Science-Technology
See other Science-Technology Articles
Title: RAW FOOTAGE: Balloon, aka NASA "Satellite" Floats Across Full Moon
Source:
YT
URL Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAfdkWy0QtE&feature=youtu.be
Published: Feb 3, 2018
Author: Flat Earth Dude
Post Date: 2019-09-28 17:41:37 by Liberator
Keywords: NASA, Satellite, Balloon
Views: 31119
Comments: 184
(Video taken through a Nikon P900 camera)
Poster Comment: Cool! Great shot of the Moon as well. (Sure doesn't seem like it's 239,000 miles away.) So.... is balloon technology how NASA really photographs earth? It appears they are able to attach an equipment gondola to the Balloon...and let 'er rip into Low Earth Orbit. One also wonders if "Astronauts" are actually embedded into a special Balloon gondola instead what's depicted in those dodgy "ISS" shots. Orbital velocity is the velocity needed to achieve balance between gravity's pull on the satellite and the inertia of the satellite's motion -- the satellite's tendency to keep going. This is approximately 17,000 mph (27,359 kph) at an altitude of 150 miles (242 kilometers). Without gravity, the satellite's inertia would carry it off into space. Moving juuuust a bit slower than 17,000 MPH. Source: 'HOW STUFF WORKS' https://science.howstuffworks.com/satellite6.htm
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-118) not displayed.
.
.
.
#119. To: nolu chan (#116)
Well, you don't get very consistent answers if you ask the Flat Earthers whether the moon and the sun are 1) inside the dome or 2) outside the dome or 3) the moon is inside the dome and the sun is outside the dome. Apparently the Flatters think that satellites, if not a complete NASA deception, are nothing more than big dirigible balloons that fly around the upper atmosphere of the flat earth. So they think that the Directv/DISH satellites are actually big balloons that mimic the behavior and the position in the sky of a satellite. So they might even be seen by telescopes from Earth and even appear at precalculated positions of the sky but that doesn't mean anything; it just means that NASA's deception is so cunningly constructed that the fake satellites/dirigibles do mimic the sky position of the satellite they are pretending to be. But of course they're all just fake NASA dirigibles, not actual satellites. There is no way to soften the implications of such a belief system. It's just so fundamentally wrong that it is tragic.
TC, believe it or not I will give you points for at least attempting to frame the Flat Earth/Firmament Realm & paradigm (or as you put it, "Belief System") within the scope of honesty. In your defense, for those who've grown up marinated in the "Space Race-John Glenn-Moon Landings" years (or, having worked for any government institution -- AND still trust them), the far less likely it is that you will more accepting of changing gears and re-considering the possibility (or strong probability) that our reality is not as we've been told. I'll address your skepticism separately. AS BULLET POINTS. a) "You don't get very consistent answers [from] Flat Earthers" TRUE. That's because "Flat Earthers" are not monolithic in belief. They may be comprised of both Christians AND Atheists; May base fundamental beliefs on the Bible, Science, Common Sense, Observations, or overlapping; The one consensus: Governments, "Authoritahs" and "Science" Communitah LIE. b) There are "inconsistent answers" from Flat Earthers on "whether the moon and the sun are 1) inside the dome or 2) outside the dome or 3) the moon is inside the dome and the sun is outside the dome." TRUE. There is no consensus on these assertions. Again, these answers coincide on whether the individual "Flat Earther" relies on Scripture for support of cosmological placement. c) "Apparently the Flatters think that satellites, if not a complete NASA deception...nothing more than big dirigible balloons that fly around the upper atmosphere of the flat earth." TRUE. I'd posted the same video assessment and revelations that actually document the NASA deceptions (SEE ABOVE, Post #54) which actually have and still do launch and use giants Balloons (no, NOT "dirigibles") for Satellites propulsion and monitoring of Earth. But only from Low Earth Orbit. Documented: "Space Stations" like Mir were launched and propelled via Balloons/"Gondola." The extent and degree of past & present NASA deception, fraud, and hoaxing has not been difficult at all to document and prove. d) "They think that the Directv/DISH satellites are actually big balloons that mimic the behavior and the position in the sky of a satellite." True (in a sense) Communication "Satellites" are nothing but very