Moon Landing Hoax
- Thread starter Nimrod
- Start date
musterion
Well-known member
I'm curious. Fool had asked you a series of very interesting questions and had been respectful while doing so. You have been less than fourth coming in your responses. You have chosen instead to focus on the rude comments rather than address Fool's questions. Will you be answering his questions in any more detail?
Last edited:
musterion
Well-known member
This thread is being monitored, btw.
Why does Nimrod behave like this? imo. Pride. He doesn't like it when he is told he is wrong. AND. With evidence as damning as this, he really, Really, REALLY hates it.
Mocking You
New member
If the moon hoaxers were wrong in the 70's why on earth would you believe they are right today?
See, I can beg the question as well as you do.
Even if they duplicated the Apollo mission they would still have to test it.
The shape is less important than the materials. And a new design by a new vendor has to pass tests to be man rated.
Dragon has been to the ISS several times, Orion has tested but the US has no man rated vehicles at the present because we have set the bar at "don't kill anybody" because, we killed some people.
But you still have to test. Apollo had 5 unmanned launches before they manned it and that may have been a little bit John Wayne.
The standards are a bit higher now.
Putting people into space carries a little more weight than a video game emulator.
Because when people die there's more questions than "why didn't it work?". The questions are more like "why didn't you prove the vehicle a dozen times first?"
Pretty much the deal and the aerospace business is still employing a lot of folks all over the country directly & indirectly. They all are being paid for their non-jobs also. :chuckle:
If they (satellites) are in GTO or GSO orbit they are about 22,000 miles away (plus or minus) right smack dab in the middle of the VAB. About three years ago we launched two probes to research the VAB called the Van Allen Probes, they too were orbiting throughout the belts communicating data back to earth just as other high orbit craft do the same, including television, radio, GPS, weather (NOAA), military, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_Probes
The bigger question is what makes him think that the technology did not exist then or now? where is the data for that? if you assert that man could not go to the moon because of the technology show the data outside of a video posted on the internet by some nutter...There has to be some irrefutable data I would think. :idunno:
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Worth a read:
http://www.geocentricity.com/ba1/no071/selbrede.html
Helio or geo models both work, just as in electronics where positive or negative electron flow assumptions will work.
The answers should be guided by Scripture, which theologically declares the earth to be the center of all creation.
Seems to me that only the geo view provides a satisfactory answer to Scripture, e.g., Joshua 10, which also agrees with Michaelson and Morley, unless you subscribe to relativity—Einstein's attempt to reconcile heliocentrism with Michaelson- Morley.
For the theologically minded, see Wilhelmus a Brakel's Volume I, starting at page 64.
I led the design team of the Iridium ground network while at Motorola, including the system performance modeling and analysis—orbital dynamics, inter-satellite link communications, network capacity, etc. Bona fides also include the MUOS, ACeS, and ICO systems.
AMR
Last edited:
Thanks, I read that before. It was linked at one of the many geocentrism sites.
Yes, Einstein said Copernicus and Ptolemy were "both right".
However, only one in correct.
I agree, that's why I am fascinated that so many people adhere to geocentrism.
Is it possible for geostationary satellites to do what they do in a geocentric system?
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Why not?
Joshua 10 is not allegorical, rather it is historical. The sun obeyed the command of a man and literally stood still.
Interpreting cosmological phenomena in Scripture requires an understanding of biblical cosmology. The fact is that the Bible everywhere presents the sun in motion relative to the earth. And it is also a fact that science truly so called allows various geocentric functions, e.g., navigation. Hence there is no reason for interpreting the biblical text in a figurative or less than literal manner. Special revelation requires us to understand that the sun literally stood still and general revelation really offers no voice of criticism to it.
From the previously given a Brakel reference (have you reviewed it?):
"The truth is that God states in many places in His Word that the sun is in motion, her circuit resulting in both day and night, and that the world remains both motionless and stationary. Nowhere does God speak to the contrary, as we will demonstrate in chapter 8. Since God states it to be so, it is truth and we are to embrace it as truth. Is not God the Creator, maintainer, and governor of all things, who is much better acquainted with His own work than is man with his limited and darkened understanding? Should men not subject their judgment to the very sayings of God? Or should one attempt to bend and twist the clear declarations of God in such a way that they agree with our erroneous thinking? Whatever God declares, also concerning things in the realm of nature, is true. God says that the world is motionless and stationary, being circled by the sun, and thus it is a certain and incontrovertible truth."
AMR
Last edited:
What is your opinion of the meaning of Revelation 6:13?
