There you Go,YECs...biblical "evidence" of "flat earth beliefs"

quote:

---

Originally posted by doctrbill:
Huh? I have no idea what you are talking about. And THAT is what I was talking about. Get it?

​

My apologies if you are dyslexic. But come on! Can YOU understand what you have written?

---

Yes, my friend and thanks again for responding. I am not a machine and in every post if I am not that dysleic I try to leave myself an out should one re-calling me wish to re-engage but in this case I have the time to respond since you think that I will not understand what I myself wrote. If you ask anyone who has had any series of volleys with me over the net you will see that aside from some presumption on one or the other poster the communication indeed has gone to exhaustion.I have not the space or money given me to spend the day first researching your query so as to give you an even longer response which no doubt searching would permit. So you can branch off in your claim of "unitelligibility" prior, which though an observation of yours about my typing skills , granted, was false when extending the physical psychologically to the mental that I do not presume in this post.As to Newton, it had always struck me about the X nerve relation he noted in the Opticks relative to brain anantomy and when one compares the two letters (not WORDS) of Newton (one in Conant's review of the PRINCIPIA) and the other to a friend it is clear now to me how to understand the hints of "entropy" in Newton's work WITHOUT having to heed philosophically Kant's cateogorization which would be needed in any creation/evolution asethitic which the emoticoms fill in this transmission medium. Please do not post from igonorance. I know that people generally do not understand me. That is just about a given by now. That does not mean that I might (am) rather more correct than is generally percieved, but I leave that for you or Sumac or the system adminstrator of Taxacom to judge for or against natural selection NOT ME!!!Newton did not want to convice or other word I forget his corresponder and I do too. You problem is clearly with my understanding of nervous system anantomy and I must say that founder or no the filtering in the periferal nervous system is not the outside circumference of any radius contained in orbit but not necessarily in trajectory. But such a sentence is just not good enough for you?? That is scientific inference that is not inductive for you. It may be for someone else. I am not trying to reinvent the wheel but it often should not appear the same. Now that sentence is closer to ungraspable. You choose which to invert.When you look sideways at a lizard is not the same way as looking a turtle head on. Newton explained this with reference to the structure of the nerves. This is learnable. I did. I had thought prior you were interested in deriving the total system once again from Wright correction of a Fisher totality. So unless the claim of dyslexia was only an attempt to not raise my suspicion then I and not you was very wrong about the continuance of a thread between us.

And I thank you all for trying>. It will be a new day when "evolutionists" understand (and I take it Simon Levin would be considered in the number) that there is different understanding of Sewall Wright than the one Will Provine had built his transition from a historian to a biologist on.The difficulty arises, if I am right, then, that this means a change in the way biology is done in the UK and not even Will is trying for this goal, except possibly in his narrowing influence through "neutral" evolution. Here math enters before some sentence of Will about selection. The proper use of words is all that is at issue for Will really, but the biologist anywhere is concerned more with details than with appearing in form for peers. I came to Cornell with a KNOWLEDGE of the evoked response of frogs but this knowledge was never invloved in rejecting me or my writings so I am very confident that while I had tried to do "molecular" things rather than staying with the known herpetology these "elites" as I found out researching in the library were simply not good readers but good distributors of their own teachings. As it offen happened, I would bring information in the library to their "collective" attention that they would say , No , I never heard of that but if it was true I would have.Well know my maturity has outgrown those simple demonstrations and I am able to do the same from within the the very writings they refer rather than having to use some out side science (which in this boards more narrow case I use creationism). Look sex dimorphim is not why fish look different possibly by frequency filter seleciton but frequencey filters whether selected or not is how it is that fish appear differentiated to the investigator. This is the base of something to know BEFORE discussing with the lights of a Provine or a Levin. They can not deny the fact only the interpretation which if known is no reason to bother to communicate any way.Again thanks for the trial.

quote:

---

Originally posted by doctrbill:
Eristothenes is the name, but I thought it was much later than 500 BC. And, if I am not mistaken, his accomplishment was in measuring the circumference of earth (assuming that it was spherical). I am still unsure how the ancients came to be certain of the spherical shape.

