, and be their God" (Rev. 21:3). (Q.) So, again, where is this eternal New Earth dwelling place of God and redeemed mankind located in the New Heavens? (A.) In the New Jerusalem on the New Earth in the center of the New Heavens.

6) For the New Jerusalem on the New Earth to be coming down out of the disappearing Old Heavens into the New Heavens means there is a point at the center where the New Earth has to stop lest it go right past the center and somewhere back into the firmament zone much like it occupied in the Old Earth system! So, does this New Earth stop coming down when it reaches the spot that is the precise and immovable center of the New Heavens? Well, Scripturally, logically, and probably electromagnetically, that is where it will stop and remain eternally. Scripturally, there is no detectable difference in the structure of the New Universe with its New Heavens and New Earth except that the eternal thrones of God the Father and Jesus the Son are moved from their location in the most elevated part of the 3rd heaven in this temporary universe to the center of the New Heavens in the eternal universe. This is the location that befits the Creators of this New Universe, New Earth, and New Jerusalem (Is. 65:17,18; 66:22; John 14:2), And, again, Scripturally, it differs from the old earth design only in the re-location of the New Jerusalem on the New Earth from its present "construction site" at the extremity of the 3rd heaven to the center of the eternal New Heavens (II Cor. 12:2,4; John 14:2; Is. 66:22). As noted, the scale of the New Earth and the New Heavens--as required by the obviously literal dimensions of the New Jerusalem: Rev.21:16,17--will doubtless be enormously larger).

7) Since this New Earth will be immovable at the center of the revolving moon and sun in the New Heavens (Is. 66:23), and since Jesus has been working on townhouse mansions in the New Jerusalem for the redeemed on that same New Earth (John 14:2,3), it is a Scriptural imperative that the relocation of the New Earth at the center will emulate the location of the old earth which Scripture placed at the center in the first creation (Gen. 1:1-16; Josh. 10:12)

 

[lordkalvan]

No it isn't, not unless you assume heliocentricity in the first place.

No.

you assume heliocentricity

No, again.

means an assumption

In this context, inference most certainly does not mean the same as assumption; it means a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning.

Theres no support

Yes, there is. Resistance is useless (to quote the Vogons).

about as robust as a wet paper bag

You can say it, but you can't show it.

uh thanks I guess?? Is a poe a truthteller?

Poe's Law was originally formulated by Nathan Poe in August 2005.... Nathan Poe summarized this pattern in his original formulation of the law:

'Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is utterly impossible to parody a Creationist in such a way that someone won't mistake for the genuine article.'

The law caught on and has since slowly leaked out as an internet meme. Over time it has been reformulated to include more than just creationist parody but rather any parody of fundamentalism, whether religious, secular, or totally bonkers.

Source: Poe's Law - RationalWiki

Heliocentricity is not logically plausible based on what is available without assuming that what you do not have is real. Your position makes no sense without assuming that heliocentricity is preferred first...... which is what everything that led up to and including today's model of heliocentricity was developed to prove in the first place. The problem is that nothing ever did prove heliocentricity without assuming that heliocentricity was the preferred conclusion to begin with, which is what it is trying to prove! Why is it so hard for you to grasp your arguments utter ridiculousness? Until you have observations and experience for Earth's movement your position is as plausible as aliens and abductions...... thus we should build our lives around the "fact" that they are the most reasonable and plausible explanation for all unknown phenomena!? Your arguments and examples are in fact examples, not of heliocentricity's plausibility, but rather foolishness of the highest order. Demonstrate or concede but don't use Geocentrism's evidence for heliocentricity by begging the question that heliocentricity is preferred...... because until you have that evidence for heliocentricity all the evidence supports Geocentrism without assuming anything. Starting with the very first observation ever made namely the sky is moving around you but you have no sensation of movement. All subsequent observations and experiments have been consistent with no movement of the Earth and not one has shown itself to be for heliocentricity without assuming heliocentricity is preferred first, which is the question you beg and the circular fallacy you without fail, must invoke!