P.S.: I've started separate thread on the topic of geocentrism if you are interested in responding. Here's a link:
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=111608
Do you agree with John Calvin that the earth is flat? In his Institutes of the Christian Religion, Calvin wrote:
"How lavishly in this respect have the whole body of philosophers betrayed their stupidity and want of sense? To say nothing of the others whose absurdities are of a still grosser description, how completely does Plato, the soberest and most religious of them all, lose himself in his round globe?"
Daniel1611
New member
I'm no Calvin fan, but the globe is kind of silly. There are people standing upside down on the bottom of a spinning ball that's hurling through space and they can't even feel it?
I can't speak for AMR, but to answer your question, angels were called "stars" in the old testament.
Satan is referred to as the "Morning Star"
(Isaiah 14:12) How you have fallen from heaven,
morning star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
you who once laid low the nations!
One third of the angels sided with Satan, they were known as fallen angels.
They were cast out of heaven with Satan
(Rev 12:4) Its tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth....
Stars don't sing:
(Job 38:7) When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
It's impossible for literal stars to fall to planet earth, as stars are huge compared to earth.
Here is the earth compared to our sun:
Now, here's our sun compared to some of the bigger stars:
Last edited:
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Rather that quote mine the man, read the full context of Chapter 3, which decries the nonsense of modernism, that denies natural revelelation. A few paragraphs before your quote, Calvin notes:
" Since, then, there never has been, from the very first, any quarter of the globe, any city, any household even, without religion, this amounts to a tacit confession, that a sense of Deity is inscribed on every heart."
The quote you use to mount a polemic about Calvin merely continues his cavil against the philosophers. It has nothing to do with making the claim Calvin held to a flat earth.
Flat earthism was but a post-Dawinian polemic to manipulate opponents into accepting "advances" of science.
AMR
Last edited:
Nimrod
Member
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Rev. 6:12-14 depict the judgment of the world is depicted with stock-in-trade OT figurative imagery for the dissolution of the cosmos. This portrayal is based on a mosaic of OT passages that are brought together because of the cosmic metaphors of judgment that they have in common. The quarry of texts from which the description has been drawn is composed primarily of Isa. 13:10–13; 24:1–6, 19–23; 34:4; Ezek. 32:6–8; Joel 2:10, 30–31; 3:15–16; and Hab. 3:6–11 (see also, secondarily Amos 8:8–9; Jer. 4:23–28; and Ps. 68:7–8).
The same OT texts are also influential in Matt. 24:29; Mark 13:24–25; and Acts 2:19–20 (Joel 2:30–31), which themselves likewise form part of the apocalyptic quarry influencing the dramatic portrayal in Rev. 6:12–14. All these passages mention at least four of the following elements, which are found here in the Revelation: the shaking of the earth or mountains; the darkening or shaking of the moon, stars, sun, and/or heaven; and the pouring out of blood.
Therefore, as in the OT, these cosmic descriptions are metaphors for God’s judgment of sinners whereby he conducts holy war and defeats them, except now the judgment is not merely against an individual nation but against the whole world of unbelievers.
Note that the whole of the sun, moon, and stars are destroyed in 6:12–13, whereas only a third of sun, moon, and stars are smitten in the clearly temporal affliction in Rev. 8:12. All the “stars of heaven falling to the earth” in 6:13 also contrasts with the partial judgments of “star(s) falling from heaven to earth” in 8:10; 9:1; and 12:4.
Figuratively, “stars” can represent heavenly powers of good (e.g., Judg. 5:20; Dan. 8:10; Rev. 1:16, 20; 12:4) or evil (Deut. 4:19; Isa. 14:12; 24:21; 47:13; Jer. 8:2; Rev. 9:1.
In case it is getting lost in the flurry of posts, it bears repeating that Scripture teaches us of a miracle in Joshua 10 that the sun historically, in the time-space continuum, literally stood still, and did so obeying the command of a man. This is not poetry, or allegory, but history. This is not an example of Cartesian accommodation of God in Scripture to our finite minds. It is not phenomenological. It is a described fact from history unless one does not believe in the plenary inspiration of Scripture. Let's allow the Bible to say what it says. The passage obviously does not teach us astrophysics or any other science. The passage makes a statement about the sun—that it ordinarily moves—and that a miracle occurred when it stopped moving. Whatever one thinks about physics, astronomy, or any other science, he has no right to impose his unproven, ever-advancing scientific explanations upon Scripture and make it say something other than what it says.
AMR
Last edited: