Genesis Account of Creation: Firmament

[Samantha Rinne]

More like this:

Subduction, EVERYONE KNOWS that the world rides on top of elephants which ride on a turtle. It's science, and cannot be disputed!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Subduction, EVERYONE KNOWS that the world rides on top of elephants which ride on a turtle. It's science, and cannot be disputed!

I have heard it is turtles all the way down.

 

[halbhh]

I guess Subduction gave up, and tapped out to you. Well, since I don't know you, you get the brunt of this I guess.

Using you own picture to demonstrate why you are wrong (and why you suck). You go into how my math is such that a "ten year old" knows better yet here we are looking at a pyramid standing perfectly straight, fully able to measure its area. Where is that curvature? Where is it leaning in the sand? Oh right, nowhere. It was built anywhere from 2000 BC to even earlier, yet no Leaning Tower of Pisa deal is going on. Nope, you can measure (b * h)/2 as perfectly as if asked to do so in a blackboard in math.

Earth Curvature Calculator - Calculate the curve you should see

Why is it not ( (b * h)/2) ± (r * (1 - cos a)) ) ? I don't know whether it would be plus or minus this, and I don't care, but no math EVER estimates for this. After 1000 km, all math would be off as much as 78.3196 km.

No calculation anywhere asks us to calculate for this ever. But yeah, insult me by calling my math something a 10-year-old can do. So now it's time to insult you. You see, not only a ten-year-old but a half-blind idiot would see that there is now trigonometry in my basic measure of geometry. That such math should be a fact of life that Pythagoras would be scrupulous to remind all of his students that they have to perform all such measurements using an angle below where they stand. Is this reasonable? Is this sane? No, it's stupid. So is this.

Any object at 180 degrees from its original position must account for change of position. Twelve noon should be like midnight during half the year. This is not somewhere like the North Pole, this would be in the Midwest or even the equator. If you believe this, I've still got orders on this 411 scam, you too can have your own Nigerian princess. This btw, would be despite constant rotation. But wait, we can add ANOTHER unnecessary displacement to our math. They explain this away by adding a number (I believe it is .982) to the equation based on (360 degrees / 365 days). There is no reason this number should work, but basically explains a certain percent of rotations as being nonstandard. You could watch sunrises and sunsets until you go blind and never see these, but you won't question this will you?

Let's show you why the sunrise/sunset proof is also stupid.

Remember that Gleason map earlier? Well, let's match this up by angle.

Anywhere in the world, you have roughly 12 hours of daylight, aside from shorter or longer days. You notice something else? It's a perfect arc, like this.

As the sun curves past 180 degrees it can no longer be seen. Because it is around the horizon. We say "below" the horizon but that choice of words cannot be accurate even in rotating Earth model. Also note that the sky has a beforeglow and afterglow for these where light shifts horizontally despite there being no sun visible.

Now, look at the orbit model above. You should be noticing something. Mainly that it is generating a reverse arc?

Here's a fun and truly interesting blog from a health researcher studying small isolated groups, with many fun posts about living with the same people for a year in Antarctica, and the amazing sights there at the base. Here's one of the fun entries, where she gets a notification the aurora is visible...but it's rather cold outside.
If you are like me and like adventure, and like to hear the real-life details, the blog (link at bottom) is chock full of them. Some will be very interesting to you, regarding this topic here in the thread.

Both of our phones vibrate with a text from our astronomer to our WhatsApp group: “Aurora now”. I switch the screen on my computer to one of the cameras mounted on the astronomy building. There is ‘Southern Light’ – but this camera picks up far more light than we can with the naked eye – so we are never sure if we should go out or not.

This time though it looks more powerful on camera than it has in a long time. While I often saw the Northern lights in Greenland, the Southern lights are a more rare experience.

With the rapid return of the Sun and the location of the base in relation to the South Pole, if there is something to see, you better go see it, because the opportunity will not be offered again for the remainder of our stay in Antarctica. I suggest to the glaciologist that we go outside, and he is not difficult to persuade.

Outside there is nothing immediately unusual to see. Our eyes are naturally attracted to a bit of light on the horizon, where the Sun has set. The Milky Way is a strip across the base. As always, it is an amazingly beautiful sight.

The cold tears a little at my face: –65°C and enough wind to make it feel like –85°C, according to our weather station.

But then the glaciologist exclaims: “There?!”