high "substitute communications towers" which are local and NOT "spinning around the globe at 17,000 MPH" (the speed which is most documented as necessary to maintain earth orbit). The medium of the vast majority of "Direct TV/DISH"-type communications and reception remain those fancy phone and communications towers you see everywhere -- including atop the highest buildings. e) "NASA's deception is so cunningly constructed that the fake satellites/dirigibles do mimic the sky position of the satellite they are pretending to be." Building "Satellite Dishes" are pointed in a particular direction OF A PARTICULAR TOWER according to one's geographical position -- and set in parallel positions. NOT "straight up into the sky." The Dish on your roof is certainly NOT constantly tracing a moving "Space Satellite" either. (Q: Exactly which direction in the sky would your roof Satellite Dish be pointed if "Space Satellites" are allegedly orbiting the globe at 17,000 MPH? How would that work when your specific particular Satellite is on THE OTHER SIDE OF EARTH OVER CHINA?) There is no way to soften the implications of such a belief system. It's just so fundamentally wrong that it is tragic. Once one connects the huge dots and learns the truth about NASA, "science," and our actual realm, the very same thoughts occur to us. Except that your undying beliefs and loyalty to institutions don't enrage and trigger us.
Speaking of someone, "believing their "own eyes," if it's on Tee-Bee, are you really sure you can? HAVE YOU HEARD OF, Deep Fake? We are told this is OLD tech: Do you realize how scary-close today high-tech CGI software simulates "reality" now is? Check out this 3 year old CGI "space" software for beginners and intermediate users down below. It's called Blender. Can you imagine the 2019-2020 Blender version for expert Users?? Space VFX Elements Video Course for Blender:
Certainly all of us have our strengths and weaknesses in comprehension of various subjects and things. I know I have my weaknesses, so I can empathize with others who have them, even if they are weak in areas I'm strong in. TC, I remember you posting that photo that showed one of the Apollo landing sites from the lander with the earth hugely lit behind it on the horizon. I pretty much knew immediately it was doctored as the earth wouldn't be on the horizon for any Apollo mission, and the shadows didn't match earth's spherical illumination. Earth was also way too detailed for the cameras they had back then. It was a beautiful shot designed for desktop backgrounds, but was not real. That stood out to me but not to yourself, I suppose, and others. Certainly you're better than me in other areas. Then there is at least one person on this site for whom it is not possible for police to ever commit a sin. It could be said that that person suffers from a form of "dyscalculia" related to police. I'm sure many of us would say similar for those with "Trump derangement syndrome" because they cannot fathom Trump ever doing anything good. Another person here is a baseball, hot dogs and apple pie version of the worst of head-chopping ISIS members, yet still professes Christianity. I've said before and say again, My theory is that people have an overwhelming ability to believe things even if they are completely untrue. Liberator, whom I still do like and respect, believing the earth is flat is a validation of that theory, which I've subscribed to even before I read of his stating his belief. It's the same reason why most people's religious beliefs reflect that of their parents, no matter what the faith is-- Christianity, Judaim, Islam, Buddism, Hinduism or even Atheism. If it were otherwise then we'd see religious beliefs homogenously spread throughout the world, but we don't. Entire countries are by and large one faith, and remain so from one generation to the next. So.... that's okay. It's the old cliche. Do you/we accept people who see the world differently than we do? Or do we make a big stink about it and call them stupid? The old saying comes to mind, which I like: And when you think about that quote, it inescapably means that all of us are fools. The only difference is that some of us know it, and some of us don't.
The statement I heard was, I believe, taken out of context.
We shouldn't call Liberator "stupid"...that's a harsh word. How about gullible, that's better. Are you a fool, Pinguinite? I don't think so, except when it comes to God. It seems you can't use your excellent logic to bring yourself to a sufficient understanding of God.
Pinguinite used to profess to be a christian.
What happened to him, that he would turn away from the love that is in Christ?
