Bible Vs Scientism

I will accept, for argument's sake, that gravity holds the molecules down. But how do we get from the atmosphere being held down to the atmosphere moving as a unit at 1000+ mph - just because a ball beneath it, to which it is NOT permanently "velcroed", spins?

Scientism claims that the source of the gravity is not the surface of the earth, but the core. So logic dictates that the air molecules would be held down to that same core, no matter what the surface of the earth was doing.

Also, consider a westerly wind. Trillions of gas molecules moving rapidly against the alleged rotation of the earth. Why wouldn't the same friction that causes the atmosphere as a whole to move with the earth cause the entire atmosphere to move against it due to that wind?

I'm just popping out questions here - not making strawman arguments against things you haven't even claimed.

But it's not. You call it "held down" to the earth. I have called it "velcroed", "affixed", and "stuck" to the earth. One of those sources I presented called it "bound" to the earth. And all of those sources I presented agree that the cause is a combination of gravity and friction. How can you have simultaneous and equal movement caused by friction if the non-moving object isn't "stuck" to the moving one?

Consider: If the atmosphere is not virtually velcroed to the earth, and just generally moves along with it due to occasional (but not complete) friction, then the atmosphere won't MATCH the speed of the earth. And if it doesn't MATCH the speed of the earth perfectly, we would have CONSTANT winds of up to 1000 mph. In order for there to be a calm and still day, the atmosphere must PERFECTLY MATCH the speed of the earth's surface for the entire day, ie: traveling a distance of over 12,000 miles, and to a height of 300 miles! Can that happen without the atmosphere being STUCK to the earth?

The centrifugal force, no matter how tiny you imagine it to be, would fight AGAINST the gravity and the spinning atmosphere, so I'm not sure why you'd bring that up when you can't adequately explain the phenomenon without adding in the centrifugal force.

I truly appreciate you trying. But after everything you said, we still come back to you just simply claiming, "It's called gravity" - just like Magenta did.

What will I do now? I'll point out your error (again). Here is your statement:



Here is what the article titles say:

"How does the atmosphere rotate with the earth?" (x2)
"Why does the atmosphere rotate along with the earth?"
"Does the atmosphere rotate with the earth?"

All address rotation of the atmosphere, not what "binds the atmosphere to the earth".

The next time you want to attempt to debunk what I have said, try reading more carefully.

The next time you try to un-debunk a thorough debunking that I gave you, try reading more than just the titles. 😉

If you had given me "a thorough debunking", there might be something warranting a greater response.

Next time, post links, not images.

Instead of asserting what "defenders of Scientism" believe, or would explain, how about you quote some people who you think are "defenders of Scientism".

How do we know a timeframe such as that is in the bible?

Again, you either don't understand, or you misrepresent, or both.

Wind is a fairly constant reality; it is actually less common for there to be "no wind" than for there to be a perceptible wind, but it does occur, as I suspect you know. The wind does not always blow in a direction consistent with the rotation of the Earth. In fact, it can blow in the opposite direction. Your assertion about constant wind speeds is completely without evidence. Simply put, while the atmosphere is held by gravity, it is not "stuck". Friction does account for some of the movement, but there are other causes such as the Coreolis effect, and air pressure differences caused by heat exchange.

"Velcroed", "affixed", and "stuck" all imply non-independent movement. If you want to have a meaningful discussion, try to avoid words that imply meanings you don't intend. Or, if you do intend the implied meaning, accept it when you are proven wrong, and change your belief.

In the most general sense, this is exactly what happened with the response to the following quote - a complete and deliberate deflection based on a technicality concerning the correct use of terminology - in an effort to totally disregard the main intent and purpose of the post - what the rest of it said:
So - correct use of the term 'strawman' or not - the rest of it - the "main" point of the post - still stands.

And, for anyone who did not fall for the 'deflection' technique, the point I was making just may have had some meaning...

Now, Dino - I know you are smarter than this.

You are close enough to the tree you are staring at to lick it - back off far enough to see the whole forest.

He is making a perfectly valid point - and, you are just trying to avoid having to seriously consider it.

I threw you a bone in an earlier post. I'm going to ignore any reference you make to "Scientism" until you confirm exactly what you mean. I suggested what I think you mean, but you need to address that.

If you are interested in exploring the possible ways the Genesis account would coincide with a God-guided natural method, we could be looking at different possible models like space seeding prior to day 4, etc. It could again, just be left as a mystery for what exactly is being described and how it would fit into different models.

How could there be cycles of light and darkness if verse 18 states that the two great lights divide the light from the dark? And in verse 15 we see that they are put there to give light to the earth? Was light given to the earth prior to that point?

Despite the mention of light and darkness, there is nothing that actually states that light was cast on the earth prior to verse 15 during day 4. You can make assumptions about the descriptions, but then you would be relying on the authority or clout of your assumptions.

You therefore agree that there are figurative uses of "day" in Genesis. There must be a judgement call to determine whether a particular use is literal or figurative. Human judgement is subject to error therefore it is possible you have the wrong impression of which kind of "day" is meant in Genesis 1. There is no such thing as a default for this, that's not how the study of language works. We can evaluate statistical usage of words and gauge likelihood based on other usage and context, but there is no magical "default" meaning that exists.

"For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night. Thou carriest them away as with a flood; they are as a sleep: in the morning they are like grass which groweth up. In the morning it flourisheth, and groweth up; in the evening it is cut down, and withereth." - Psalm 90:4-6 KJV

"And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up." - 2 Peter 3:4-10 KJV

We see a comparison between the length of a day and a length of time surpassing the longest human life. These are very clearly references to the description of a day in the eyes of the Lord being different than a standard day. Strikingly, Psalm 90 describes a human life as something that rises and falls in the course of a day. Is it possible this type of description is being used in Genesis 1? Yes, with precedence for that use elsewhere in scripture. Is it necessarily the case that Genesis 1 days are figurative? No, which is why I presented the fact that it doesn't matter if they are figurative or literal.

