The earth is flat and we never went to the moon

[Tambora]

The sun and the moon do appear larger and smaller when they are closer and farther. But that does not change on a daily basis.

Read up on the "super moon": https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/moon/super-full-moon.html

So when you take a picture of a sunset in winter, it would always look smaller than a picture of a sunset in summer, right?

 

[Right Divider]

So when you take a picture of a sunset in winter, it would always look smaller than a picture of a sunset in summer, right?

That depends on which hemisphere you're in.

The difference in the max and min distances for the sun is only about 3%. That means that the change in apparent size will not be very noticeable, particularly to the naked eye.

 

[Tambora]

That depends on which hemisphere you're in.

I would be asking you from where you live.

I have heard that the sun (or moon) always looks bigger on the horizon (sunrise or sunset) than it does in mid day.
I have been told that is an optical illusion.

My question would be, why can't the properties that explain that optical illusion also be used to explain why the sun looks smaller in the winter?
How does one possibly calculate for all the optical illusion properties that might be involved when looking at a sun that is 93 million miles away?

 

[Right Divider]

I would be asking you from where you live.

I'm not actually sure whether the sun is closer in my summer or winter. I'd have to look into it.

I have heard that the sun (or moon) always looks bigger on the horizon (sunrise or sunset) than it does in mid day.
I have been told that is an optical illusion.

I wouldn't really call it an illusion, but when we see the sun or the moon low in the sky (near the horizon) we are looking through more atmosphere than when they are directly overhead.

My question would be, why can't the properties that explain that optical illusion also be used to explain why the sun looks smaller in the winter?

Because they are two different things.

How does one possibly calculate for all the optical illusion properties that might be involved when looking at a sun that is 93 million miles away?

One at a time.

 

[Tambora]

I'm not actually sure whether the sun is closer in my summer or winter. I'd have to look into it.

I would imagine that it would have to be closer in summer, or else the sun is just generating more heat at certain times than others.

I wouldn't really call it an illusion, but when we see the sun or the moon low in the sky (near the horizon) we are looking through more atmosphere than when they are directly overhead.

If looking through more atmosphere makes it look bigger (closer), then the 93 million miles of atmosphere to look through should make the sun look bigger than it is, right?
Sorry if I sound ignorant on the subject, but it's because I am ignorant on the subject! hehe!
I don't understand why looking through more atmosphere makes something look bigger.

Because they are two different things.

Things that cause an optical illusion are not different.

One at a time.

hehe! I like that answer even if it doesn't answer much!

If they even know all the properties there, then they might have a shot at calculating them all.

 

[Right Divider]

I would imagine that it would have to be closer in summer, or else the sun is just generating more heat at certain times than others.

Nope, it's the tilting of the axis that causes the seasons. The norther and southern hemispheres have opposite seasons and it not due to the distance of the sun or the suns output (which is relatively constant).

If looking through more atmosphere makes it look bigger (closer), then the 93 million miles of atmosphere to look through should make the sun look bigger than it is, right?

The atmosphere is not 93 million miles. The dense part of the atmosphere that would cause visual effects is only about 10 miles up.

Sorry if I sound ignorant on the subject, but it's because I am ignorant on the subject! hehe!
I don't understand why looking through more atmosphere makes something look bigger.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction

Things that cause an optical illusion are not different.

Illusions are different from normal physical phenomenon that might appear to be illusions.

hehe! I like that answer even if it doesn't answer much!

If they even know all the properties there, then they might have a shot at calculating them all.

They might be able to. I'm just not sure of all of the details. Most people aren't.

 

[WizardofOz]

View attachment 26128 View attachment 26129

This is where I rollerblade on the Brooklyn side. As you can see there is no curvature of water under the bridge.

And there is no reason why you should expect to see curvature. Humans simply cannot see far enough out to see a bend in the globe. The Earth is much too large for humans on to 'see' the curvature.

The two tall columns were built vertically straight with levels and plumlines at each location. The largest cables were then strung between the two towers. Then the cables hanging from the large cables were put in place before the spans of steal across the bridge.

Why aren't the columns parallel?

There was no consideration for the curvature of the earth.

Yes, there was. You're just hand waving. The builders of this bridge has to compensate for the curvature of the earth when they built this bridge. I supplied a citation showing so. Unless you can provide evidence to counter mine, you have no debunked a thing.

That these two very tall columns nearly a mile apart are only 1 5/8 inches more at the top than from the bottom is not nearly what one would expect from an 8 inch drop in curvature from one end the other.

What type of configuration would you expect?

No has ever actually measured the distance anyway.

Sure they have. What an odd claim.
Total length 13,700 feet (4,176 m)
Width 103 feet (31 m)
Height 649.68 feet (198 m)

The difference is a mere calculation by someone who presupposes a curvature.

Rather, it is a rather precise calculation. If the curvature of the earth was not compensated for this bridge would not function correctly.

Even if they there 1 5/8 inch wider at the top they are still "virtually" perpendicular to each other given their height and the distance between them.

They are not at all perpendicular. They are also not parallel to one another.

Sunlight glints off the pair of monumental steel towers, 70 stories tall, carrying the curvature of the earth into the sky, where their tops are exactly 15⁄8 inches farther apart than at their base.

Smithsonian

The Humber Bridge in England is another example of a long bridge that needed to compensate for the curvature of the earth.

The towers, although both vertical, are 36 mm (1.4 inches) farther apart at the top than the bottom due to the curvature of the earth.

Why are they designed further apart at the top compared to the base? Why would they do this?

Also, the Japan Proton Accelerator Complex or J-PARC was built with the curvature of the earth in mind

http://media.economist.com/images/images-magazine/2011/06/25/st/20110625_stc904.gif

See Here and [url=http://www.slac.stanford.edu/econf/C04100411/papers/010.PDF]Here
You are making some extraordinary claims that will require at least some evidence.

 

[WizardofOz]

For [MENTION=16629]patrick jane[/MENTION] and [MENTION=4980]DFT_Dave[/MENTION]

Please watch this one and let me know your thoughts.

First the cutting of the orange does just the opposite of what the video is saying. Cutting the orange creates a flat earth perspective, it's not an example for a globe perspective. Anyone who uses a flat surface to explain why the earth is not a flat surface is mentally ill or thinks everyone else is.

Is an orange a sphere? Yes, it is. The cutting of the orange shows what humans see and why were should never expect to 'see' the curvature of the earth.

There is video that clearly shows the sun getting smaller as is moves toward and away from us. Those video are time lapse and I have posted them before and will post them again. The sun in the flat earth model appears and rises then descends and disappears as it should being close to the earth and being much smaller than the earth. This is consistent with perspective even though it is at the same height above the earth as it moves across the sky. These pictures below show the perspective of the sun as it moves away from us the other shows the true distance of the sun is close and not far away from us as in the globe model.

This was addressed in the video. It is explained why the idea is incorrect at around the 9 minute mark.

View attachment 26140 View attachment 26141

The Chicago skyline either shows the earth is flat or it's a mirage. The skyline is said to be a mirage because it's to far away from the Michigan shore line and too far over the curve to be actually visible. A superior, or above, mirage is usually an upside down image that is connected to the actual image. Both the actual ship and its mirage are visible in the following pic.

View attachment 26142

The Chicago skyline has been seen as a superior mirage. In the pic below you can see both the actual city skyline and the superior mirage above it and upside down.

View attachment 26143

The other indicator that the earth is flat in all these distant skyline pics is that not one of them shows the buildings tilted away from the point of view. The buildings would not appear perpendicular at that far a distance away if the earth were curved as this diagram below illustrates. How much of the Chicago skyline is visible depends on the height of the waves on Lake Michigan and the amount of fog.

View attachment 26144

It's a mirage. Have you attempted to look across Lake Ontario at Toronto as challenged in the video? Why do you lose the bottom of all the buildings?

Because it's lost to the curvature of the earth.

Ships that seem to float in air are actually beyond the visible horizon and are located on an extended horizon line beyond our ability to see the waves and the water now acts like a mirror that reflects the ship. We never see the extended horizon until a ship goes beyond the the one that is visible to us. This reflection is upside down and attached under the ship as shown below. At times the ship that seems to be floating on air does not have a reflection as in the other pic. See my last post on how ships, go beyond the visible horizon to an extended horizon, then disappear beyond our ability to see it. Ships disappear not because of a curved earth but because they become to small to be visible.

View attachment 26146 View attachment 26145

--Dave

Why do we always lose the bottom of the ship first?

 

[patrick jane]

[h=1]The History of Flat Earth by Eric Dubay[/h]

Eric Dubay does not believe in Jesus Christ or the Bible. He holds to eastern, mysticism and false philosophy but he has some of the best flat earth videos out there. This will answer every question of [MENTION=7959]WizardofOz[/MENTION] questions and some he hasn't thought of yet. This video is only for serious flat earthers or debunkers. Hour and a half.