I turn my gaze away from the horizon and dusk, to the point in the sky the glaciologist points to – there is a stripe in the sky that is not the Milky Way, at first just white and cloud-like, but as we move to the other side of the base, there is no doubt – the green hues are visible and the curtain-like waves in the sky are unmistakeable. There are the Southern Lights – visible!

Slightly surprised, we fumble around with cameras. None of us brought a radio, so the glaciologist runs inside to spread the news. Shortly afterwards he comes back with the other glaciologist – I cross them on the metal stairs to the base entrance, as frostbite has unfortunately quickly taken over the fingers of my right hand. Southern lights or not, there is nothing else to do but walk inside.

Inside I share the news with several members of the base. Most people have seen the astronomer’s message but chose to stay indoors due to the cold and past experience with feebly visible Southern Lights, including the astronomer! After some (strong) insistence on my part, and a few Danish curses due to pain in the fingers, they head out to find the polar attraction. And fortunately, most of us get to experience the wondrous sight.
Aurora Now

Many more entries over the year here:
Chronicles from Concordia

 

[Subduction Zone]

They are belief based.

Projection. You refuse to even learn or discuss what is and what is not evidence. That demonstrates that you know that you are wrong and are afraid to learn. A person without fear does not run away A person that is sure of his beliefs does not run away.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I guess Subduction gave up, and tapped out to you. Well, since I don't know you, you get the brunt of this I guess.

Using you own picture to demonstrate why you are wrong (and why you suck). You go into how my math is such that a "ten year old" knows better yet here we are looking at a pyramid standing perfectly straight, fully able to measure its area. Where is that curvature? Where is it leaning in the sand? Oh right, nowhere. It was built anywhere from 2000 BC to even earlier, yet no Leaning Tower of Pisa deal is going on. Nope, you can measure (b * h)/2 as perfectly as if asked to do so in a blackboard in math.

Earth Curvature Calculator - Calculate the curve you should see

Why is it not ( (b * h)/2) ± (r * (1 - cos a)) ) ? I don't know whether it would be plus or minus this, and I don't care, but no math EVER estimates for this. After 1000 km, all math would be off as much as 78.3196 km.

No calculation anywhere asks us to calculate for this ever. But yeah, insult me by calling my math something a 10-year-old can do. So now it's time to insult you. You see, not only a ten-year-old but a half-blind idiot would see that there is now trigonometry in my basic measure of geometry. That such math should be a fact of life that Pythagoras would be scrupulous to remind all of his students that they have to perform all such measurements using an angle below where they stand. Is this reasonable? Is this sane? No, it's stupid. So is this.

Any object at 180 degrees from its original position must account for change of position. Twelve noon should be like midnight during half the year. This is not somewhere like the North Pole, this would be in the Midwest or even the equator. If you believe this, I've still got orders on this 411 scam, you too can have your own Nigerian princess. This btw, would be despite constant rotation. But wait, we can add ANOTHER unnecessary displacement to our math. They explain this away by adding a number (I believe it is .982) to the equation based on (360 degrees / 365 days). There is no reason this number should work, but basically explains a certain percent of rotations as being nonstandard. You could watch sunrises and sunsets until you go blind and never see these, but you won't question this will you?

Let's show you why the sunrise/sunset proof is also stupid.

Remember that Gleason map earlier? Well, let's match this up by angle.

Anywhere in the world, you have roughly 12 hours of daylight, aside from shorter or longer days. You notice something else? It's a perfect arc, like this.

As the sun curves past 180 degrees it can no longer be seen. Because it is around the horizon. We say "below" the horizon but that choice of words cannot be accurate even in rotating Earth model. Also note that the sky has a beforeglow and afterglow for these where light shifts horizontally despite there being no sun visible.

Now, look at the orbit model above. You should be noticing something. Mainly that it is generating a reverse arc?

What makes you think that I gave up? I gave you a rather obvious observation that can only be explained by the globe model and that cannot be explained by any Flat Earth model. Meanwhile you use typical creationist type tactics where you grab at all sorts of unrelated straws. Let's go over this one point at a time. And please don't comment on anyone else's math skill until you can address the particular refutation that I brought up.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

Genesis is wrong about sun, moon and stars created and existing inside this firmament, or dome. There are no stars inside the Earth’s atmosphere.

I feel the need to point out that it is your opinion that the "firmament" mentioned in Genesis is a reference to the atmosphere.

