ABRAHAMIC GOD of the BIBLE, is the Creator

How big and far is the Sun in your opinion?

 

In my opinion it's rather close, and small. Aprox. 2,500-3,000 miles away and aprox 32-35 miles in diameter. It continually generates energy from within the firmament, and it's electromagnetic properties.

Did you know you cannot make a rainbow without a reflection. Granted nobody is going to want to get their house all wet, but you cannot produce a rainbow inside, unless there is a reflection of some sort such as a mirror. So when outside, what causes the reflection? The flat earth theory says it's the firmament, which God says is strong and as a molten looking glass. Thus a glass type dome over earth, causing a reflection. It also acts like a greenhouse, producing everything required for life.

Here is a video of what causes the sun and moon to circle the earth.
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...3CE593AA30FEDD6E9C1A3CE593AA30FED&FORM=VRDGAR

Here is a video, with a little about the scientist we should of listened to.
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...30FEDD6E9C1A3CE593AA30FED&fsscr=0&FORM=VDFSRV

 

Again, why do you hate the truth?

 

No, stick with THIS.......so the Sun is 32-35 miles in diameter. And "generates energy from within the firmament and it's (sp) electromagnetic properties"....

describe that energy production in more detail. It's not fusion of hydrogen atoms at thermonuclear temperatures?

 

Unlike scientists, I will not claim that it is absolutely accurate. For we cannot get within the firmament. It separates the waters below the firmament, from the waters above the firmament. The sun, moon, and stars, God has set in the firmament. Thus the earth cannot be inside the firmament. Rather the firmament protects the earth, and above it, is water.

I don't ever remember any scientist coming out and saying they have proven God wrong. Which the heliocentric model requires. I use to think that the firmament could be what holds the entire universe within. But that cannot be. Because the earth is in it as well. I try and try to put God into the heliocentric model. Why? Because I love the idea of deep space. I could not get enough of it. I watched just about every Science channel/Discovery Channel show about space there is. And never realized that every single one of those shows is nothing but computer graphic imaging, even the satellites.

The heliocentric model, does not fit the words of our Father in Heaven.

 

So you just posted something that you don't know is true or not......after endless posts about how you "base my beliefs in the truth"????

Why don't you go into more DEPTH on the things you claim you believe, jrr? Give you a few particulars-

1. Is the Sun a spherical object? Or a flat disk as you claim the Earth is?

2. Is it comprised of hydrogen atoms, which are being fused together at thermonuclear temperatures to create light and other electro-magnetic radiation?

3. Say the Sun is 32-35 miles in diameter....how many tons of hydrogen would that be? If it is a "disk like the Earth"....how many tons of hydrogen?

4. At what rate is the hydrogen consumed?

5. If the Sun is NOT comprised of hydrogen being fused, and thus producing EM radiation energy.....what is the EXACT method of production of the energy it produces?

6. If you refuse to investigate and look into these questions.....what possible credibility do you have on the topics of "science" or "truth"? Given it clearly means you do not wish to prove your hypothesis....nor are interested in the truth?

 

Everything you have described here is unknown even in the heliocentric model, they have merely went through equation after equation, until finding one that fit's their theory. That proves nothing, other than a theory that has a mathematical equation to it. Like I said, it's all based off the sheer fact that they think they know the size and distance of the sun.

So what you have stated here also applies to you.

 

You claim to believe things....then when questioned on specifics you say "I don't know if it's true"?


As I said, this isn't for your benefit....it's to show your modus operandi to others...and how dishonest you are.

 

Again, everything you have stated here is applicable to you.

 

There are a lot of things that science will never know.
Do they even know where the laws of physics come from?

Anyway, science is limited. The National Academy of Sciences had explained that.

http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html

Here's the def of limited according to Merriam:

a : confined within limits : restricted <limited success>

You don't understand what is meant when I said, "The Creator has intimate knowledge of His creation."
Let me explain:
Just as the baker of a cake would know what the cake is made of, and how it's made.....the Creator of the universe would undoubtedly know about His own creation.

Science!

What do you think the evidence is about when it's preceded by, "The Creator has intimate knowledge of His creation?"
It's a declaration from the Bible that's been scientifically proven! Go ahead, read them all. post # 399.
They're the numbered ones.

 

The amount of willful ignorance (feigned or not) of some creationists in this thread is truly entertaining.

 

And your quote says the limits are "observations and experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists". Those limits are very clear. Things that cannot be tested or falsified by the scientific method, exceed those limits.

Something that would follow logically, after you've proven a)a creator exists, and b) they created something, and c)(which you haven't even acknowledged as a possibility)that it wasn't an accident that escaped their notice. The scientific method cannot test or falsify any of these, so you're not even close to the point of saying with any certainty "The Creator has intimate knowledge of His creation.", mostly because you have no evidence of that individual or that event happening.

Preceding anything with that, puts it outside those limits of science you noted above. And as such, this declaration has NOT been scientifically proven. It can't be and hasn't been tested or falsified.