From the video: International Flat Earth Research Society President Eric Dubay presents the complete history of Flat Earth from the beginning of recorded history to today. Please help share this most important presentation with as many as you can. Also please be sure to download and re-upload this and my other videos so they cannot censor us all. https://youtu.be/s8unqEGRJzM - Click on link for full screen view

 

[patrick jane]

I wasn't a flat earther 10 or so days ago and I thought anybody that said so is crazy, but I keep seeing more and more evidence, including the Bible. The waters above the firmament and many other scriptures. I also believe the moon landing was fake, JFK was a conspiracy and 9/11 didn't happen the way they tell us.

Maybe my distrust makes me susceptible to wild crazy theories but I DO think rationally for the most part. I would love nothing more than to be convinced 100% of a globe earth. I don't desire a flat earth and it really makes no difference in my life either way. I have less than nothing to gain by doing this.

Why can I only find a Guinness record from 1979 but not published until 2015 of a ship that allegedly circumnavigated starting in the north pole area, going south and coming back to the north. Then the only flight I have seen was a Pan Am in 1977 that allegedly flew north to south down one side and up the other. It was a video - 22 minutes, like that proves something.

I contend that nobody can go from the top of the ball to the bottom of the ball, keep going and come up the other side in a plane, jet, rocket or any other mode of transporatation. That proves flat earth.

 

[Right Divider]

I wasn't a flat earther 10 or so days ago and I thought anybody that said so is crazy, but I keep seeing more and more evidence, including the Bible. The waters above the firmament and many other scriptures. I also believe the moon landing was fake, JFK was a conspiracy and 9/11 didn't happen the way they tell us.

Maybe my distrust makes me susceptible to wild crazy theories but I DO think rationally for the most part. I would love nothing more than to be convinced 100% of a globe earth. I don't desire a flat earth and it really makes no difference in my life either way. I have less than nothing to gain by doing this.

Why can I only find a Guinness record from 1979 but not published until 2015 of a ship that allegedly circumnavigated starting in the north pole area, going south and coming back to the north. Then the only flight I have seen was a Pan Am in 1977 that allegedly flew north to south down one side and up the other. It was a video - 22 minutes, like that proves something.

I contend that nobody can go from the top of the ball to the bottom of the ball, keep going and come up the other side in a plane, jet, rocket or any other mode of transporatation. That proves flat earth.

You are a ball of confusion.

 

[Tambora]

Nope, it's the tilting of the axis that causes the seasons. The norther and southern hemispheres have opposite seasons and it not due to the distance of the sun or the suns output (which is relatively constant).

Where you live, in winter, the sun is not further away from YOU?
Then how come it's colder during winter if the sun is the same distance away and generates the same heat at all times?

The atmosphere is not 93 million miles. The dense part of the atmosphere that would cause visual effects is only about 10 miles up.

The same amount of atmosphere to look through while looking at the sun.
One could think that the greater distance the sun is away from us would distort the illusion even more so than an object nearer (as the moon).

Not to mention that we don't know if conditions stay constant the further out in space you go.
How many of the Hubble telescope pics that we have available have some form of optical illusion involved that science has misinterpreted?
I certainly can't say.
Don't know how anyone could say.
So why do we blindly accept it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction

I see the info, but I cannot verify if the info is valid enough to include all possibilities that some of it may be an optical illusion, or just a misinterpreted calculation.
They are only making their best GUESS with the info they have, but I cannot say that they have all the info needed to make an accurate calculation.

Illusions are different from normal physical phenomenon that might appear to be illusions.

Can you give me a common example of something that is an illusion from normal physical phenomenon?
I would think that every illusion is a normal physical phenomenon.when something appears to be a different shape than what it really is.

They might be able to. I'm just not sure of all of the details. Most people aren't.

That's my problem with science data ----- you have to rely on the one telling the data.
And that always brings me back to my focal point ----- which source do you trust the data from the most?
Because science would tell us that the virgin birth, 6 day creation, and the sun and moon standing still is an impossibility.
They can hunt and speculate mathematical equations all they want to, but it ain't gonna support a virgin birth.
In fact, science pretty adamantly denies the virgin birth could of happened.

I've asked before, but I will ask again ...............
What do we do with info that is diametrically opposed to the info given in scripture?
Should we write off the virgin birth, the 6 day creation, and the sun and the moon standing still as just archaic mythological stories or do we take those stories as actual history?