---

Yep thats the name and yes it was 2 or 3 centuries later see my post 44 for link...The Greeks were very much enamoured of pi and circles/spheres so they probably reached that decision a priori based on the "perfection" of the sphere.....I really doubt that it was an empiricaly derived conclusion...

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
The Greeks were very much enamoured of pi and circles/spheres so they probably reached that decision a priori based on the "perfection" of the sphere.....

​

I really doubt that it was an empiricaly derived conclusion...

---

It almost certainly was emprically derived. Eratosthenes was involved in mapping the trade routes of the time. Sailors can intuitively see the spherical nature of the earth by observing how ships disappear over the horizon gradually and the simple observation that the higher you are, the further you can see. There is a good, if brief explanation fo this here ...
http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Scolumb.htmEratosthenes' teacher, Lysania of Cyrene is thought to have been the first to have wondered how the circumference could be calculated. The information would be have been of great use in cartography.Astronomers, including Ptolemy, who were writing later than Eratosthenes remark how the spherical nature of the earth and heavens can be seen by the path of the sun and moon "round" the earth - the observations from many distances apart only make sense if there path and the earth itself are round. They do not present the information as new, so it was probably well established in the canon of
scholarly knowledge by the time they made use of it.

I stand corrected....Maybe that is why they were so enamoured of pi....

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mister Pamboli:

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
The Greeks were very much enamoured of pi and circles/spheres so they probably reached that decision a priori based on the "perfection" of the sphere.....

​

I really doubt that it was an empiricaly derived conclusion...

---

​

It almost certainly was emprically derived. Eratosthenes was involved in mapping the trade routes of the time. Sailors can intuitively see the spherical nature of the earth by observing how ships disappear over the horizon gradually and the simple observation that the higher you are, the further you can see. There is a good, if brief explanation fo this here ...
http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Scolumb.htm

​

Eratosthenes' teacher, Lysania of Cyrene is thought to have been the first to have wondered how the circumference could be calculated. The information would be have been of great use in cartography.

​

Astronomers, including Ptolemy, who were writing later than Eratosthenes remark how the spherical nature of the earth and heavens can be seen by the path of the sun and moon "round" the earth - the observations from many distances apart only make sense if there path and the earth itself are round. They do not present the information as new, so it was probably well established in the canon of
scholarly knowledge by the time they made use of it.

---

Reguardless,this knowledge obviously was not prevalent in hebrew cultures,since it can be easily infered from reading their writings that they saw the earth as something that could be seen in its entirety from a mountain top...in other words,small,circular and flat

This thread was somehow deleted, but has been restored from the Sunday backup. Messages since Sunday have been lost. I apologize for any inconvenience.--Percy

quote:

---

Originally posted by LudvanB:
http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=dan+4:10-11

​

http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=mat+4:8

​

http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=1+chr+16:30

​

http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=psa+93:1

​

Those passages clearly demonstrate that the writers thereof firmly believed that the earth was flat and stationary.

---

Apparently, this discussion has greatly deviated from the original question. However, I would like to readdress that question and hopefully provide an acceptable answer.First, it has been correctly stated that the passage in Daniel 4:10-11 is the recounting of a vision. Allow me to take that explanation one step further. Not only was the tree in question merely a symbol in a dream, the dream itself is presented to us from the lips of a pagan king. True, the vision was given to him by God; but God did not intend for the tree to be taken litteraly. Instead He gave the interpretation of the dream to Daniel who stated in verses 20-22 of the same chapter,"The tree that thou sawest, which grew, and was strong, whose height reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to all the earth; Whose leaves were fair, and the fruit thereof much, and in it was meat for all; under which the beasts of the field dwelt, and upon whose branches the fowls of the heaven had their habitation: It is thou, O king, that art grown and become strong: for thy greatness is grown, and reacheth unto heaven, and thy dominion to the end of the earth."In Matthew 4:8 we find the account of the devil taking Christ up into an exceeding high mountain and shoing Him all the kingdoms of the world. Please notice that the Bible does not claim that Christ here saw the entire earth, rather it states that He saw all the kingdoms of the world. At that time this feat did not require one to view the entire globe. One must also keep in mind the fact that the devil is a spirit, and that Jesus is no mere mortal. Thus we cannot fully fathom their individual capabilities.As for the verses which seem to point toward a stationary earth, LudvanB is correct in his interpretation of them. The Bible does support a geocentric view of the universe. What many of you apparantly do not know is that science also agrees with this view.In 1965, Arno Pezias and Robert Wilson discovered that the microwave radiation we recieve from the universe is basically the same no matter in which direction we look. This discovery can lead to only three possible conclusions. First, the universe is infinite. Second, the universe looks the same regardless of which planet, solar system, or galaxy it was viewed from. And third, the earth is at the center of the universe.The first two possibilities are easily disproven. The former is voided by the physical expansion of the universe and is seldom now considered a viable theory. The latter is nullified mathematically, since it requires the existence of a three-dimensional plane.However, even if these two possibilities were valid they both lead to the conclusion that every point within the universe is the center, thus allowing for a geocentric perception.The third conclusion currently stands unrefuted by science and is in complete agreement with the claims of Scripture

