[Dark Tofu]

I never said that they were perfect, they have some views that I view as correct, but obviously on this issue they are incorrect.

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by nolidad

Here is asnother article about the same company cited before by me:

CITE THE STANFORD UNIVERSITY STUDY, NOLIDAD!!!

Sorry I forgot to add the word heat to water and pressure--but that is all they use--water-heat and pressure to turn the organic waste to oil.

Oh my God... will a Christian please ream out Nolidad for this lie? I'm getting sick of it.

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by Dark Tofu

First I don't think this contradicts science in any way.

1. It says that the Earth's sky is basically everything from the original seas to the edge of the universe, which is unknown as to what it is make of, water perhaps?

2. It doesn't say the Earth is in the middle of the universe, it says that it was created first, or at least what was earth at the time was created first.

No. It says the object that God calls "Sky" is a solid expanse or dome, described as "that which is hammered out." (raqia) God sets all the stars, the sun, the moon and the planets in this raqia. There is water above this raqia.

This would mean that:
1. The earth is indeed the middle of the universe
2. The entire visible universe is encapsulated in a hammered out expanse that is spread out over the earth
3. There is no such thing as outer space
4. There is water above the stars and the sun, which are set in the dome.

I'll deal with the implications of a flat earth later. Geocentrism is the least of your problems.

I know this was meant for Daniel but still.

1. This verse could be interpreted in several ways
a. Your way obviously is the most literal
b. These pillars could be miles under the earth holding the foundation (top soil and magma) up. (Preposterous I know but it is a way.)
c. These pillars could be the pillars built by men
d. The word pillar here could have been used to just show exageration on the fact that there was an earthquake.
2. Everyone should trust science, to a degree. (Read my awesome new sig that I'll put on a few minutes after I post this.)

There could be magical pillars under the earth that hold it up? (How would this work exactly?) I don't even need to respond to this one.

a. If you look at the earth from space you see a circle.

This is an excuse for why the Bible is wrong. (God would mistake it for a circle)

b. The continent they lived on was roughly circular, not knowing that there were other continents. (Plate Tectonics)

This is an excuse for why the Bible is wrong (its writers were ignorant of the shape of the earth). Plate tectonics ain't got nothing to do with it.

c. All known land at the time was a circle.

Excuse.

2. Who says the worlds flat?

The Bible. The Bible says the world is a circle. Circles are flat. The Bible says that the world is held up by pillars. You cannot hold up a sphere that floats in space with pillars.

The water above the earth could be considered the edge of the universe because we don't know what it is. Maybe water? (as i stated earlier)

There is no water at the edge of the universe. Ignoring the retarded physics of your hypothesis (the universe has no edge in reality), it would not be water, it would be ice; water freezes in space.

The flood waters came from the sky. (ie. clouds)

Excuse me? They came from the waters above the sky. God needs to close the windows in the sky after the flood, remember?

The part about the closing of heavens can easily be interpreted as the rain stopping, as it appeared to them, the heavens closing.

This is an excuse for why the Bible is wrong. The ignorant people who wrote it thought the heavens were closing.

All the animals? how about all the known animals in the area. (Most other Christians disagree with my interpretation of this area of Genesis.) Obviously the fish survived in their lakes around the world. Plants survived in that same way.

You think the flood was local, right? I'm not arguing with you then. The Bible says the flood covered the whole world. Freshwater fish would not survive in lakes--the lakes would become part of the salty ocean that covered the world. Most plants cannot survive underwater in saline water for 40 days (in fact, I can't think of any land plants that can).

[Daniel21TX]

To anyone who wants to see responces to a lot if not all of "The First Strategos" arguements on certain biblical passages, you can visit this site.
http://www.nwcreation.net/wiki/index...tionist_claims There is a section CH which is a Biblical Creationism section. They take arguements from talk origins and respond to them.

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by Daniel21TX

To anyone who wants to see responces to a lot if not all of "The First Strategos" arguements on certain biblical passages, you can visit this site.
http://www.nwcreation.net/wiki/index...tionist_claims There is a section CH which is a Biblical Creationism section. They take arguements from talk origins and respond to them.

I'm not entirely sure whether Daniel is serious ... but I think it would be instructive for you creationists to check out that site, which attempts to argue that the sun revolves around the earth. Note how similar in tone this argument sounds to arguments for creationism. Why not go all the way and believe in geocentrism too?