I cannot find that thread now, not sure if it was deleted. Perhaps it was on a thread that was off-topic and hijacked into Moonbattery. And I do not concede that those very famous photos were not taken on the moon. What I recall is that there are a lot of people who don't seem to understand the small size and scale of the moon in general and particularly how that difference from Earth's size leads to things that would be anomalies. Except the moon is 250K miles away, 1/6 the mass of the earth, distance to the horizon on the moon is about half the distance to horizon on Earth, etc. I would also point out that the most famous of the Apollo photos of Earth was the one from Apollo 8 which showed the earth rising over the horizon as Apollo 8 came around the moon, a picture known ever since as Earthrise. (Apollo 8 was the main flyby of the moon, testing the Apollo system for suitability in a moon landing during Apollo 11.) Of course, you can choose to believe the moon landings were all faked, that they were filmed by Stanley Kubrick as propaganda on a sound stage, etc. But that doesn't make it true. Well, it is a fundamental question and not just one of manners or humoring people who are mentally deficient. Is 1+1=2 just an opinion? Is the Flat Earth just an opinion? Are the value of vaccination programs in public health just an opinion? Are the cargo cults of primitive tribes worshiping modern aircraft that fly over their jungles just another opinion? Is a square any different from a circle? Or is that just another opinion? There is a big difference between humoring someone and agreeing with them. And humoring people disputing the most basic science/math facts can lead to tragic results, usually for them but sometimes for others. If you're just saying that truth doesn't matter at all if it might hurt someone's feelings, then you should just come out and say that.
Gullible might apply. But I would say it applies to people who believe the earth is either flat or only 6000 years old. Or that God would condemn souls to hell for all eternity because their physical brains didn't somehow have recorded within them in some biochemical way some notion of Jesus being the son of God. How logical is it that one would face an eternity in hell because a Christian who was supposed to share the gospel 2 days before the person died in an accident? You have your explanation for how that is just and okay. And Liberator has his explanation for how the earth is flat. Stone has his explanation for the earth only being 6k years old.... we all have explanations for what we believe, but that does not make them true. I say God is better than that. And with the model I subscribe to, he is. All falls in place very very well. The model of God that you 3 subscribe to does, I say, sell God short. Or maybe I'm just gullible too. Well, no "maybe" about it. Everyone of us is gullible, in one way or another. We are all fools, in the end.
It's here somewhere, but even I'd have trouble finding it. It was 2 real photos, one of the earth and one from Apollo that were merged together. But the shadows of rocks on the moon showed the sun was to the left of the camera, while the earth illumination made it clear the sun was behind the camera. No biggie though. It was a beautiful picture, and no one says that art cannot be done in such ways, and all paintings could be said to be "fake" in not conveying reality accurately. In all you listed, I believe vaccinations do convey immunity. I also believe they have killed people. You list it among other things that suggest not advocating vaccines is kookery. Well, it depends on what things you consider facts. The truth does certainly matter. Even if our perception of it is inaccurate. Confusion is part of life.
Why can't the Earth be only 6000 years old? Don't tell me you believe in evolution, too. You should spend some time pondering the impossible complexities of a cow's udder...you would never, ever believe in evolution again!
Because that person WANTS to spend eternity in hell. That person does not want to be with God...so He sends them to the place He created for Lucifer. Very simple actually.
No it isn't true because I believe it. It is what a critical look at the evidence says. How were fossils formed on the scale they are unless buried in mud very quickly all over the earth. If there was no great flood there would be no fossil record that we have today.
I think Google has hid the search results and buried them for this site. I used to be to find my song parody about burning the Koran. I can't find it with google anymore. It used to be the number one search result with the key words I would find it with. Now nothing.
Why can't the universe be as old as it is big? Do you doubt the speed of light is what science says it is? Is the furthest object away no more than 6000 light years distant? You choose.... **we**... choose to believe what we want. And that which we choose to believe, we call truth. For me, it is illogical to believe that God created a universe/earth just 6000 years ago and made it look like it was far older. Christianity teaches God is not the "author of deception". Well, if He made the universe look older than it is, that would be pretty deceiving. As for evolution, it explains a lot and I have no problem with it. But it's not compatible with your version of truth.