Eh, in short, no. Black out the windows of your airliner. What tells you you are moving? Or look through the windows at the ground on a cloudless day and tell me what 'common sense' inputs tells you that the airliner is not stationary and the ground is not moving underneath you?

 

[Strangelove]

No.

Yes

No, again.

Yes


Lolz. Dont you just love forums. If we were in a room together we would no doubt be at eachothers throats by now!

In this context, inference most certainly does not mean the same as assumption; it means a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning.

Context makes no difference. Gonna have to give you a diction-slap again:

in·fer·ence

1. any process of reasoning from premises (assumptions) to a conclusion
2. a good guess
3. the process of deriving the strict logical consequences of assumed premises.

Yes, there is. Resistance is useless (to quote the Vogons).

No there isnt.

[A weak man's] Belief, like any other moving body follows the path of least resistance.
-Samuel Butler

Luckily I have the Bible.

You can say it, but you can't show it.

Ok heres a wet paper bag:

There. Happy?

Poe's Law was originally formulated by Nathan Poe ........

So.....?......?///////....You want me to put more emoticons in my posts?? I dont get it.

Eh, in short, no. Black out the windows of your airliner. What tells you you are moving?

You can feel the movement obviously!? Unless you wanna debunk the Vestibular system? :

Or look through the windows at the ground on a cloudless day and tell me what 'common sense' inputs tells you that the airliner is not stationary and the ground is not moving underneath you?

1) The feeling of movement
2) The common sense of the Bible that declares a stationary Earth.
3) The entire plane vibrating from the effects of inertia

 

[Sparkey]

As I have stated previously, I really do NOT have any dog in this fight.

To me, both positions can be demonstrated beyond my ability to discern.
I actually like this idea —but I like it from both sides.
When I took my position about "Young Earth Creationism" vs. "The Theories of Evolutions", stating, "I wasn't there" and therefor do not know, I was accused of 'copping out'.

But wait just a second here. The term 'copping out' means (demands) some pretext. I was not in fact there at the time of creation and have not directly heard from God what specific time period He meant when He used the term "YOM" in the first parts of Genesis.

Where is my pretext? What have I stolen? What bribe have I taken? What wrongdoing (sin) am I accused of? What other rhetorical question(s) can I come up with??? Oh, yes! I almost forgot, —where does my pretense, my arrogance show itself? Does not my statement, "I don't know" demonstrate humility and low-mindedness? Why hate me? Huh?

[The term] 'Cop out' was popularized in the 1960s and used as both a noun and a verb, especially in bad TV movies about hippies ("Hey man, joining the FBI is a cop out!"). But the first use of "cop out" seems to have come in the 1940s as a development of the "seize or take" sense of "cop." To "cop out" meant to confess and accept ("cop") a deal with the police. Since most such deals involve entering a guilty plea to legal charges, "copping out" in this sense is also known as "copping a plea." But the important point is that the "cop" involved in "cop out" is a verb meaning "to take," and not the police sort of "cop," although the two share a common source.

You might not like the fact that I am comfortable with waiting to know such things, but I am not pretending that I am something that I am not. Not pretending that I am God (or the voice of Science) nor that I know such things.

Having said this, and acknowledged the accusation that will be leveled against me (yet again), let me go on to say that to me? It's not necessarily a question of "one or the other". Neither side need be wrong for the other to be right even though there appears to be conflict between the two positions. To me, the "I am not certain" position is the only one that is entirely defensible. It is the only position in this thread that doesn't fall to the bifurcation (either/or, black or white) fallacy.

Question: Is it not possible for God to speak "from heavenly point of view" once and then later to speak from point of view earthly? Certainly there are an abundance of evidences to that effect. Any child who has read the bible can supply ample evidence for such.

Strange, in the past I've spoken of Faucault's Pendulum and my conclusion (which to me is obvious) that the earth spins. Let me now bring give a LINK that supports the other side (for those interested).

