Moon light - the word of God vs falsely so called science

[T.i.m.o.t.h.y.]

That's not true.

However, you'll never see a full moon in the day time, for the geometric reasons you suggest. For a full moon, the moon has to be directly opposite the sun.

View attachment 346875

It's unfortunate that I can't know ahead of time what someone might post in correction of my words. If I could then I definitely would have addressed the matter of observation that the moon can be seen during some days of the month when it's barely seen but of a ghostly barely there condition.. so I opted for those days when it's not seen due to the much greater light of the sun in my post in order to make my point that it has no light of its own.

As the moon goes through it's phases more noticeable at night, the moon also goes through those same phases during the day in it's ghostly way.

The flat earther usually repeats the Bible text that the moon is a lesser light which leaves it open for assumption that it has a light of its own like the sun does, which it doesn't but the flat earther assumes it.. apparently ignoring natural observation. Going that far to agree with what the Bible says.. or assuming what it says.

Some say that the authors of the bible text had certain imagined beliefs but that would mean that they ignored observable realities. They simply used the heavy use of poetic, metaphors and idioms that existed in those days. In our English culture there is also the likewise use of poetic phrases, metaphors and idioms to describe things. So it's not like it's limited to the way people talked in ancient Bible days. For all we know such language was more in use in religious matters than in secular matters. There's much that we don't know so we assume things.

I prefer to use observation and count any Biblical discrepancies to be a poetic use rather than a scientific one because science is a part of that "knowledge increase" that wasn't possible until much later in the centuries.

When I rely on observation that means that I will agree when I can with science that relies on observation. It's as simple as that.

 

[T.i.m.o.t.h.y.]

Not to mention her pet term: "intellectual dishonesty."

That is an observation/assumption on her part. Religious people are merely being just as loyal to their religion as she is to her scientific views. So the most that could be honestly said is that religious people are stubborn in their views. But not dishonest in them. Some religious beliefs such as flat earth believers are more loyal to what the Bible says or what they think that it says to the point of ignoring observable things of nature. That is religious fervor.. of those willing to be thought fools for God in the eyes of others, especially those that do not know God, whom the Bible calls fools.

I suppose that those who do believe in God but also rely on natural observation would be called by them less fervent in their religion. Sort of the difference between the sun's greater light and the moon's lesser light.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Let's break it then, shall we?

It's proprietary light.

ALthough it has properties 'inherited' from the sun...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If you gave me 100.00, and I took possession of it, and tomorrow I give it to someone else, who gets the credit for this?

You or I?

That depends on whether you are considered an intermediary or not. If I get a tax rebate cheque (check) by mail, I don't thank the postman for his generosity.

 

[AV1611VET]

ALthough it has properties 'inherited' from the sun...

No argument there.

 

[d taylor]

What an inane comment to make, you have absolutely no idea how much of the Bible I believe in let alone put a percentage value on it.
Furthermore it doesn't matter how much I believe or whether the comments are being made by atheists such as @essentialsaltes or @Hans Blaster, the common denominator is using science to refute the idea the moon produces its own light.

On the subject of eclipses ancient astronomers did use Saros (astronomy) - Wikipedia to predict solar eclipses, but is grossly inaccurate compared to the algorithms based on Newtonian physics which are able predict eclipses centuries ahead in time and to the nearest second as well as mapping eclipse paths on the earth's spherical surface to within a few meters.

These algorithms are based on the fact the Earth is (nearly) spherical, rotates on its axis and orbits the Sun.
This makes your argument science being deceptive ludicrous and more like psychological projection at work, since you seem to see deception everywhere around you.

-

​

So what are you going to do when The Messiah returns and ushers out this age of satan and deception. Bringing truth as the rule and God's true creation (the one described in The Bible) is known. I mean each day that passes, moves humanity closer to this day. Are you looking forward to this time.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

-

​

So what are you going to do when The Messiah returns and ushers out this age of satan and deception. Bringing truth as the rule and God's true creation (the one described in The Bible) is known. I mean each day that passes, moves humanity closer to this day. Are you looking forward to this time.

I feel that this sort of statement is very much a cop out answer.
The life we have is focused on the here and now, both in a material sense and a non-material sense. The coming of Jesus (which is not a day that any man will know of) is in the future. Our focus should be on the present, and the world within the present.

Any time someone brings up the Second Coming really just admits they have nothing of value to add to the conversation.

 

[AV1611VET]

Any time someone brings up the Second Coming really just admits they have nothing of value to add to the conversation.

How do you think I feel when academia, who is known for rigging a vote to get what they want, asks me to define "valid science."?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

How do you think I feel when academia, who is known for rigging a vote to get what they want, asks me to define "valid science."?

Not really the same thing at all.

 

[d taylor]

I feel that this sort of statement is very much a cop out answer.
The life we have is focused on the here and now, both in a material sense and a non-material sense. The coming of Jesus (which is not a day that any man will know of) is in the future. Our focus should be on the present, and the world within the present.

Any time someone brings up the Second Coming really just admits they have nothing of value to add to the conversation.

-

​

I do not, i admit i am no match for satan and any deception he can conjure up. Even Eve and Adam were not and they were in a sinless state.

But i do know The Bible gives the truth of God's creation and i simply believe what The Bible states. Regardless of what the powerful teams of science and government say is true.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

-

​

I do not, i admit i am no match for satan and any deception he can conjure up. Even Eve and Adam were not and they were in a sinless state.

But i do know The Bible gives the truth of God's creation and i simply believe what The Bible states. Regardless of what the powerful teams of science and government say is true.

It's still a cop out answer. Especially when you factor in that we can directly see what God's creation actually shows in the Earth and heavens. Seems incredibly rude to go "Nah, I'll take the Bible for everything and anything, and damn the rest of creation."

 

[d taylor]

It's still a cop out answer. Especially when you factor in that we can directly see what God's creation actually shows in the Earth and heavens. Seems incredibly rude to go "Nah, I'll take the Bible for everything and anything, and damn the rest of creation."

-​

Well the writer understood the age we are in and humanity would do well to follow the advice.

For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.

Before this verse believers are advised to
Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.

Scripture, faith/belief, The Holy Spirit,

Paul states The Bible is the sword of The Spirit

 

[sjastro]

-​

Well the writer understood the age we are in and humanity would do well to follow the advice.

For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.

Before this verse believers are advised to
Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.

Scripture, faith/belief, The Holy Spirit,

Paul states The Bible is the sword of The Spirit

It says much about your character of making cowardly personal attacks and then using the Bible as a justification.

You made what amounted to a libellous attack on me by implying on a public forum my hobby of astrophotography is based on lies and deception because I had to prove to you the image of Jupiter I presented was real.

From a moral and legal perspective the burden of proof is on you to show the image is a fake and using the Bible as a justification is disgraceful.

Given you haven't been able to prove the image is a fake, the next best thing as I suggested was to retract the statement and apologise which you have failed to do.

I suggest you address your own lack of morals instead of vilifying individuals you disagree with.

 

[d taylor]

It says much about your character of making cowardly personal attacks and then using the Bible as a justification.

You made what amounted to a libellous attack on me by implying on a public forum my hobby of astrophotography is based on lies and deception because I had to prove to you the image of Jupiter I presented was real.

From a moral and legal perspective the burden of proof is on you to show the image is a fake and using the Bible as a justification is disgraceful.

Given you haven't been able to prove the image is a fake, the next best thing as I suggested was to retract the statement and apologise which you have failed to do.

I suggest you address your own lack of morals instead of vilifying individuals you disagree with.

-

​

I will pray for you

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

-​

Well the writer understood the age we are in and humanity would do well to follow the advice.

For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.

Before this verse believers are advised to
Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.

Scripture, faith/belief, The Holy Spirit,

Paul states The Bible is the sword of The Spirit

And it's funny that 'the age we are in' has been applied consistently to the entire length and existence of humanity since the Bible was written.

And in that whole time, not one person has described how the moon gives off it's own light.

 

[AV1611VET]

And in that whole time, not one person has described how the moon gives off it's own light.

You mean to your satisfaction, right?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You mean to your satisfaction, right?

No, just an answer.

I've seen your one, that the light of the moon is a proprietary light from the sun, but that's the only attempt I've to answer the question "how the moon gives off its own light".

 

[AV1611VET]

No, just an answer.

I've seen your one, that the light of the moon is a proprietary light from the sun, but that's the only attempt I've to answer the question "how the moon gives off its own light".

So I'm "not one person"?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So I'm "not one person"?

Just the fact that the moon is taking the light from the sun to give off light kind of means that the question "How does the moon give off its own light?" isn't answered.
Key portion of the question: GIVE OFF ITS OWN LIGHT.

 

[AV1611VET]

Just the fact that the moon is taking the light from the sun to give off light kind of means that the question "How does the moon give off its own light?" isn't answered.

Just not to your satisfaction, right?

Key portion of the question: GIVE OFF ITS OWN LIGHT.

Whose money do you spend, when you go to the store?

Yours, or your employer's?