Or because they never heard the gospel because some Christian failed to do as ordered. Or because that person was born in a pure Islamic culture and died at 6 years old, having never heard about Jesus. Yes, very simple.
God created a finished universe. The speed of light doesn't disprove anything. However the amount of dust on the moon proves without doubt that the earth is young and not billions or even millions of years old. Or did I read that you think that is a hoax? I honestly don't remember. I know liberator believes such nonsense.
You should study the Bible more and you would know this. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) Now that you know this you should revise your thinking and not use this as an excuse to not believe in God anymore. Yes I said believe in God. Believing in a hypnotist carnival act is not believing in God.
Why wouldn't you have a problem with something that can't be duplicated in the lab. Something with no evidence. If there is evidence you should share it. Something that has never been witnessed but would be witnessed if it was happening. There are no new species evolving. A peach tree is always a peach tree and never changes into anything else. All the other species 100 percent of the time produce after like kind and have never been shown to produce a new or different species. So frankly people who believe in evolution are kind of dumb. Maybe not dumb in all ways but certainly dumb on the fairy tale of evolution. It is bullshit and you should know better because you are smart generally speaking.
It isn't so simple. I should have put that a couple posts above. But it really isn't that simple since you ommited what I quoted from scripture. What is simple though. Jesus is either a liar or telling the truth. I say he is telling the truth. You can call him a liar if you want the choice is always yours.
How is that deception? How else could He create time and space unless He actually selected a time as to how His creation would look? Adam and Eve were created to be a certain age, and again, how is that deception? When God made the universe it didn't look older than it is...it looked brand spanking new...the universe had not yet "fallen" through man's sin.
Where do you get this strange notion that God made the world look older that it is? Here is the fact. Doubters trying to disprove God grasp at straws like the speed of light and try to put God in a box and say he has to wait for light to come to the earth and he couldn't just make a finished universe. Tell me why God couldn't have made a finished product? I mean you have no problem thinking brain structures, lungs, blood flowing, sexual organs for reproduction naturally comes into being by dirt sitting around for a long time. You have to have a really active imagination to believe that bull shit.
Do you really believe thear are versions of the truth. I don't believe that. I believe something is either true or it is not. Therea are no different versions of the truth. That is silly. Maybe you meant people believe things to be true that aren't and act as though it was.
Why wouldn't you have a problem with something that can't be duplicated in the lab. Something with no evidence. If there is evidence you should share it. Something that has never been witnessed but would be witnessed if it was happening. I won't debate evolution now. But suffice to say that a great many people consider denying evolution on par with denying a spherical earth. You don't believe evolution because it conflicts with your belief in the Bible as the "Word of God" literal truth. As far as I'm concerned, you validate my point that people will believe what they choose to believe.
I used to queston the Bible because of evolution. Then I did some research and learned that there isn't anything to it that is scientific. It is a religion. It is wise of you not to debate evolution. The facts aren't on evolutions side. You should read a book by Gary Parker a former evolutionist professor head of the science department at some university that I forget the name of. He was biased towards evolution. Or if you don't want to then don't.
We are observing things with telescopes that scientific consensus says is upwards of 10 billion light years away, meaning the light departed from those objects 10 billion years ago. If the universe is not anywhere close to that age, then did God, when he created the universe 6000 years ago, also create that light so that when we see it now would make us *think* that we were viewing those objects as they were 10 billion years ago. Was God too impatient to wait 10-13 billion years for the universe to play out, and just set the stage to give that illusion? To me, this is flat earth talk. You consider the Bible to be the "Word of God" and you construct your entire world view around that premise. The difference between us is I go beyond that. I don't concede without question that the Bible is the infallible "Word of God". You do. Certainly you consider many creations of man to be defective, but the Bible is somehow immune to being influence by the failings of man. You do not allow for what I consider a plausible history which, to my satisfaction, explains why and how the Bible came to be and is regarded with such reverence as it is today.