You cannot claim that the Genesis account is wrong or in error if all you did was discredit your own opinion about it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I feel the need to point out that it is your opinion that the "firmament" mentioned in Genesis is a reference to the atmosphere.

You cannot claim that the Genesis account is wrong or in error if all you did was discredit your own opinion about it.

That merely appears to be your personal interpretation of Genesis. The writers of it seem to have a different opinion. Tell me, how do you draw the line on which parts of the Bible to take literally and which parts to take figuratively.

 

[dad]

Projection.

False. The exact basis for science claims of ages are well known. They are based on beliefs. If you dispute it, name the basis, and let's see.

 

[Subduction Zone]

False. The exact basis for science claims of ages are well known. They are based on beliefs. If you dispute it, name the basis, and let's see.

No, no, no dad, that is not the way that it works. You are the one that claimed he understands when your posts belie that. Demonstrate that you have at least a fraction of the clue. How do we know that the Earth is old and how are those facts "assumptions"?

 

[dad]

No, no, no dad, that is not the way that it works. You are the one that claimed he understands when your posts belie that. Demonstrate that you have at least a fraction of the clue. How do we know that the Earth is old and how are those facts "assumptions"?

The Genesis account of creation stands then. Your inability to do anything but pretend and allude to supposed evidences an etc that are non existent confirms the intellectual vacuum on your end.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Genesis account of creation stands then. Your inability to do anything but pretend and allude to supposed evidences an etc that are non existent confirms the intellectual vacuum on your end.

No, that was refuted 150 years ago. I get tired of supposed Christians constantly breaking the Ninth Commandment when it comes to scientists. The fact that you cannot support your claims and will not even try indicates that you knew that you were telling a lie.

 

[dad]

No, that was refuted 150 years ago.

They had no clue then what was what actually. A bunch of sell outs of the bible running around chasing foolish strawmen such as some supposed uniformity they thought should be found, and using religious dates that they had no real grasp of, trying to conform the different nature past with the current nature etc etc. Might as well send Larry, Curly and Moe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They had no clue then what was what actually. A bunch of sell outs of the bible running around chasing foolish strawmen such as some supposed uniformity they thought should be found, and using religious dates that they had no real grasp of, trying to conform the different nature past with the current nature etc etc. Might as well send Larry, Curly and Moe.

Wrong again dad, you are only describing yourself at the end of your post.

Why are you afraid to learn? Your actions are those of the weak in faith.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

That merely appears to be your personal interpretation of Genesis.

How can you say this when I offered no interpretation at all?

I did not claim that the "firmament" is not the atmosphere. I am not making any claim about the Genesis account at all.

All I said was that one cannot claim that the Genesis account is in error when all one did was discredit their own interpretation.

Since their interpretation is not definitive, they cannot claim that it discredits the Genesis account at all.

The writers of it seem to have a different opinion.

It is impossible for you (or anyone) to know the opinion of these writers outside what they had written.

If you believe that the word "firmament" is describing the atmosphere, that is your interpretation.

You cannot claim that that is the opinion of the writers. Unless, of course, you have a time machine and are a mind reader.

Tell me, how do you draw the line on which parts of the Bible to take literally and which parts to take figuratively.

By the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

 

[dad]

You cannot claim that that is the opinion of the writers. Unless, of course, you have a time machine and are a mind reader..

If anyone claims that I'd like to see how they explain how the stars were IN the firmament.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How can you say this when I offered no interpretation at all?

I did not claim that the "firmament" is not the atmosphere. I am not making any claim about the Genesis account at all.

All I said was that one cannot claim that the Genesis account is in error when all one did was discredit their own interpretation.

Since their interpretation is not definitive, they cannot claim that it discredits the Genesis account at all.

It is impossible for you (or anyone) to know the opinion of these writers outside what they had written.

If you believe that the word "firmament" is describing the atmosphere, that is your interpretation.

You cannot claim that that is the opinion of the writers. Unless, of course, you have a time machine and are a mind reader.

By the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Your post shows a bias. Don't be silly. You want to treat the mythical characters Adam and Eve as if they were real. And it is not just the Genesis account that describes a firmament as being solid. We may not know exactly what they meant, but one can get a fairly clear picture by reading the various stories of the Bible.