quote:

---

Originally posted by w_fortenberry:
a)In 1965, Arno Pezias and Robert Wilson discovered that the microwave radiation we recieve from the universe is basically the same no matter in which direction we look.

​

b)...Second, the universe looks the same regardless of which planet, solar system, or galaxy it was viewed from.

​

c)And third, the earth is at the center of the universe.

​

d)The first two possibilities are easily disproven. i)The former is voided by the physical expansion of the universe and is seldom now considered a viable theory.
ii)The latter is nullified mathematically, since it requires the existence of a three-dimensional plane.

​

e)However, even if these two possibilities were valid they both lead to the conclusion that every point within the universe is the center, thus allowing for a geocentric perception.

​

f)The third conclusion currently stands unrefuted by science and is in complete agreement with the claims of Scripture

---

a)Yes CBR (cosmic background radiation) Black body radiation at a temperature of around 2.7 Kelvin...b)Not the universe, the CBR there is a difference and not even a subtle one at that...c)How does this follow from homogenous CBR? the Earth could be at the center of a universe with non homogenous CBR...d)Oh goody, lead on McDuff....
i)Good I never liked the whole infinite universe thing anyway, made me agrophobic....ii)Ok run that one past me again? how does a homogenous CBR (It isn`t perfectly homogenous by the way just pretty close) require a 3D plane?e)OR that everything started at the centre in a Big Bang....f)I beg to differ....As Monty Python put it:

quote:

---

[singing]
Just remember that you're standing on a planet that's evolving
And revolving at nine hundred miles an hour,
That's orbiting at nineteen miles a second, so it's reckoned,
A sun that is the source of all our power.
The sun and you and me and all the stars that we can see
Are moving at a million miles a day
In an outer spiral arm, at forty thousand miles an hour,
Of the galaxy we call the 'Milky Way'.

​

Our galaxy itself contains a hundred billion stars.
It's a hundred thousand light years side to side.
It bulges in the middle, sixteen thousand light years thick,
But out by us, it's just three thousand light years wide.
We're thirty thousand light years from galactic central point.
We go 'round every two hundred million years,
And our galaxy is only one of millions of billions
In this amazing and expanding universe.
*boom*
*slurp*

​

The universe itself keeps on expanding and expanding
In all of the directions it can whizz
As fast as it can go, at the speed of light, you know,
Twelve million miles a minute, and that's the fastest speed there is.
So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure,
How amazingly unlikely is your birth,
And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space,
'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth.[/singing]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by w_fortenberry:
...
In 1965, Arno Pezias and Robert Wilson discovered that the microwave radiation we recieve from the universe is basically the same no matter in which direction we look. This discovery can lead to only three possible conclusions. First, the universe is infinite. Second, the universe looks the same regardless of which planet, solar system, or galaxy it was viewed from. And third, the earth is at the center of the universe.

​

The first two possibilities are easily disproven. The former is voided by the physical expansion of the universe and is seldom now considered a viable theory. The latter is nullified mathematically, since it requires the existence of a three-dimensional plane.