By the way, my challenge still stands: Prove the earth revolves around the sun

I would like to point out that Daniel's website, though geocentrist, is still not really Biblical as it does not address the solid raqia spread out over the earth, or the waters above the raqia, or the pillars of the earth. Geocentrism is a necessary step for someone who takes the Bible literally but you'll need to go further than that!

[Daniel21TX]

The First Strategos said:
I would like to point out that Daniel's website, though geocentrist,

It isn't really a geoncentrist site from what I know. It is a wiki for creationist. One guy on there happen to write his view of why he believes in geocentrism. Maybe you would like to point out some of the things you believe are problems to them, and they might actually write some articles on the claims you say the bible makes, for instance the raqia or whatever.

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by Daniel21TX

It isn't really a geoncentrist site from what I know. It is a wiki for creationist. One guy on there happen to write his view of why he believes in geocentrism. Maybe you would like to point out some of the things you believe are problems to them, and they might actually write some articles on the claims you say the bible makes, for instance the raqia or whatever.

One message board is enough for me.

Also ... there is just something about arguing against actual geocentrists that makes me feel like I'm wasting my time...

[Daniel21TX]

Hey, there is also this article which talks about the raqia as well.. They may not have covered every verse that you want, but they do talk about it in the same article they talk about the earth being round or a circle. http://www.nwcreation.net/wiki/index.php?title=CH131

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by Daniel21TX

Hey, there is also this article which talks about the raqia as well.. They may not have covered every verse that you want, but they do talk about it in the same article they talk about the earth being round or a circle. http://www.nwcreation.net/wiki/index.php?title=CH131

I skimmed it ... not quite as bad as some of Noli's theories, but it's crap. In any case, I'm not going to argue with a website on here. If you want to make the same arguments they're making, go ahead and I'll respond to them.

[nolidad]

CITE THE STANFORD UNIVERSITY STUDY, NOLIDAD!!!

FIRST ACCEPT YOU WERE WRONG ABOUT COMPANIES NOT COMMERCIALLY SELLING THE OIL MADE FROM GARBAGE QINGU!!!!!

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by nolidad

FIRST ACCEPT YOU WERE WRONG ABOUT COMPANIES NOT COMMERCIALLY SELLING THE OIL MADE FROM GARBAGE QINGU!!!!!

You had said:
"here are but a few of the many websites showing that it is already being done commercially even!!!!!"

The process is not being done commercially. They are selling the oil, yes, but not (presumably, as the process is quite expensive) at a profit.

If you meant they were selling the oil from their experiments ... sure, I was wrong. Now where's that study, nolidad! I can't wait!

[Dark Tofu]

Qingu, It will be a while before i respond because of the length of your response. But I will.

[Dark Tofu]

Originally Posted by Qingu

No. It says the object that God calls "Sky" is a solid expanse or dome, described as "that which is hammered out." (raqia) God sets all the stars, the sun, the moon and the planets in this raqia. There is water above this raqia.

This would mean that:
1. The earth is indeed the middle of the universe

I still don't see why

2. The entire visible universe is encapsulated in a hammered out expanse that is spread out over the earth

Explain this better please.

3. There is no such thing as outer space

What?

4. There is water above the stars and the sun, which are set in the dome.

Yes, the edge of the universe.

There could be magical pillars under the earth that hold it up? (How would this work exactly?) I don't even need to respond to this one.

Actually I have a theory on this that is totally based on theology and the Scriptures and because this is science and there is no evidence either way, I won't post it.

This is an excuse for why the Bible is wrong. (God would mistake it for a circle)

Or, God could have been stopping Judism from being eradicated instantly. If he said, 'the earth is a sphere.' then they would have been ridiculed and killed. Anyway saying a circle, scientifically, means flat, but that means we really don't live on a circle earth but a cydrilical earth. because there is depth. This circle could easily have been used to describe the earth. I could say that the planet is circular and not said it wasn't spherical.

This is an excuse for why the Bible is wrong (its writers were ignorant of the shape of the earth). Plate tectonics ain't got nothing to do with it.

No, It may have only been talking about the continent that they were on. (Not saying i think that.) That would be plate tectonics, the continents changing and shifting.

The Bible. The Bible says the world is a circle. Circles are flat. The Bible says that the world is held up by pillars. You cannot hold up a sphere that floats in space with pillars.

Actually I have a theory that i might end up wrighting by the end of this post. And the earth doesn't float. It sits.

There is no water at the edge of the universe. Ignoring the retarded physics of your hypothesis (the universe has no edge in reality), it would not be water, it would be ice; water freezes in space.

The universe has no edge? Where did you hear that? Who says that the universe isn't warm at the edge? there is still lots of activity and growth and stars being formed there.

This is an excuse for why the Bible is wrong. The ignorant people who wrote it thought the heavens were closing.

Unless God was closing the clouds, and in the Bible the word heavens is used for space and the edge of the sky.


THE THEORY I MENTIONED

The Abyss is under the surface of the planet earth, the center. It has pillars to hold the above part of earth up. (Notice: I don't know for sure on this but I'm thinking the things i mentioned earlier are more likely.)

[JerryLove]

Dark Tofu,

Why do you think that John Calvin and Martin Luther were adament that the Bible indicated a geocentric universe? How do you believe that they could have been so wrong and still assert that you are right on the same matter?

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by Dark Tofu

I still don't see why

Explain this better please.

What?

A picture is worth a thousand words:


That's a pretty good approximation of what the Bible says (omit the fire on top). The Bible says the sky is a solid dome or firmament (heb raqia), called Sky, that separates the waters below it (the earth's oceans) from the waters above it (where rain comes from). The celestial bodies--sun,moon, stars and planets--are set in this raqia and move through it "across the sky."

I don't believe the pillars of heaven are mentioned int he Bible but I am pretty sure they're mentioned in the apocrypha or pseudeipegrapha. The pillars of the earth are mentioned in the Bible--Job 9.

This cosmology was not unique to the Israelites; it was held to be true by pretty much every ancient people living in the Near East--the Egyptians, Babylonians, Canaanites, and ancient Greeks and Hindus. The ancient Greeks believed there was fire above the heavenly ocean (certain Hindu myths echo this as well), but the gist of it—flat earth held up with pillars, dome sky, everything surrounded by water—is the same. The Bible reflects this.

Yes, the edge of the universe.

You think there's water at the edge of the universe.
Does the universe have an edge?
How could water exist at the edge of the universe if the universe contains all matter (water is matter)?
How could water exist in liquid form at such extremities?

Or, God could have been stopping Judism from being eradicated instantly. If he said, 'the earth is a sphere.' then they would have been ridiculed and killed.

The Greeks believed the earth was a sphere as early as 800 BC. This was contemporary with the Bible's composition. The Greeks were not ridiculed or killed; in fact their civilization flourished, far more than the Hebrews.

The Greeks even countenanced the idea that earth revolved around the sun. These are all theories that ancient man was demonstrably capable of grasping.

Anyway saying a circle, scientifically, means flat, but that means we really don't live on a circle earth but a cydrilical earth. because there is depth. This circle could easily have been used to describe the earth. I could say that the planet is circular and not said it wasn't spherical.

You could indeed. At that point, I would have to stop arguing with you because it would violate my policy of not arguing with geocentrists or flat-earthers.

No, It may have only been talking about the continent that they were on. (Not saying i think that.) That would be plate tectonics, the continents changing and shifting.

But it's still wrong.

Actually I have a theory that i might end up wrighting by the end of this post. And the earth doesn't float. It sits.

If you're going to write that the earth floats in the underworld waters then I'm going to have to stop arguing.

The universe has no edge? Where did you hear that? Who says that the universe isn't warm at the edge? there is still lots of activity and growth and stars being formed there.

Most physicists today believe the universe has no edge. Stephen Hawking, for example. Stars form inside the universe, not on the edge.

Unless God was closing the clouds, and in the Bible the word heavens is used for space and the edge of the sky.

No. In the Bible, God calls the solid dome-membrane "sky" or, in some translations, "heaven."

The Hebrew word for sky is the same as the word for heaven—shamayam. God lives in the dome, called shamayam.

THE THEORY I MENTIONED

The Abyss is under the surface of the planet earth, the center. It has pillars to hold the above part of earth up. (Notice: I don't know for sure on this but I'm thinking the things i mentioned earlier are more likely.)

Please don't actually believe this. It's bad enough that Travis and Daniel believe in geocentrism.