Does the Bible support the idea of a spinning ball earth flying through space, or is that a Satanic, Masonic lie?

[Moses_Young]

earth is only a small fraction of our plannet.

If the earth moved we really would be in trouble
The theory of the earth doesn't move is based upon the whole plannet being earth.
And scripture saying the earth is fixed to its pillars and doesn't move


View attachment 253345

As you can see the crust is the earth, The pillars are the mantle the outer core and the inner core.

The bible was saying the earths crust does not move.

But the bible doesnt say the earth pillars don't move.

And if you say you understand this, then your just disproving yourself

Again, you're mixing up theory with facts. Man has only ever been ten or so kilometers deep into the Earth. There is no scientific justification for diagrams like the above (i.e. showing Earth's "outer core", "inner core" and "mantle" 40+ km deep into the Earth) - it's entirely based on faith. A religion, if you will.

https://www.thomasnet.com/insights/how-deep-have-humans-drilled-into-the-earth-s-crust/

 

[Magenta]

Man has only ever been several kilometers deep into the Earth. There is no scientific justification
for diagrams like the above - it's entirely based on faith. A religion, if you will.

The Earth's core is clearly identified by seismic data.

Religion is the belief in and worship of a superhuman power or powers, especially a God or gods.

 

[Moses_Young]

The Earth's core is clearly identified by seismic data.

It's an interpretation for the seismic data. A theory. Anyone can make up a theory. I could blame the Heliocentric pixies. Doesn't make it true.

Religion is the belief in and worship of a superhuman power or powers, especially a God or gods.

Atheism is a religion also. The worship of man. Heliocentric theory is part of its theology.

 

[Magenta]

It's an interpretation for the seismic data. A theory. Anyone can make up a theory. I could blame the Heliocentric pixies. Doesn't make it true.

A scientific theory is a hypothesis that has been extensively tested, evaluated by the scientific community, and
is strongly supported. Theories often describe a large set of observations, and provide a cohesive explanation
for those observations. An individual cannot come up with a theory.

You seem to like to make up your own definitions... .

 

[Moses_Young]

A scientific theory is a hypothesis that has been extensively tested, evaluated by the scientific community,
and is strongly supported. Theories often describe a large set of observations, and provide a cohesive explanation
for those observations. An individual cannot come up with a theory.

Lol. An individual can come up with a theory. That's science. Darwin's theory of evolution? By the way, theories don't have to be strongly supported, nor be evaluated by the scientific community (refer to example of evolution again).

 

[VARob]

Unless you're saying the Earth was once flat, but now it's not?

lol.. Good one, Moses.

 

[Magenta]

Lol. An individual can come up with a theory. That's science. Darwin's theory of evolution?

Darwin's theory has been supported by many other scientists. It is not considered a
theory in a vacuum. Scientists were evaluating the idea of evolution before Darwin.

 

[VARob]

Atheism is a religion also.

FE is a religion too.

 

[RaceRunner]

earth is only a small fraction of our plannet.

If the earth moved we really would be in trouble
The theory of the earth doesn't move is based upon the whole plannet being earth.
And scripture saying the earth is fixed to its pillars and doesn't move


View attachment 253345

As you can see the crust is the earth, The pillars are the mantle the outer core and the inner core.

The bible was saying the earths crust does not move.

But the bible doesnt say the earth pillars don't move.

And if you say you understand this, then your just disproving yourself

 

[Moses_Young]

Darwin's theory has been supported by many other scientists.
It is not considered a theory in a vacuum.

It was a theory when he invented it. (Yeah, I know the Greeks had a form of evolution some thousands of years prior, but Darwin popularised it for our age. Nonetheless, it was still a theory). Darwin was the only one who needed to hypothesise it, and then provided the evidence allegedly supporting it to make it into a theory. It was and still is a bad theory, easily refuted, but that is how science works. It relies on people understanding the scientific method in order to challenge and refute ridiculous theories (before they become too popular), which most people sadly clearly do not.

You seem to like to make up your own definitions... .

