Cold Fusion

I think even most Christians these days agree that the Old Testament is garbage.

I highly doubt that.

I think even most Christians these days agree that the Old Testament is garbage.  You, my friend, are an idiot, and this conversation has gone on longer than it should have.  Good day.

Well do like "most" Christians...I mean Lemmings and go to the sea together. You know what Lemmings are, don't you?  

I like the point Richard Dawkins brings up about the new testament.

In the old testament it predicts (micah 5:2) that the saviour will be born in Bethlehem.

John 7:41 refers to this when it says (talking about Jesus)

"Others said, This is the Christ.  But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee?  Hath the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?"

Saying that some people doubted that Jesus was Christ because he wasn't born in Bethlehem like the scriptures predict.

Matthew and Luke on the other hand do say that Jesus came from Bethlehem.  Matthew says that Joseph and Mary were in Bethlehem to begin with and then moved to Nazareth after Jesus was born.  Luke says that governor Cyrenius commissioned a census and asked that everybody go to their home town.  Mary and Joseph therefore had to go to the hometown of David - who apparently lived 1000 years before they did.  Ignoring the practically of this, the same historical records that independently support the existence of Jesus (meaning that the bible isn't completely made up) also show that the census Cyrenius commissioned was carried out after the deaths of King Herod and Jesus.  So essentially according to the historical records Jesus was born 6 years after he died.  Miracle.

Now the really interesting point is that these errors are not translated errors, they are put in the bible specifically for the purpose of suggesting that the predictions of the old testament were false.  Now either the historical evidence is false, which means there is no evidence to suggest the bible is true, or else Jesus wasn't born in Bethlehem, the predictions of the old testament are incorrect, John is correct and Luke and Matthew deliberately lied in their gospels in order to convince people that what they were saying is true.

I find it impossible to understand how anybody can take either testament literally.

Quote from: "skeptical_scientist"

Quote from: "Raa"

Yes, but the artic is a mild environment, even though we wear seal and bear hides. What I meant is that we could never live where it is completely cold brrrrrrrrr like 70 miles straight up

Nor could any other multicellular earthborn creature.

I still haven't gotten a satisfactory explanation from you for sunsets. If the apparent sun is simply a large hole in the asteroids spinning in a circle overhead, it always stays above the horizon. How can it ever appear to drop below the horizon, as it plainly does every day?

The sun is like a flashlight...when you think it is setting it is actually going away,,,when you think it is rising, it is actually arriving- both "rising and setting" are horizontal rotations. It is not a large hole, it is the sun peering through the pores of the asteroids. When it is 17:00 hours in your area, October (northern hemisphere), the sun is starting to face (turn away) from you also. The sun is always above the horizon but there are parts of the earth besides the meteor cloud which are sheer in height and we end up in the shade. It is not dropping below the horizon, it is just so big and far away that when it continues its journey westward it has an effect on our eyes..a little similar to 2 train tracks far away. The sun seems higher at noon than at 07:00, but it is not, it is only above us (passing by). Probably a vertical effect contrary to the train track effect.

How high are the asteroids above the surface of the earth, and how far away is the hole when the sun, apparently, sets? Based on this, what angle above the horizon do we expect to observe the sun at the time of setting? If this angle is more than 1 degree, how do you explain the difference between the expected angle and the observed angle?

Based on the value for the height of the sun in the FAQ, and the distance away at time of setting based on size of timezones, I was able to calculate the angle above the horizon, and it was about 30 degrees, so if the model were accurate, we would never expect the sun to appear lower than 30 degrees above the horizon. Of course, if your model is different from the one in the FAQ, perhaps the angle won't be so high, and you may have an explanation for the difference between the predicted and observed angles.

Saying that some people doubted that Jesus was Christ because he wasn't born in Bethlehem like the scriptures predict.