Lastly the "guidance of the Holy Spirit" is you just admitting to going with the interpretation that you like the best. It is not an answer. Anyone can claim it was the Holy Spirit that guided them. It is a worthless claim. Practically an admission that you are wrong in doing so. So can you try again or do you admittedly have nothing?

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

If anyone claims that I'd like to see how they explain how the stars were IN the firmament.

That all depends on what they meant by the "firmament".

We can assume that they meant "atmosphere", but we cannot know it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That all depends on what they meant by the "firmament".

We can assume that they meant "atmosphere", but we cannot know it.

Why would anyone assume that?

 

[dad]

That all depends on what they meant by the "firmament".

We can assume that they meant "atmosphere", but we cannot know it.

No. I do not assume they meant atmosphere. I assume God means that He separated the waters below the firmament on earth from the waters that were above the firmament where the stars were made and placed in.

 

[ecco]

I guess Subduction gave up, and tapped out to you. Well, since I don't know you, you get the brunt of this I guess.

Using you own picture to demonstrate why you are wrong (and why you suck). You go into how my math is such that a "ten year old" knows better yet here we are looking at a pyramid standing perfectly straight, fully able to measure its area. Where is that curvature? Where is it leaning in the sand? Oh right, nowhere. It was built anywhere from 2000 BC to even earlier, yet no Leaning Tower of Pisa deal is going on. Nope, you can measure (b * h)/2 as perfectly as if asked to do so in a blackboard in math.

Earth Curvature Calculator - Calculate the curve you should see

Why is it not ( (b * h)/2) ± (r * (1 - cos a)) ) ? I don't know whether it would be plus or minus this, and I don't care, but no math EVER estimates for this. After 1000 km, all math would be off as much as 78.3196 km.

No calculation anywhere asks us to calculate for this ever. But yeah, insult me by calling my math something a 10-year-old can do. So now it's time to insult you. You see, not only a ten-year-old but a half-blind idiot would see that there is now trigonometry in my basic measure of geometry. That such math should be a fact of life that Pythagoras would be scrupulous to remind all of his students that they have to perform all such measurements using an angle below where they stand. Is this reasonable? Is this sane? No, it's stupid. So is this.

Any object at 180 degrees from its original position must account for change of position. Twelve noon should be like midnight during half the year. This is not somewhere like the North Pole, this would be in the Midwest or even the equator. If you believe this, I've still got orders on this 411 scam, you too can have your own Nigerian princess. This btw, would be despite constant rotation. But wait, we can add ANOTHER unnecessary displacement to our math. They explain this away by adding a number (I believe it is .982) to the equation based on (360 degrees / 365 days). There is no reason this number should work, but basically explains a certain percent of rotations as being nonstandard. You could watch sunrises and sunsets until you go blind and never see these, but you won't question this will you?

Let's show you why the sunrise/sunset proof is also stupid.

Remember that Gleason map earlier? Well, let's match this up by angle.

Anywhere in the world, you have roughly 12 hours of daylight, aside from shorter or longer days. You notice something else? It's a perfect arc, like this.

As the sun curves past 180 degrees it can no longer be seen. Because it is around the horizon. We say "below" the horizon but that choice of words cannot be accurate even in rotating Earth model. Also note that the sky has a beforeglow and afterglow for these where light shifts horizontally despite there being no sun visible.

Now, look at the orbit model above. You should be noticing something. Mainly that it is generating a reverse arc?

Yadda, yadda, yadda. To start with, you have just shown yourself to be another ducker and dodger - just like most woosters.

Let's recap a bit. You were trying to make the argument that one would need "a radius to start figuring out things like arc and circumference"...

. And how what's his name "measured" the circumference of Earth. You know that must have been quite a feat given that the known world at this time was minus about three continents! Wouldn't you need at the very least a radius to start figuring out things like arc and circumference?

I presented an article that showed, in rather simple terms, how the shape and circumference of the earth was determined...

One short excerpt...
If he could then figure out the distance from Alexandria to Syene, since he knew the angular difference between the two cities, he could figure out the circumference of the Earth! If only Eratosthenes had a grad student, he could have sent one to make the trip, and measure the distance!

Instead, he was forced to rely on the reported distance between the two cities. The most "precise" measurement of his day?

Instead of responding to the article and trying to bolster up your original contention you posted a wall of nonsense. The reason is clear. Your original contention was nonsense and you could not refute the science of 3000 years ago. So, you ducked and dodged.

I'll address some of the specific nonsense in your duck and dodge post later.