For the record, I believe there was a virgin birth.
I believe creation was 6 days.
I believe the sun and moon stood still.
Because I trust in the source that gives me that info.

So with all that in mind, when it comes to a description of the earth, sun and moon, I tend to believe scripture over science simply because of the source of info given by each.

And with all the fake pics generated, simulations, and computer generated images that we are shown, I remain skeptical of their info because I cannot be sure if the info has been doctored.

Therefore, my answer is always that I believe scripture over science (if they conflict).
Otherwise I am left with having to reinterpret scripture as a spiritual message rather than history, or mythological in language, or just a bunch of idioms that describe an ideology but not history.

Do I trust science enough to give me an accurate description of the earth, moon, and sun?
No I don't.
Do I trust scripture?
Yes I do.

So if one is going to convince me that the earth is a spinning globe that orbits the sun, then you are going to have to do it by interpreting scripture with scripture (the source I trust) and not by interpreting scripture with science.
And that would probably need to be it's own thread as it would eliminate science data and go by scripture alone.

 

[Right Divider]

Where you live, in winter, the sun is not further away from YOU?

I didn't say that. But I did say that the distance between summer and winter is only about 3% different.

Then how come it's colder during winter if the sun is the same distance away and generates the same heat at all times?

Like I told you before, it has to do with tilt of the earth. The suns rays are more direct in summer and less direct in winter.

That's why the days are much longer in summer and much shorter in winter.

The same amount of atmosphere to look through while looking at the sun.
One could think that the greater distance the sun is away from us would distort the illusion even more so than an object nearer (as the moon).

Not to mention that we don't know if conditions stay constant the further out in space you go.
How many of the Hubble telescope pics that we have available have some form of optical illusion involved that science has misinterpreted?
I certainly can't say.
Don't know how anyone could say.
So why do we blindly accept it?

I don't blindly accept anything.

I see the info, but I cannot verify if the info is valid enough to include all possibilities that some of it may be an optical illusion, or just a misinterpreted calculation.
They are only making their best GUESS with the info they have, but I cannot say that they have all the info needed to make an accurate calculation.

You are hyper skeptical.

Can you give me a common example of something that is an illusion from normal physical phenomenon?
I would think that every illusion is a normal physical phenomenon.when something appears to be a different shape than what it really is.

Illusions are more on the line of magic "tricks".

That's my problem with science data ----- you have to rely on the one telling the data.
And that always brings me back to my focal point ----- which source do you trust the data from the most?
Because science would tell us that the virgin birth, 6 day creation, and the sun and moon standing still is an impossibility.

Now you're confusing real science with what unbelieving atheists might claim.

They can hunt and speculate mathematical equations all they want to, but it ain't gonna support a virgin birth.
In fact, science pretty adamantly denies the virgin birth could of happened.

No, it does not. Real science knows that one time events do not always follow what we normally see day to day.

I've asked before, but I will ask again ...............
What do we do with info that is diametrically opposed to the info given in scripture?
Should we write off the virgin birth, the 6 day creation, and the sun and the moon standing still as just archaic mythological stories or do we take those stories as actual history?

Once again you're confusing real science with something else.

For the record, I believe there was a virgin birth.
I believe creation was 6 days.
I believe the sun and moon stood still.
Because I trust in the source that gives me that info.

Good .... me too.

So with all that in mind, when it comes to a description of the earth, sun and moon, I tend to believe scripture over science simply because of the source of info given by each.

And with all the fake pics generated, simulations, and computer generated images that we are shown, I remain skeptical of their info because I cannot be sure if the info has been doctored.

Therefore, my answer is always that I believe scripture over science (if they conflict).

You've once again confused what real science is and what some secularists are claiming that science is.

Otherwise I am left with having to reinterpret scripture as a spiritual message rather than history, or mythological in language, or just a bunch of idioms that describe an ideology but not history.

Do I trust science enough to give me an accurate description of the earth, moon, and sun?
No I don't.
Do I trust scripture?
Yes I do.

Scripture does not give a detailed diagram of the universe or the motions of the heavenly bodies. You're comparing apples and walruses.

So if one is going to convince me that the earth is a spinning globe that orbits the sun, then you are going to have to do it by interpreting scripture with scripture (the source I trust) and not by interpreting scripture with science.
And that would probably need to be it's own thread as it would eliminate science data and go by scripture alone.