Is that a fact or opion. Oh it is an opinion. Why couldn't the creator have created a complete universe? Why is that impossible?
No silly God made a complete universe. He made light move fast so it would be constant. You are making excuses.
Of course there are. A plain reading of just about anything illustrates that all too well. Only one truth, but many versions of it as people believe what they will.
Over 1000 doctoral scientists agree with you. https://dissentfromdarwin.org/
I honestly don't have time and little inclination to look into this, but the quote above is not necessarily an indictment on evolution as a whole. Rather it's an indictment of "random mutation" and natural selection as the basis of how complex life came to be. In other words, what if evolution is real but does NOT involve "random mutation". What if there is some biological mechanism that facilitates evolution without "random mutation" being an ingredient? What if there are mutations driving evolution, but they do not happen randomly? Beyond that, one major problem with creationism is that it's a theory that cannot be disproven. That is, no amount of physical evidence that is collected could definitively show that creationism/intelligent design could NOT have happened. That's important because any theory that cannot be disproven cannot be proven either. Creationism/intelligent design is therefore a "default" theory that one subscribes to if there are no other known theories that can work.
I understand about time/inclination, believe me, I do. But you ought to take a moment and click on the link. (audio on) When a 1000 scientists make a statement regarding their skepticism of Darwinian evolution your might call that a paradigm shift. Something big has happened. Where it might lead, I do not know.
Was that the opening post on that old thread about burning the Koran? [found using DuckDuckGo, using search terms burning the Koran site:libertysflame.com]
I listened to the short clip. It's not anything substantiated in the short length it is. More akin to a movie trailer. But my current belief set doesn't really care how we got here. It allows for either creationism / intelligent design OR evolution, or a combination of the two. It doesn't matter which it is, or if it's something else entirely, because our humanity is only incidental. Our bodies, including our brains, do not define what or who we are. It's rather what we have, or what we possess. Put another way, they are temporary rental units, not things we own for "life". I.e., the life of the soul. With the Christian belief set you subscribe to, you don't quite have that luxury. Humanity has to be something special, above and beyond the animal kingdom. The story of Genesis provides that explanation of how & why humans are special. Whatever weaknesses evolution has, creationism has the difficulty of explaining why so much of the human body has things in common with various primates. Even Human DNA is very close to the same as chimpanzee DNA. Why would that be, in the intelligent design scenario? My favored question: What is it about Human DNA that gives rise to an immortal soul that defies all laws of thermal dynamics that chimpanzee DNA does not possess? Those are rhetorical questions. I can't promise any long winded discussions as I've had with Liberator. But with my belief set, human conception in no way causes any immortal soul to be created (why would it, given souls defy basic universal laws?), and what makes us spiritually special above and beyond the animal world has zero, zip, zilch to do with our humanity. So I'll clarify that my belief set in no way requires evolution to be the explanation for our human origins. Bottom line is, the human race exists. It came into existence some way, some how. What makes you and I special is something that goes far and away, above and beyond the human genome, beyond even this universe.
We humans have a spirit that can relate to God, Who is Spirit. If not evolution, how? (Every human being wants to know the how and why of our existence...I know that you are no different, Ping)
Something that can't be disproven can't be proven. What a load of crap. If apple trees started evolving and having a new kind of fruit on them. That would disprove creationism because things produce after like kind. If a monkey turned into a man that would disprove creationism. You don't see your own made up biases. How do you disprove the big bang? Stick that in your fuse box.
What if imaginations are not scientific. It is how we got the imagined theory of evolution. Frankly a lame theory that makes no sense in the real world. It doesn't happen. Never happened. No examples to demonstrate it. It ie deception for people who don't want to believe it might upset their world and they will have to admit they are living as sinners. That is why we all get to choose heaven or hell.
Do **you** want to know how humans came into existence? It doesn't seem so. With creationism, you simply accept that God made us and have no concern for the how's and why's. The biggest question we already know the answer to... we DO exist. I think, therefore, I am. The how is one question of many we don't have answers to, and is more academic than critical. The Newton model I subscribe to does allow for "intelligent design", or the means of physical life to be altered or even created outright by entities from the spirit world. The detailed history of human creation is somewhat analogous to knowing the exact route someone took from their home to meet me at a restaurant. It's not really the most pressing question I'd have for them upon meeting.
No it would not. Creationism involves, from the perspective of our physical world, new life forms springing into existence. There is nothing about creationism that states that evolution can't also exist. Even if all life did evolve from primordial goo over the last 4.5 billion years, a new life form could divinely appear tomorrow, in full glory showing off the power of "intelligent design". None of us can prove such a thing cannot happen, as none of us can prove alternate universes do not exist, or what the nature of them is or in what ways they can or cannot impact our universe. But creationism, even if proven, does not disprove evolution. And evolution, even if proven, does not disprove creationism. Strictly speaking, in science terms, both can co-exist, even if one were to deem them incompatible from a religious perspective. You and I don't communicate all that well. That's why I've not responded to many of your posts.
You claim evolution is bogus because it's never been proven in a lab. Well, has creationism been proven in a lab? Have some experiments been conducted that has successfully shown new life forms divinely springing into existence on empty and sterile tabletops? You have no evidence of creationism. You do have, allegedly, evidence that discounts evolution. But even if evolution is disproven, that does not prove creationism. As I said previously, creationism is a "default" theory. It's something people might believe if they don't have any other theory to explain, to their satisfaction, the origin of complex life. Evolution is one theory, but next year someone might come up with a totally different theory. Creationism has never been proven and regretably is incapable, by its very nature, of being disproven, unlike evolution.
Comments (160 - 184) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest I guess DISH and DIRECTV hang their satellites from the dome of the firmament.
#120. To: Tooconservative, nolu chan (#119)
(Edited)
Nolu: ("I guess DISH and DIRECTV hang their satellites from the dome of the firmament.")
#121. To: sneakypete, Tooconservative, A K A Stone, Deckard, ALL (#115)
When someone won't even believe their own eyes because they think they are lying,you just have to give up.
#122. To: Tooconservative, Liberator (#10)
[I thought Neil might like these videos; the first vlogger shows his test for dyscalculia based on an aircraft flight plan and says that no Flattard has managed to pass it with only a few even willing to try to. It reminded me of Neil's posts about aircraft flight plans on some old flat earth threads here at LF.]
A fool thinks himself wise, but a wise man knows he is a fool.
#123. To: Liberator (#20)
FACT: Given NASA's own "Scientists" admit" "WE CAN'T LEAVE LOW EARTH ORBIT" (But they're "working on it!").
#124. To: Pinguinite, Liberator (#122)
Or do we make a big stink about it and call them stupid?
#125. To: watchman (#124)
#126. To: A K A Stone (#125)
Pinguinite used to profess to be a christian.
#127. To: Pinguinite (#122)
TC, I remember you posting that photo that showed one of the Apollo landing sites from the lander with the earth hugely lit behind it on the horizon. I pretty much knew immediately it was doctored as the earth wouldn't be on the horizon for any Apollo mission, and the shadows didn't match earth's spherical illumination. Earth was also way too detailed for the cameras they had back then. It was a beautiful shot designed for desktop backgrounds, but was not real. That stood out to me but not to yourself, I suppose, and others. Certainly you're better than me in other areas.
So.... that's okay. It's the old cliche. Do you/we accept people who see the world differently than we do? Or do we make a big stink about it and call them stupid?
#128. To: watchman, Liberator, A K A Stone (#124)
We shouldn't call Liberator "stupid"...that's a harsh word. How about gullible, that's better.
Are you a fool, Pinguinite? I don't think so, except when it comes to God. It seems you can't use your excellent logic to bring yourself to a sufficient understanding of God.
#129. To: Tooconservative (#127)
I cannot find that thread now, not sure if it was deleted. Perhaps it was on a thread that was off-topic and hijacked into Moonbattery. And I do not concede that those very famous photos were not taken on the moon.