The phrasing states that the sun stood still for a day: a measure which is clearly made independently of the movement of the sun.

"So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day" - Joshua 10:13c KJV

From 30 years experience, I found that few Christians delight in the genealogies as structures that exists in isolation and are cyclical in nature rather than a timeline trajectory stretching up to our era as history.

https://books.google.ie/books?id=5VOGAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA10&lpg#v=onepage&q&f=false

Of all the values, the life span of Enoch should draw attention as 365 years, mirroring the number of days in a year along with the break in the formula "Then he died" -

https://bible.usccb.org/bible/genesis/5

It is an invitation for those who can perceive a miracle and this continues on to the genealogy in the first page of the Bible and ultimately the great Johannine work which closes out the Christian writings.

I didn't post the links because everything I needed to show you was in the snippets of the articles contained in the screenshots I provided...


Do you see the words, "the atmosphere spins along with it as a result of friction with the ground" under the title of the article? You claimed that physical connection wouldn't be necessary. But it would.

Did you see the words I underlined in red in another one of those snippets that said, "it is gravity that binds the atmosphere to the earth"? You claimed that the atmosphere wouldn't need to be "stuck" to the earth in order for it to rotate along with the earth. But it would.

All 4 screenshots showed this information - without the need to read the entire article. But just so you know in the future, you can simply type the title into your browser ("How does the atmosphere rotate with the Earth BBC"), and find that it usually comes up as the top result...



Then you have easy access to the entire article if you want it. I only needed to show the "friction with the earth" part and the "bound to the earth" part to make my point. And those were included in the screenshots.

To what end? To provide another diversionary tangent for you?

Dino, the Bible describes heaven as a firm barrier/vault/tent over the earth that supports the waters above it, and in which the sun, moon, and stars run appointed circuits over the earth. It has floodgates that can be (and were) opened to let the waters above heaven fall to the earth. The stars also can (and will) fall to the earth.

Defenders of Scientism (as defined in the OP) claim that heaven is NOT a firm barrier over the earth, and that there AREN'T any floodgates that can be opened to let the waters above heaven fall to the earth.

Which do you defend as the truth?

Hi Blue. I used scripture and my calculator to address that for someone else just yesterday. Here's a link to that post...
https://christianchat.com/threads/bible-vs-scientism.205714/post-4872488

It's not a deflection to point out the fallacy.When the "main point" of an argument depends upon a logical fallacy, there is no point. There is nothing remaining to be addressed or considered.

Sometimes, along with the fallacious assertion, there is a valid point made, and dismissing that point on the basis of a fallacy is also a fallacy. While I make no attempt to address every point someone makes, I normally do address the key points, unless the person is attempting to sidestep earlier criticism.
Then don’t accuse me of not reading the articles.

I certainly don’t defend your misunderstanding of Scripture.

Your statement certainly applies to one of us.

I gave an example of a virtually windless, very calm day - of which there are many in AZ, and I suspect, many other places in the world. My assertion (based on the Scientism model) was that the rotation of the atmosphere on days like that would have to be PERFECTLY MATCHED to the earth. Do you agree that there do exist calm days? And do you agree with my premise that the atmosphere would have to be PERFECTLY MATCHED with the speed of the earth for them to exist?

Yes it can... and often does. You are making my point for me. Because IF the atmosphere moved right along with a ball spinning underneath it, it would HAVE TO BE bound to the earth (and itself). If the winds can move independently of the spin of the earth, then there is no longer any reason why, or mechanism by which, the atmosphere EVER has to move along with the spin of the earth.

There are only two options, Dino. Either the ENTIRE atmosphere is STUCK to the earth and moves along with it... or it is not STUCK to the earth - in which case there is no reason it should ever move along with the earth.

Like I said, it can only be one or the other. If the friction can be broken by any of the effects you've mentioned, then the atmosphere is free from the earth, and there remains no mechanism by which it should, or would, move in lock-step with the earth. This is more apparent the higher one goes.

Look up at the clouds. Are they in the atmosphere? Yes. Do they move - all day long - completely independently of the direction of the alleged rotation of the earth? Yes. What does that tell you, Dino?

And what about high altitude balloons, which go up to 10 times as high as clouds? Is the virtually non-existent atmosphere at that height STILL moving that balloon right along with the rotation of the earth? You only need to think logically for yourself.

Dude, read this short article about the "edge of space" Red Bull jump... http://verticalexplorers.com/like-120000ft/


Yet Felix Baumgartner lifted off in New Mexico, and landed in New Mexico - 23 miles away from the launch point. If the earth was truly spinning, he would have landed thousands of miles to the west - because there was no atmosphere at his height to "move along with the rotation of the earth".

One of the sources I showed yesterday said that gravity BINDS the atmosphere to the earth, right? Would it surprise you to know that both "stick" and "affix" are synonyms of "bind"? https://www.powerthesaurus.org/stick/synonyms

So the words I'm using are not only accurate to describe what would be REQUIRED to achieve the phenomenon that you claim, they are used by Scientism sources.

So we have some substance to discuss, instead of your empty assertions.

No; you misunderstand Scripture, believing that it describes heaven as a firm b/v/t. Do your homework on the etymology of the word "firmament".

You make the assertions, but you provide no evidence. Nobody is obligated to respond to your opinions.