Hmmm... does that necessarily mean that Jesus wasn't born in Bethlehem?  I mean, isn't it possible that "some people" were just confused about where Jesus came from?  Technically, Jesus did come from Galilee, so some people would have been confused.  He was born in Bethlehem, so people probably expected him to be "from" Bethlehem (i.e. a Bethlehemian).  Yet he was not a Bethlehemian, he was from Nazareth.  So these people were probably like, "wtf?  That ain't the Christ because the Christ is supposed to come from Bethlehem."  And then people can respond "Yeah, he was born in Bethlehem."  etc., etc., etc.  As for the differing stories of the birth and early life of Jesus (some mention that he went to Egypt, some don't).  This seems to me that it is possibly an incoherent set of beliefs of Christians, yet I don't know because I haven't looked into it enough.  Interesting stuff.

How high are the asteroids above the surface of the earth, and how far away is the hole when the sun, apparently, sets? Based on this, what angle above the horizon do we expect to observe the sun at the time of setting? If this angle is more than 1 degree, how do you explain the difference between the expected angle and the observed angle?

Based on the value for the height of the sun in the FAQ, and the distance away at time of setting based on size of timezones, I was able to calculate the angle above the horizon, and it was about 30 degrees, so if the model were accurate, we would never expect the sun to appear lower than 30 degrees above the horizon. Of course, if your model is different from the one in the FAQ, perhaps the angle won't be so high, and you may have an explanation for the difference between the predicted and observed angles.

Based on what I gather, his model of the Flat Earth and the sun in relation to it looks a bit like this:



Which, of course, has no regard for the worldly night and day cycle, nor for the cardinal directions in any way (the FES Flat Earth model can at least make a somewhat realistic map).

This guy is just a complete dumbass.  Either that, or is really, REALLY good at making people think he is.

Oh, okay.  I assumed you believed in atoms because you seemed in another conversation to be that scientific type.  You were all like, "science has proven evolution!" and I was all like "science doesn't prove things!"  Maybe that was in this thread.  But anyway, you don't have to believe that I exist.  For all you know, I'm just some character in the movie that is your life (that is, the movie that your consciousness is always watching).  I could be a figment of your imagination.  But I think it's more likely that you're a figment of my imagination :-)

I am an optical illusion caused by the suns rays being refracted by a pocket of swamp gas. Magic swamp gas.

if a phd doesn't understand a mentally retarded person....who is dumber

The retard, by all definitions of the word.

you have a Phd?

lol, then why are you on FES?

surely you should be out putting the theory of gravitomagnetism (assuming you're a ground earther) to good use or something similar?

The retard, by all definitions of the word.

Wrong

you have a Phd?

lol, then why are you on FES?

surely you should be out putting the theory of gravitomagnetism (assuming you're a ground earther) to good use or something similar?

he just switched over from analog a.m radio tuner buttons to digital f.m radio tuning buttons last week

I think even most Christians these days agree that the Old Testament is garbage.  You, my friend, are an idiot, and this conversation has gone on longer than it should have.  Good day.

 ah come on. it's only been a short conversation---so far... have a good day

Quote from: "skeptical_scientist"

How high are the asteroids above the surface of the earth, and how far away is the hole when the sun, apparently, sets? Based on this, what angle above the horizon do we expect to observe the sun at the time of setting? If this angle is more than 1 degree, how do you explain the difference between the expected angle and the observed angle?

Based on the value for the height of the sun in the FAQ, and the distance away at time of setting based on size of timezones, I was able to calculate the angle above the horizon, and it was about 30 degrees, so if the model were accurate, we would never expect the sun to appear lower than 30 degrees above the horizon. Of course, if your model is different from the one in the FAQ, perhaps the angle won't be so high, and you may have an explanation for the difference between the predicted and observed angles.

Based on what I gather, his model of the Flat Earth and the sun in relation to it looks a bit like this:



Which, of course, has no regard for the worldly night and day cycle, nor for the cardinal directions in any way (the FES Flat Earth model can at least make a somewhat realistic map).

This guy is just a complete dumbass.  Either that, or is really, REALLY good at making people think he is.

This is not the picture i painted.
between the earth and the sun is a meteor cloud, and the sun rotates above the meteor cloud, horizontally, and the sky is a ball around everything
just look at it tommorow at 11:00 am