Four hundred years ago there raged a debate among the learned
men of Europe about whether or not the earth orbits the sun.
Until then, it was commonly accepted that the sun, moon, stars, and
planets were embedded in crystalline spheres centered on the earth.
In the debate, the Biblicists held that the sun goes around the earth
once a day as well as once a year; whereas, the secularists maintained
that the earth daily rotates on an axis and orbits the sun once
a year. This latter idea, called heliocentrism, held the sun to be at
the center of the universe. The modern view is that there is no center
to the universe.

The above was quoted from the Geocentricity Primer (160-page book in PDF format).

Strange, it's something you've probably read but was new to me during my course of research. Let me remind one and all then that trying to prove what is being taught is a more noble approach, one that is also biblical. It does no harm to attempt to prove your "opponent" to be correct. IN fact, oppositional debate and insisting on one's own way is contrary to what LOVE is. "Love does not insist on it's own way.

"Better [is] the end of a thing than the beginning thereof: [and] the patient in spirit [is] better than the proud in spirit.
[Ecclesiates 7:8 KJV]

We will be shown all things and will know even as we are known, that time has not yet come (from our perspective, that is ;) ).





~Sparrow

PS - those who have stayed in this thread and continue to follow really should take the time to read the PDF referenced above. It's easier to read than many of Strange's posts, certainly.

 

[Sparkey]

When God speaks, yes --He does state that the earth is his fixed focus. I find nothing wrong with this. The "science" involved with looking at things from God's point of view is a moot point. Man's observations do not define God, nor can any man know the whole mind of God, certainly.

When Einstein and other men look outward at creation, it can be done with several assumptions (as previously debated in thread). Do these facts negate God? Of course not. That is simply silly. Can you (or any man) adequately defend God? No, of course not, nor is there any need apart from arrogance.

Strange, your several "conspiracy theories" are altogether unnecessary and do nothing to help or advance your credibility. Try to consider what Paul did when he journeyed to a land filled with polytheism. Did he brashly set out to prove their religion and beliefs to be wrong? Or did he take advantage of their tribute to "The Unknown god" and use this as a starting point to speak of the truth?

In much the same manner the direct approach that attempts to smash down the opposition will fail. God commands His children to avoid certain kinds of disputes:

Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery," "You shall not murder," "You shall not steal," "You shall not bear false witness," "You shall not covet," and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. And do this, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep; for now our salvation is nearer than when we first believed.

The night is far spent, the day is at hand. Therefore let us cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armor of light. Let us walk properly, as in the day, not in revelry and drunkenness, not in lewdness and lust, not in strife and envy.

But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to fulfill its lusts. [Romans 13:8-14; 14:1- NKJV]

Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things (dialogismos diakrisis). For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables.

[OR do you believe that Paul was speaking to vegetarians only?]

Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him. Who are you to judge another's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand.

One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike.

[OR do you believe that Paul was speaking about the observance of religious holidays and holy days only?]

Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks.

For none of us lives to himself, and no one dies to himself. For if we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. Therefore, whether we live or die, we are the Lord's.

For to this end Christ died and rose and lived again, that He might be Lord of both the dead and the living. But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother?

For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written: "As I live, says the LORD, Every knee shall bow to Me, And every tongue shall confess to God." So then each of us shall give account of himself to God. Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother's way. [Romans 14:1-13 NKJV]

Paul was addressing a couple of the "doubtful disputes" that were well known and often argued in his time and cultural view. The short definition of dialogimos diakrisis is 'disputes of the imagination' or 'doubtful imaginings of logic'. Paul may have said, in order to address this thread, "If you believe in rigorous mathematical proofs, or if you do not, if you consider the theories of sciences, or if you abstain from such, let all be done according to love and not for the love of arguments especially those for the sake of argument only. Do not give preference to yourself over others and do not insist on having your own way, especially if that way can be expected to become a cause of stumbling for your brother who is also seeking the Lord and who will also come into the knowledge of Christ."

