|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: There you Go,YECs...biblical "evidence" of "flat earth beliefs" | |||||||||||||||||||||||
doctrbill Member (Idle past 2787 days) Posts: 1174 From: Eugene, Oregon, USA Joined: |
quote: The key to understanding these passages is to realize the the word translated as "earth" never referred to "planet earth". Have you ever wondered why the creation narrative mentions sun, moon and stars but does not mention planets? To the ancient Hebrews, planets were a kind of star. They did not imagine earth to be one of those! ----------db
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5055 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
With respect to biology becuase one can not scientifically be certain whether the data extracted is a geometry or a geography only in the given topography during dussions of taxa independce as in TOFF query about rabbits etc not released in Australaisa etc etc the Earth or FARADAY's CONCEPT of Earth(with magnetic lines raditating) must be held constant as if in an experiment when examining the correlation vaiables. That there is some rotation or some revolution into morphogeny is not at issue for the morphometrician but as to how to express if a seed is more adapted to fall to the sun or this earth (which is not statistically thes sum of earth elements (but has some order infintily larger than the simple w of the table arragned by weight) is an open question and should not be put in the creation evolution DEBATE unless each side is willing to come up with a Statemtn that answers the question rather than as Shumer and company extc did for interest legally in the Bill Clinton in re: case.
The question as to orbit vs trajectory is clearly defined in Newtonina Science and extends the Galelio problem to projetible Objective psychological objects (must have an empriical psychology from which to link and other correlation involved).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5055 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
The sound of this is suspicious but interesting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
doctrbill Member (Idle past 2787 days) Posts: 1174 From: Eugene, Oregon, USA Joined: |
The sound of this is intriguing but unintelligible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5055 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
quote: I am finally happy to see my question that was avered on True Seeker's and anoying dimensionally to the Campfire Chat appear here. Thanks to all the work that went into this board!!! This is the whole question I have been trying to address as to if the answer implies a continuum or discontinumm. I will assume the reader will be smart enough to go from this moon that is not the one on NBC. If one goes so far as to believe in Panspermia then one can imagine that the center refered to quoted in bold above is actually inertia by mendelian mechancis moved AROUND by life. And because Crick made such a inference possible that is beyond my scietific prudence but not fancied imagination I have attempted time and time again tried to impress that this force that he may have done good molecualar work on can not be brought out in macroscopic discussions this way. That is my scientific opinion. But again people have failed to see my siding with Kant over Humer for some mental as opposed to philosophical rejection of the point. I am sorry to all those confused who occasionally saw something of interests in my posts. This point must be made if Croizat is to retain the actual place he already retained but the elites and even Gould's very work is in question here. I go no farther to remain threaded more narrowly to the center of the earth.
[b] [QUOTE] However, they didn't just say the sun stood still, the moon stopped at the same time. Which leads me to believe that the sun and the moon didn't stop, but the other way around, the earth stoppped. Or better still, slowed down to half of its pace to turn one day into two days. Get what I mean? What your claiming doesn't fit with what's written (or from what I can understand). If this is just a myth like I'm sure your supposing. Than why the heck did they say the moon stopped too? [/b][/QUOTE]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: Thanks Dr B. I would of mentioned it was you if i could have remembered.....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5055 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Doc,
Why did you say that I need only rework the TWO papers of Newton, one a letter on unisons and the other on a certain spirit to respond. I had thought that by trying to let another poster know immediately the better to faciiliate a chagned response but my net expeierence showed not otherwise but that the two-sided ness to creation/evolution discussion no one seems willing to ameliorate. I said this for a specifi rendering that is ongoing this week in Croizat methodlogy but not many pursue panbiogeography and Grehan has rejected my English not my existence as the people at Cornell did. Sorry to see you feel this way about what Croiat wrote approvingly of Schmidt the herpetologist. But that said nothing of either creation or evolution but of the speciality you may not be as familiar with as I am. Thanks just the same.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
doctrbill Member (Idle past 2787 days) Posts: 1174 From: Eugene, Oregon, USA Joined: |
quote: 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mister Pamboli Member (Idle past 7599 days) Posts: 634 From: Washington, USA Joined: |
quote: doctrbill, I have given up trying to fathom what Brad is saying. It's a shame, because like you, I suspect he has some intruiging things to say, but I just can't make heads or tails of his grammar and syntax. Percy has tried hard to make sense of some posts and got furhter than I have, but I think he is just taking his duties as moderator very seriously.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1501 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: And the spherical earth concept in Ancient Greece dates to about500 BCE when Pythagoras studied in Persia. Sophisticated astronomy existed in Mesopotamia by 3000BCE, includingthe concept of a celestial sphere. If the sphere was regarded as THE shape of the heavens ... It was KNOWN in 500BCE that the earth was a sphere, but thatinformation did not emerge from a vacuum. The Ancient Greek philosophers studied widely of what was toTHEM ancient literature.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3845 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
I agree on both points. (1) I can't make heads or tails of them (2) I wish I could because I always get the impression that there are important points hidden within.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
doctrbill Member (Idle past 2787 days) Posts: 1174 From: Eugene, Oregon, USA Joined: |
quote: I cite Aristotle's acceptance of the theory because his opinion was so influential among the fence-sitters.
quote: Can you direct me to the source of this information?
quote: You imply that there were proofs. How did they prove this?
quote: Indeed. They inherited the accumulated knowledge of Egypt and Babylonia. One of the perc’s of world conquest. ---------db
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: I can`t remember exactly who or when or where but a greek around this time (500 BC) conducted an experiment by measuring the angle of the shadow cast in a well a known distance west of an point at the time the sun was directly overhead at that initial point. The data lead him to the conclusion that the Earth was a sphere and he even made a calculation of the Earths radius that is surprisingly accurate (given the potential for large expirimental error).... I`ll get to work trying to track down who, when, where and more precise info on how....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
Seems that it was Erastothenes of Cyrene around the 300 - 200 BC time period.
http://math.nmsu.edu/morandi/math112s99/RadiusOfEarth.html Gives how and where the measurements were made and what results were obtained. The actuall calculation is left to the reader....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
doctrbill Member (Idle past 2787 days) Posts: 1174 From: Eugene, Oregon, USA Joined: |
quote: 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. ---------db
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024