​

However, even if these two possibilities were valid they both lead to the conclusion that every point within the universe is the center, thus allowing for a geocentric perception.

​

The third conclusion currently stands unrefuted by science and is in complete agreement with the claims of Scripture

---

What a pity to base such an elegant argument on wrong information. Science has moved on since 1965. The cosmic background radiation has been found to have small variations, it is is not the same in every direction. That's the bugger about science, it keeps progressing. A good argument one day has to be reviewed in the light of new data the next day.Back to the drawing board, or rather back to reinterpreting the scriptures to discover how they are in complete agreement with the latest scientific data?

quote:

---

Originally posted by wj:
Back to the drawing board, or rather back to reinterpreting the scriptures to discover how they are in complete agreement with the latest scientific data?

---

Other than radiation discrepancies? Might there be any evidence of 'space-time-curvature' telescopically (other than black-holes) in diverse stellar regions? If minimal asymmetry exists, perhaps a homogenous centralized expansion (centering near earth’s galaxy) may be supported, no?
Are the Doppler red-shifts regionalized or symmetrically distributed? (I confess ignorance.) If somewhat symmetrically distributed, would not this lend support to the argument of the earth’s centralization?(How much should we 'strain at a gnat'?)--Philip

quote:

---

(How much should we 'strain at a gnat'?)

---

JM: None, if that much?CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Philip:
If minimal asymmetry exists, perhaps a homogenous centralized expansion (centering near earth’s galaxy) may be supported, no?

---

No, If Milky way were centre then we would observe no blue shifted galaxies (we do observe the odd one or two, I think Andromeda is one)...Blue shifted galaxies observed = milky way not centre....

[QUOTE]Originally posted by joz:
Blue shifted galaxies observed = milky way not centre....[/B][/QUOTE]Has any galaxy ever been postulated as the center of the universe? If not, might not a few assymetrical 'blues' among a vast array of symmetrical 'reds' still support some 'relative' amount of milky way centralization? If Andromeda and only a few other galaxies are more centralized (as you perhaps propose), then we are still in the same drop of the universal sea, that drop being in the center. That would be extremely significant, you reckon?

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
a)Yes CBR (cosmic background radiation) Black body radiation at a temperature of around 2.7 Kelvin...

​

b)Not the universe, the CBR there is a difference and not even a subtle one at that...

​

c)How does this follow from homogenous CBR? the Earth could be at the center of a universe with non homogenous CBR...

​

d)Oh goody, lead on McDuff....
i)Good I never liked the whole infinite universe thing anyway, made me agrophobic....

​

ii)Ok run that one past me again? how does a homogenous CBR (It isn`t perfectly homogenous by the way just pretty close) require a 3D plane?

​

e)OR that everything started at the centre in a Big Bang....

​

f)I beg to differ....

---

a)Thank you for your confirmation.b)Correct, yet that CBR, in traveling to us across the universe is affected by the universe so evenly that our measurements of it never vary by more than one part in ten thousand. Thus some have assumed that the universe looks basically the same regardless of the direction or even the locality from which it is viewed. Please notice that I do not agree with this assumption.c)Homogeneous CBR in itself does not demand a geocentric universe, however consistent measurements of CBR is in agreement with a geocentric model.d)If I'm not mistaken, that should be, "Lay on MacDuff..." but I do not have my copy of MacBeth with me to double check.i)That's good, because I would rather not waste time arguing against it.ii)Homogeneous CBR in itself does not require a three-dimensional plane, but when one attempts to reconcile consistent CBR and cosmological expansion with a non-geocentric model, he will most likely conclude that our universe exists as a spherical plane which is increasing in extent as it expands away from the time of its origin. According to the definition given in Webster's II New Riverside University Dictionary, no three-dimensional object can be considered planar. Our universe is a three-dimensional object. Therefore, our universe can not be planar and this model fails. (By the way the stated planar model would require a perfectly homogeneous CBR)e)It would appear that you are endorsing the argument to which I was just referring. If so, please refer to the above refutation. If not, please provide the current location of this center in relation to earth and how that location is consistent with our measurements of the CBR and of the expansion of our universe.f)Please do.