The scientific method doesn't change, even if the dishonest publishers of dictionaries would like it to. I didn't check the definition, as I know the scientific method, and don't really care what the dictionary says ('cause if a dictionary says otherwise, it's wrong).

 

[RaceRunner]

They have been mentioned a number of times...

View attachment 253344

 

[Magenta]

It was a theory when he invented it. (Yeah, I know the Greeks had a form of evolution some thousands of years prior, but Darwin popularised it for our age. Nonetheless, it was still a theory. Darwin was the only one who need to hypothesise it, and then provided the evidence allegedly supporting it to make it into a theory. It was and still is a bad theory, easily refuted, but that is how science works. It relies on people understanding the scientific method in order to challenge and refute ridiculous theories, which most people sadly clearly do not.)

He did not invent it. Scientists were evaluating the idea of evolution before Darwin. CD's contribution
was specifically the natural selection bit, that organisms vary, and these variations can better suit
individuals to their environment, thus boosting their chances of passing down these traits to future
generations. (Weirdly, Darwin's friend, the brilliant naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace, had arrived at the
same idea independently at around the same time. The two presented their preliminary findings to the
Linnean Society of London, before Darwin blew the lid off the whole thing with On the Origin of Species.)
source

 

[RaceRunner]

 

[Fundaamental]

It's an interpretation for the seismic data. A theory. Anyone can make up a theory. I could blame the Heliocentric pixies. Doesn't make it true.

Atheism is a religion also. The worship of man. Heliocentric theory is part of its theology.

well no scientists are able to collect data from seismic waves that travel all the way to the earths inner core, like a thousand times a year through earth quakes,

Scientists are able to gather information about the earth's inner structure and also the fact that the earth's inner structure is moving,

 

[Moses_Young]

He did not invent it. Scientists were evaluating the idea of evolution before Darwin. CD's contribution
was specifically the natural selection bit, that organisms vary, and these variations can better suit
individuals to their environment, thus boosting their chances of passing down these traits to future
generations. (Weirdly, Darwin's friend, the brilliant naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace, had arrived at the
same idea independently at around the same time. The two presented their preliminary findings to the
Linnean Society of London, before Darwin blew the lid off the whole thing with On the Origin of Species.)

Yeah. If we wanted to go deeper, we'd probably find out both "scientists" were being funded by the same people; Darwin apparently getting very lucky on the stocks. But either way, Darwin didn't need the other guy who only a few people have ever heard of, or the ancient Greeks who were pushing the theory back around in their day. He hypothesised evolution, went on a holiday, drew up a few animals which he claimed supported his hypothesis, and there you have it. Darwin's theory of evolution.

 

[Magenta]

Yeah. If we wanted to go deeper, we'd probably find out both "scientists" were being funded by the same people; Darwin apparently getting very lucky on the stocks. But either way, Darwin didn't need the other guy who only a few people have ever heard of, or the ancient Greeks who were pushing the theory back around in their day. He hypothesised evolution, went on a holiday, drew up a few animals which he claimed supported his hypothesis, and there you have it. Darwin's theory of evolution.

Either way, Darwin did not invent it. The end.

 

[Moses_Young]

well no scientists are able to collect data from seismic waves that travel all the way to the earths inner core, like a thousand times a year through earth quakes,

Scientists are able to gather information about the earth's inner structure and also the fact that the earth's inner structure is moving,

Do you have proof of this? I don't consider seismic waves to be proof of Earth's inner core. Any more than you consider the blue sky to be proof of Earth's firmament.

 

[RaceRunner]

Either way, Darwin did not invent it. The end.

The end of freemasonic globe earth theory for good.

 

[tourist]

The experiment done in the video speaks for itself.

The experiment simply had a lit candle that went down out of sight on one side and was lifted up on the other side. Is it your postion that the sun goes down in the west, travels underneath the flat earth and rises in the east?

 

[Moses_Young]

Either way, Darwin did not invent it. The end.

Refer to my original disclaimer, where I pointed out that Darwin popularised evolution, rather than invented it. But it's still known as Darwin's theory of evolution, because he formalised it as a theory. He didn't need anyone else. That's how science works.