If you're just saying that truth doesn't matter at all if it might hurt someone's feelings, then you should just come out and say that.
#130. To: Pinguinite (#128)
earth is either flat or only 6000 years old
#131. To: Pinguinite (#128)
How logical is it that one would face an eternity in hell
#132. To: Pinguinite (#128)
Stone has his explanation for the earth only being 6k years old.... we all have explanations for what we believe, but that does not make them true.
#133. To: Pinguinite, tooconservative (#129)
It's here somewhere, but even I'd have trouble finding it.
#134. To: watchman (#130)
Why can't the Earth be only 6000 years old?
#135. To: watchman (#131)
Because that person WANTS to spend eternity in hell.
#136. To: Pinguinite (#134)
Why can't the universe be as old as it is big? Do you doubt the speed of light is what science says it is? Is the furthest object away no more than 6000 light years distant?
#137. To: Pinguinite (#135)
Or because they never heard the gospel because some Christian failed to do as ordered.
#138. To: Pinguinite (#134)
As for evolution, it explains a lot and I have no problem with it.
#139. To: Pinguinite (#135)
Yes, very simple.
#140. To: Pinguinite (#134)
Christianity teaches God is not the "author of deception". Well, if He made the universe look older than it is, that would be pretty deceiving.
#141. To: Pinguinite (#134)
You choose.... **we**... choose to believe what we want. And that which we choose to believe, we call truth. For me, it is illogical to believe that God created a universe/earth just 6000 years ago and made it look like it was far older. Christianity teaches God is not the "author of deception". Well, if He made the universe look older than it is, that would be pretty deceiving.
#142. To: Pinguinite (#134)
But it's not compatible with your version of truth.
#143. To: A K A Stone (#138)
#144. To: Pinguinite (#143)
#145. To: watchman (#140)
How is that deception? How else could He create time and space unless He actually selected a time as to how His creation would look? Adam and Eve were created to be a certain age, and again, how is that deception?
When God made the universe it didn't look older than it is...it looked brand spanking new...the universe had not yet "fallen" through man's sin.
#146. To: Pinguinite (#145)
We are observing things with telescopes that scientific consensus says is upwards of 10 billion light years away, meaning the light departed from those objects 10 billion years ago.
#147. To: Pinguinite (#145)
when he created the universe 6000 years ago, also create that light so that when we see it now would make us *think* that we were viewing those objects as they were 10 billion years ago.
#148. To: A K A Stone (#142)
Do you really believe thear are versions of the truth.
#149. To: A K A Stone, Pinguinite (#144)
The facts aren't on evolutions side.
“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
#150. To: watchman (#149)
“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
#151. To: Pinguinite (#150)
(Edited)
I honestly don't have time and little inclination to look into this
#152. To: A K A Stone (#133)
I used to be to find my song parody about burning the Koran. I can't find it with google anymore.
#153. To: watchman (#151)
#154. To: Pinguinite (#153)
What is it about Human DNA that gives rise to an immortal soul that defies all laws of thermal dynamics that chimpanzee DNA does not possess?
It came into existence some way, some how.
#155. To: Pinguinite (#150)
Beyond that, one major problem with creationism is that it's a theory that cannot be disproven. That is, no amount of physical evidence that is collected could definitively show that creationism/intelligent design could NOT have happened. That's important because any theory that cannot be disproven cannot be proven either.
#156. To: Pinguinite (#150)
What if there is some biological mechanism that facilitates evolution without "random mutation" being an ingredient? What if there are mutations driving evolution, but they do not happen randomly?
#157. To: watchman (#154)
If not evolution, how? (Every human being wants to know the how and why of our existence...I know that you are no different, Ping)
#158. To: A K A Stone (#155)
If apple trees started evolving and having a new kind of fruit on them. That would disprove creationism because things produce after like kind.
How do you disprove the big bang? Stick that in your fuse box.
#159. To: A K A Stone (#156)
(Edited)
No examples to demonstrate it. It ie deception for people who don't want to believe it might upset their world and they will have to admit they are living as sinners.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]