Scripture and real science agree 100%

You are overly skeptical.

God gives us the intelligence to observe our world and to understand many things about it. It's part of that dominion thing.

 

[patrick jane]

Isn't it amazing how much math, how many pages of equations it takes to make a globe earth feasible? Tilts, axis, our galaxy zipping through space at MILLIONS of miles per hour, spinning while circling a massive "star" that is nearly 100 MILLION miles away and the sun is flying at ungodly speeds, all the stars (also known as planets) are TRILLIONS upon TRILLIONS of miles away. Special angles and degrees and then eventually they create pages of equations that make everything fit the lies the Jesuits (and others) started over 500 years ago.

What's easier to believe, what we see and perceive and what we interpret in the Holy Bible or all the crazy, made up numbers.


Here's a little math for you:

 

[WizardofOz]

[h=1]The History of Flat Earth by Eric Dubay[/h]

Eric Dubay does not believe in Jesus Christ or the Bible. He holds to eastern, mysticism and false philosophy but he has some of the best flat earth videos out there. This will answer every question of [MENTION=7959]WizardofOz[/MENTION] questions and some he hasn't thought of yet. This video is only for serious flat earthers or debunkers. Hour and a half.

From the video: International Flat Earth Research Society President Eric Dubay presents the complete history of Flat Earth from the beginning of recorded history to today. Please help share this most important presentation with as many as you can. Also please be sure to download and re-upload this and my other videos so they cannot censor us all. https://youtu.be/s8unqEGRJzM - Click on link for full screen view

Earlier I mentioned you in a post with a 10 minute or so youtube video. Did you respond to that and if so, I apologize for missing it. Which post of yours should I look to?

 

[patrick jane]

Earlier I mentioned you in a post with a 10 minute or so youtube video. Did you respond to that and if so, I apologize for missing it. Which post of yours should I look to?

Let's start with the best evidence you can find that anybody actually circumnavigated the ball earth from north to south, past Antarctica and then back up the other side to the north again. One continuous circle around the ball from north, going south and back up the other side to the north. In any mode of transportation, bet it a ship or a plane, a rocket or a jet etc. Make sure you check the validity of your best evidence. Where it came from, dates, times, basically who and when and mode of transport. Make sure there's not too many holes in the "amazing journey". I had a good exchange with The Berean, an engineer and satellite all day today in my Conspiracy thread and with others in that thread today.

 

[WizardofOz]

Anyone who believes in a flat earth could easily disprove it themselves if they were so inclined:

One of the best documented methods for determining the Earth's roundness was first performed (to our knowledge) by the ancient Greeks. This was achieved by comparing the shadows of sticks in different locations. When the sun was directly overhead in one place, the stick there cast no shadow. At the same time in a city around 500 miles north, the stick there did cast a shadow. If the Earth were flat then both sticks should show the same shadow (or lack of) because they would be positioned at the same angle towards the sun. The ancient Greeks found the shadows were different because the Earth was curved and so the sticks were at different angles. They then used the difference in these angles to calculate the circumference of the Earth. They managed to get it to within 10% of the true value – not bad for around 250 B.C. Another piece of evidence for a globe is the difference between the night skies in the northern and southern hemispheres. The view is completely different because the Earth beneath you is pointing in a different direction. If the Earth were flat, the view should be the same. This can be made even easier by simply comparing when it is night and day in each country. You can observe the planets as well. They all rotate, and watching over the course of a few days gives a clear picture they are spherical rather than flat. The chance that most of the planets are spherical but the Earth is flat seems very unlikely.

Source - Even a Kid Can Prove the Earth Is Round: Here's How

Also, 10 ways you can prove the earth is round

Give some of these a shot if you're interested in what is true reality

 

[WizardofOz]

Let's start with the best evidence you can find that anybody actually circumnavigated the ball earth from north to south, past Antarctica and then back up the other side to the north again. One continuous circle around the ball from north, going south and back up the other side to the north. In any mode of transportation, bet it a ship or a plane, a rocket or a jet etc. Make sure you check the validity of your best evidence. Where it came from, dates, times, basically who and when and mode of transport. Make sure there's not too many holes in the "amazing journey". I had a good exchange with The Berean, an engineer and satellite all day today in my Conspiracy thread and with others in that thread today.

Why north to south when we already have clear evidence of east to west and vice-versa. Planes fly from 'around the globe' and end where they began every. single. day.

Notice how one could fly to Tokyo either going east or west no matter where on earth they begin. How is this possible if the earth is flat?

Go to a site to book a flight. Go to Tokyo by traveling east. Go to Tokyo by traveling west. It can be done no matter which direction you go.

How does a flat-earth explain this away?

 

[patrick jane]

Why north to south when we already have clear evidence of east to west and vice-versa. Planes fly from 'around the globe' and end where they began every. single. day.

East to west flights go in a circle. You're way behind the "curve", thanks for playin'. It can't be done north to south or south to north, that's why "I need it",

 

[Tambora]

I didn't say that. But I did say that the distance between summer and winter is only about 3% different.

3% of what (number wise)?
Cause 3% can certainly make a big difference in the outcome.
Just ask any bank.

Like I told you before, it has to do with tilt of the earth. The suns rays are more direct in summer and less direct in winter.

Doesn't "direct" basically mean closer in this case?
And for the record, I'm not asking if it is closer to the earth in general, but closer to YOU (wherever you live on earth) to use as a reference point in each question.

That's why the days are much longer in summer and much shorter in winter.

I'm not really interested in the timing at this point, but just the distance.

I don't blindly accept anything.

I didn't figure you did.

You are hyper skeptical.

Perhaps.
I was hyper skeptical of us coming from monkeys too when science community tried to tell we did.
So being hyper skeptical can be beneficial.

Illusions are more on the line of magic "tricks".

That DO trick people into seeing something as looking different than what it really is.
Can happen to the best of us, including scientist.

Now you're confusing real science with what unbelieving atheists might claim.

Those unbelieving atheist use science as their "proof" that it could not have happened as scripture describes.
How can science account for the sun and moon standing still?
What sort of formula have they come up with that would make that a possibility?

No, it does not. Real science knows that one time events do not always follow what we normally see day to day.

Hold on.
Are you saying that the scientific community agrees that the virgin birth took place as described in scripture?
What scientific data do they have that supports that possibility?

Once again you're confusing real science with something else.

Perhaps.
Does real science have a formula figured out how the sun and moon could stand still?

Good .... me too.

I figured so.

But still, science does feed the public with info that opposes those things.
Which scientists do you trust, and why?

You've once again confused what real science is and what some secularists are claiming that science is.

You keep saying that, but how do you determine which scientists to believe, because they do give conflicting info than the others?

Scripture does not give a detailed diagram of the universe or the motions of the heavenly bodies. You're comparing apples and walruses.

If you mean 'exhaustive' I agree.
But I think it does give details of the universe, as Job 38:31.
The stars in Orion are a group cluster that are gravitationally bound together, EXCEPT for the stars in the belt of Orion which are not gravitationally bound together.

Scripture and real science agree 100%

I know you think that by saying "real" science, that should settle the matter, but it does not.
As conflicting data is coming from scientists themselves.

You are overly skeptical.

Perhaps.
Being overly skeptical has kept me grounded in the past to not fall for some theories.

God gives us the intelligence to observe our world and to understand many things about it. It's part of that dominion thing.

I don't have to see the earth being created in 6 days to believe it is a historical fact.

And I also do see a lot of science data that tells me it did not happen in 6 days.
So we are back to square one ----- what source are ya gonna believe for your final conclusion?
Since I do not have the funds or equipment (or the know-how to use the equipment) to do the scientific exploration of the universe, I have to rely on what they tell me.
And as you have mentioned, I am skeptical of them. Very skeptical.

And please know that I do not word it that way to make it seem like YOU trust science over scripture.
I am not saying that at all.
I am confident that you trust scripture.
It's going to boil down to whether we interpret scripture as historical when giving descriptions the earth, or if they are just a form of poetic mythological type idioms.
And with that, I can say that I lean toward the scriptural reference of the earth to be mainly historical and not just poetic idioms.
And that's why I have been mostly silent in this thread, because I only want to look at what scripture says about the earth without being concerned if science matches it or not.
My study of scripture has not led me to a belief that our earth is whirling around in space.

But if a thread ever comes up that discusses how scripture describes the earth, moon, and sun, ...... I'll be all up in that thread!

I cannot compete in this thread because I cannot confirm or deny whether most of the science info is accurate or not.
So I will butt out of this thread as it is more about scripture vs. science instead of scripture vs. scripture.

But thanks for your courtesy and listening ear.
:thumb:
I do read the science threads even though I hardly ever post in them, as I am always looking to gain more knowledge of it.
I absorb what I can, but some of it is still over my head.
But I keep listening and reading.