I see no reason to speculate on someone else's interpretation.If the sun "literally stood still" - how exactly does that fit into the Ball Earth model...???
I see no reason to speculate on someone else's interpretation.If the sun "literally stood still" - how exactly does that fit into the Ball Earth model...???
In that case, I suppose there is no reason for anyone to speculate on your interpretation of the Opera House pictures...I see no reason to speculate on someone else's interpretation.
Bigfoot territory bro.....
The Earth is pretty much flat where I live. Three miles east of here the Earth
is bumpy. Fifty miles east and it's really bumpy. Mount Hood is like 11,250
feet above sea level.
_
The sun's position relative to the OH is not an "interpretation".In that case, I suppose there is no reason for anyone to speculate on your interpretation of the Opera House pictures...![]()
And? Is God not able?In the Ball Earth model - if the sun "literally stood still" - the rotation of the earth would have to come to a sudden screeching halt...
How, in your view, is this a problem for "young-earth theorists"? I don't see any problem at all. Remember that whole 'global flood' thing back in Genesis? Well, that is a more-than-adequate explanation.Now, it's right about here that young-earth theorists have a problem
because it's obvious from physical evidence that much of the Earth's higher
elevations were inundated for a very long time before they were pushed up
to where they are now.
Take for example Mount Everest. Today its tippy top is something like
29,029 feet above sea level. The discovery of fossilized sea lilies near its
summit proves that the Himalayan land mass has not always been
mountainous; but at one time was the floor of an ancient sea bed. This is
confirmed by the "yellow band" below Everest's summit consisting of
limestone: a type of rock made from calcite sediments containing the
skeletal remains of countless trillions of organisms who lived, not on dry
land, rather, underwater in an ocean.
_
Would you care to quote one instance for me puppers?
I would love to see where I called God uncaring.
God doesn't care about what we think. He uses the foolish things of the world to put to shame the strong and He asks that we trust Him and not our own understanding.
No - it does not.
It only shows that you are unwilling to try to understand it within a Flat Earth model framework.
Remember that whole 'global flood' thing back in Genesis? Well, that is a
more-than-adequate explanation.
.
The Flood lasted scarcely a year from start to finish-- too brief on the
geological clock to be of any consequence in forming significant deposits
of limestone.
_
Maybe he has never had a trans-Atlantic or trans-Pacific flight? Oh well.....Show me something understandable & I will understand it.
How in the "FE framework" does the day/night, seasonal & annual cycle that God established on the 4th creation day work?
What mechanisms on a flat, stationary world provide the separation of night/day that we experience?
Where is the observational research work, science & verified evidence that explains the continuous cycle & separation of
night & day on a stationary disc? Who are the scientists in that field of study & at which universities did they qualify ?
Where might we find their peer-reviewed academic papers? What history does this field of study have?
We need a new physics that explains how the moon & man-made satellites are in orbit around a flat, stationary disc without
poles & gravity.
Bro.....you need to get around a little. I mean in terms of amassing data on the subject..
The Flood lasted scarcely a year from start to finish-- too brief on the
geological clock to be of any consequence in forming significant deposits
of limestone.
_
Something called "precession" bro.....If the sun "literally stood still" - how exactly does that fit into the Ball Earth model...???
Only if you hold to the unscientific and anti-theistic idea that 'the present is the key to the past'..
The Flood lasted scarcely a year from start to finish-- too brief on the
geological clock to be of any consequence in forming significant deposits
of limestone.
_
That has nothing to do with tides. It has everything to do with the gravitational affect of the moon and also the sun.
And no, things heavier than air do not necessarily fall through it. Or have you not seen birds and aircraft, balloons and airships, kites and such? In space, nothing falls anywhere. That is because there is no gravity.
You should learn something about pressure. Or just learn something instead of parroting other people's deceptions as if they were facts.
That would be based on a geological clock of an excessively long time
period. Which means you've already assumed an old age for the earth before
examining limestone deposits.
Yea.....they are real alright sis. I really cannot fathom the ongoing debate on the matter....Bigfoot territory bro....![]()
Hardly..
However; the sciences of geology and paleontology, in combination with
radiometric dating, strongly suggest that dinosaurs preceded humans by
several million years. So then, in my estimation, the Days of creation should
be taken to represent eras rather than 24-hour events. That's not an
unreasonable estimation; for example:
.
• Gen 1:5b . . And there was evening and there was morning, a first Day.
* There are two primary kinds of Days in the first chapter of Genesis. One is
a creation day and the other is a natural day. It's very important to keep
those two kinds of days distinct and separate in our thinking because they
are as unalike in size as stones and gravel.
According to Gen 1:24-31, God created humans and all terra critters on the
sixth Day; which has to include dinosaurs because on no other Day did God
create beasts but the sixth.
However; the sciences of geology and paleontology, in combination with
radiometric dating, strongly suggest that dinosaurs preceded humans by
several million years. So then, in my estimation, the Days of creation should
be taken to represent eras rather than 24-hour events. That's not an
unreasonable estimation; for example:
"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were
created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven." (Gen 2:4)
The Hebrew word for "day" in that verse is yowm (yome) which is the very
same word for each of the six Days of God's creation labors. Since yowm in
Gen 2:4 refers to a period of time obviously much longer than a 24-hour
natural day; it justifies suggesting that each of the six Days of creation
were longer than 24 hours apiece too. In other words: yowm is ambiguous
and not all that easy to interpret sometimes.
Anyway; this "day" thing has been a stone in the shoe for just about
everybody who takes Genesis seriously. It's typically assumed that the Days
of creation consisted of twenty-four hours apiece; so Bible students end up
stumped when trying to figure out how to cope with the 4.5 billion-year age
of the earth, and factor in the various eras, e.g. Triassic, Jurassic, Mesozoic,
Cenozoic, Cretaceous, etc, plus the ice ages and the mass extinction events.
_