Jesus is the Way, to follow after Him in truth, we must deny ourselves daily. Certainly, if Christ died and rose and lived again, that He might be Lord of both the dead and the living, he has also died and rose and is alive as the Lord of those who enjoy science and knowledge, no matter what viewpoint it ponders. Think ye that a man will not be forgiven for looking outward from his own eyes? What about a man so spiritual as to imply that this can not be tolerated by our Father in heaven? Consider the implications such intolerance makes regarding our heavenly Father. Is He really that much of a stick-in-the-mud? I think no.

Switching "voice" and quoting now:
"Proofs" are all built on one simple rule: modus ponendo ponens. This rule of logic says that if we know that “A implies B”, and if we know “A”, then we may conclude B. Thus a 'proof' is a sequence of steps linked together by modus ponendo ponens. It is really an elegant and powerful system. Occam’s Razor is a logical principle posited in the fourteenth century (by William of Occam (1288 C.E.–1348 C.E.)) which advocates that your proof system should have the smallest possible set of axioms and logical rules.

Hence, both man's reason and the Word of God conclude that we should not try to make light into darkness by introducing unneeded and doubtful disputes (διαλογισμός διάκρισις or dialogismos diakrisis).


_______________________________________
Footnotes /// Accreditations /// Credits:
*One of the most important proof techniques in mathematics is “proof by contradiction”. With this methodology, one assumes in advance that the desired result is false and shows that that leads to an untenable position. But in fact proof by contradiction is nothing other than a reformulation of modus ponendo ponens". --> The History and Concept of Mathematical Proof
by Steven G. Krantz, February 5, 2007 and The American Institute of Mathematics.

 

[lordkalvan]

Yes

Yes

Lolz. Dont you just love forums. If we were in a room together we would no doubt be at eachothers throats by now!

That would be no, no, and if we can't be (relatively) civil to each other in a discussion (even when opinions are as widely divergent as our own), then it would be rather sad.

Context makes no difference. Gonna have to give you a diction-slap again...

Context makes all the difference and you don't get to tell me what I was conveying by my use of the word. You choose the definition that suits your finger-pointing. As I used the term in the context of the point I was making, I get to choose the definition I intended the word to convey, so I'm afraid all your 'dictionary slap' displays is an insistence that a word should mean what you want it to mean and not what it is intended to mean:

in•fer•ence

noun

a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning

No there isnt.

Wrong again, I'm afraid.

Luckily I have the Bible.

What's lucky about it?

Ok heres a wet paper bag....

Well, at least it's funny....

There. Happy?

Ecstatic.

So.....?......?///////....You want me to put more emoticons in my posts?? I dont get it.

It means that no matter how bizarrely ridiculous a parody of the belief or argument in question is, without some subtle hint it is impossible to distinguish the parody from the supposedly serious arguments of those whose beliefs or arguments are being parodied.

You can feel the movement obviously!?

From personal experience, no you can't, unless the aircraft is accelerating or decelerating in some way, like you can't tell whether a lift is going up or down when the initial accelerative force has ceased.

Unless you wanna debunk the Vestibular system?

Unless there is rotation or linear acceleration, the vestibular system alone will not tell you whether you are moving or not.

1) The feeling of movement

Requires rotation or acceleration. Have you ever sat in a stationary train, watched a train moving alongside and had the immediate sensation that your train is moving and not the other? What we see isn't necessarily what is happening.

2) The common sense of the Bible that declares a stationary Earth.

The majority of biblical scholars seem to disagree with you. Even if they didn't, pre-scientific mythology and ignorance is not evidential

3) The entire plane vibrating from the effects of inertia

I've flown many times. What vibration I have experienced comes from either the engines or turbulence. Even that vibration is not evidence that the aircraft is doing anything other than vibrating without moving forwards or backwards, up or down - rather like a vibrating chair.

 

[Strangelove]

Strange, your several "conspiracy theories" are altogether unnecessary and do nothing to help or advance your credibility.

Yes....it's a conspiracy theory to take God's Word as truth and to reject the assumptions of men. Ok Sparra' .

This is the product of many hours conversation with your brilliant Geocentric brother??>> An animation of the Earth spinning and two humungous "holier than thou" lectures on how to debate a topic? Lolz!

Come back when you have something to contribute to the topic bud.