 

Yes. That means, science can only go so far. That's why the National Academy of Sciences had explained that:

The National Academy of Sciences also says:

http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html


We cannot rely only in science because of its limited capacity. There are things that are so far, off-limits to sciences.

That's right.
So....what's your point?

 

Thanks for sharing that useful information. Now that I know the sun is so close and so small I'll like to fly there in an airplane with a group. Since we won't be able to land it'll have to be a non-stop loop around the sun. A big plane such as a B747 could easily make the trip. I'm sure that the charter fee will be a lot but with everyone chipping in it should be affordable. Maybe you or some of your friends would like to go?

 

Good lord, man, pull yourself together. The god of the OT is a fabrication of the human brain, nothing more than that. If this god is the creator of the universe, he would have never written a single word down on skins. He would have written it on the sky, where all of humanity could read it, in their own native language, and if they didn't have a written language he would have given them pictures, or video.

You can clearly see the footprints of man all over the OT. What you get is what those primitive people thought god is like. But it ends up being a less moral god than he expected and demanded from his worshipers.

You cannot use an ancient book, written my man, as evidence for a particular kind of god. The reason should be obvious. So, you can offer zero evidence, but you can continue to do what man has always done, and write stuff down, your ideas, and then fool people thousands of years later. Who are not reasonable, rational, nor logical enough to understand what they are looking at. People must choose to be fools? Well, the demand to insure your own ego continues on once you die, is a helluva motivation for creating lies, or writing down what the imagination can create.

 

The point was that they made a claim and said it was proven by science when it wasn't.

Why are you asking?

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk

 

Before you get all excited, why don't you read the evidences given so far> post #399, and 400.




- - - Updated - - -

Wait a minute - who are "they" that made a claim they were proven by science???

I'm getting confused with your answers.

 

Sorry about that. I had lost my place at that moment. You had made a claim about science proving a declaration from the bible, and if that's in reference to the thing in quotes, then no, science has not proven it:

 

A rainbow isn't made by reflection. It's refraction of light that makes a rainbow.

 

Hey if that's how you want to define it fine. You cannot create a rainbow inside, unless you have a mirror or something that reflects. Because I have done it, in a garage. The mirror weather refraction or reflection worked. Without the mirror it did not work. So to me, it requires a reflection or something along the lines of a mirror. I do understand refraction, and by definition this would also be understandable. But I'm a simple man, most people know what reflection is. And it can be demonstrated through both. So between the sun and us, what is the reflection or refraction the light passes through or upon to achieve the rainbow visible to us?

http://www.physicscentral.com/experiment/physicsathome/rainbow.cfm
Flat earth society believes the firmament is the mirror or glass prism required to have a rainbow. Which above the firmament is water.

 

Reflection will send the light wave, undisturbed back towards the origin of light.
Refraction splits the light into its individual waves. Hence the different colors.
But you're free to believe what you want. People don't die from ignorance, unless they try something dangerous, like flying from a roof top.

 

Your telling me something I already know, and dodging the question. Will you not answer the question?

 

No. I won't play your silly games. Just point out periodically that you are posting false information.
If reflection doesn't affect the light waves, then there will be no rainbow from reflection.
You can read on your own what causes a rainbow in the sky or even a puddle of water. Especially if the puddle has some oil in it.

I have rainbow colors on my floor right now, no mirror involved.

But here's a hint on the rainbow. Rain is in the word.

 

I wasn't saying that science had set out to prove the declaration in the Bible.

I'm saying that science happens to prove the declarations in the Bible (given as numbered evidences. 17 of them so far.).

I suggest you go to post #399 and 400. The post # for each of those evidences are given, too.
Go to each of those posts and read them.


Merely saying, "No, it doesn't prove them," isn't a rebuttal at all. It's more like a response coming from someone in denial. You've got to explain why you say that, and you need something credible to back it up.

 

"The CREATOR has intimate knowledge of His Creation" is not proven by science. If you want it to be, you need to evidence that there was creation in the first place, evidence of the creator, and evidence of them doing it purposely and in full control of the operation. Everything that follows with this as a basis for it is also invalid until you back up those other evidences.

Finding a piece of land and assigning it Sodom or Gomorrah or Jericho, doesn't necessarily mean a)it must be those places or b)that those supernatural things in the story occurred there. It could be the stories were based on real locations and complete fictions. Like Spider-Man comics. They normally take place in New York, and New York is a real place, but we're not going to go to the real place and find Peter Parker was bitten by a radioactive spider which gave him super powers.

You can, if you were honestly interested, look up the many problems of the finely tuned universe theory. In short, that theory hasn't proven anything, and has been debunked many, many times.

The law of cause and effect being brought into play here, demands you show a cause for your creator. I know you want to skip that step, but that is a form of special pleading and just because someone wrote down that 'god created the universe' does not become scientific proof.

The probability of prophesies coming true varies greatly on what type of prophesy it might be, how much detail is in it, how accurately the event it pertains to matches, and not claiming a prophesy after an event has already occurred. Each prediction would need to be examined in detail, but I'm not sure it's worth the bother.

Testimonies aren't scientific proof.