B. John Jones

Why should we assume the space around the moon is dim or dark when the moon is so brilliant at night? It's brilliance proves otherwise.

What spheres are you taking about?What part of a sphere is concave? You asked, "What spheres are you taking about? What part of a sphere is concave?" Answer: The moon and the dome. The brightened section of the moon is in the full light of the sun. The darkened section is breaching the dome. Yes, and the moon stays where the dome goes. Truth is truth, correct?

Think about it. A big light above. A little ball below. There's going to be a shadow on the underside of the ball. That's our night sky. I just did.

People who demonstrate a genuine interest in knowing the truth, I have time for. People who disagree just to disagree, I'm sorry, I don't have time for you.

Not meaning to be abrasive, but you're asking the wrong question. The fullness of the moon doesn't have to do with the earth's horizon. When someone below the horizon gazes at the the moon, it is our morning, their dawn. Further along it's very late at night. The moon's fullness doesn't change much in one night from one view. Also, we know that the moon's orbit is an ellipse, which proves my point (the dome is shallow).

Consider: 1) concave and convex aspects of the intersecting spheres; 2) vast radial differences of intersecting spheres; 3) transition from darkness to light in the dome of darkness

Actually, the heavens are mostly full of the friendlier, more colorful lights, but the dome of darkness, and the vengeful sun, mask everything to the naked human eye, except the brighter, whiter, more familiar lights. The sun (the greater governor) is a cruel task master, compared to the gentler, kinder moon, whose governance teeters between the luminous sunlight and the dome, taking his command from the greater light. The fullness of the moon appears when he is just above the dome. Mostly below the dome, he's in his crescent stage, barely breaking through the darkness.

What do you mean?

I propose that the universe is mostly well-lit. Common sense proves (pertaining to the solar system) that nighttime on earth is merely a shallow dome of darkness, a shadow on the underside of the earth. Light dominates the universe.

This has nothing to do with religion, or God as a force. God is the most integral part of nature, that being everything that is.

Bible used to be axiom. Today the scientific community slanders it's authors as liars. You claim it contradicts itself. Show me. If we can't show how every alleged contradiction is reconciled, and that the Bible as a whole is complete, then modern science is correct. There is no God.

You're not looking at nature. You're looking at science, which used to be about nature. If you were using science to view nature you would see it's majesty.

God knows I care for people. Being censored, to any extent, is not my prerogative. The topic is a question, to which my answer is no. I've consistently answered, no because God is behind all nature. Now I'm charging that it be tested.

That's not criticism. It's a claim, and unfounded. We can test that too, before I'm banned, if time permits.

Then by all means, let them be God!

People hold sway in this world. You (a plural majority) are faithless. God made people sovereign on earth. "My own people perish for lack of knowledge." When you people (I'm taking my liberty now) refuse to acknowledge God, you forfeit your right to complain about wickedness running rampant. Now if I'm censored for being harsh, shouldn't you for maligning the church when you claim we "make things up?" Now, you people say that if I make a claim, it must be testable. So let's test the Word of God. You say there is no God. Some here might say, "if there is a God we can't know him." Now, if godlessness is better, then the scientific establishment should hold sway. But if God is Almighty, then the church on Oahu, Hawaii will sweep the nations! And if science is god, then let her be God.

It's already been determined over history that people time and again arrive at the age of 120, but not beyond. No, my speculation is that God trumps death. And the evidence is in the written testimonies of the eye-witnesses of Jesus' baptism, life, crucifixion, resurrection and ascension; followed by the written testimony, letters and other documentation about the birth and development of the church, again by eye-witnesses.

If science purports to assist humankind, it must address the nemesis of most human beings. At the end of the road we die. None live beyond the years of 120. Following are the posted rules for the Speculations Forum: Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. If your speculation is untestable, or you don't give us evidence (or a prediction that is testable), your thread will be moved to the Trash Can. If you expect any scientific input, you need to provide a case that science can measure. Be civil. As wrong as someone might be, there is no reason to insult them, and there's no reason to get angry if someone points out the flaws in your theory, either. Keep it in the Speculations forum. Don't try to use your pet theory to answer questions in the mainstream science forums, and don't hijack other threads to advertise your new theory. The claim that every person dies by the age of 120 has been tested, and proven resolutely, for every human being born before 1896 (except those born in very ancient times). This test is ongoing, and will not cease. I do believe this is measurable for science. This shouldn't be insulting to anyone, it's not intended to be. Nor should any of my statements contained here. There will be no advertisements. If I breach any of these rules in this discussion, I will understand it being locked. ---------- It has been said elsewhere that Science, not faith in God, is more real--because it works. If it works so well, why do we still die? I mean it seems simple. We can figure out a way to get to the moon and calculate activities near distant stars, create weapons of mass destruction, even invent these crazy little devices we all carry around in our pockets that perform fantastic feats of finger frought gymnastics, but are so afraid of death, we're afraid even to address it, let alone topple it. So who will step up? Or indeed, has someone already stepped down, and up?

You have a divine purpose.

Newton is, arguably, the penultimate scientist. We know about his faith in God. But Newton would have shunned what you just said for the simple reason, not concerning your exclusion of God from science, but for your disregard in the definition you just gave, for purpose, in science. If science is merely a pastime, you might as well specialize in extraterrestrial life. That said, Newton's foremost love was not science, but Christian faith. He would have chosen Christian ministry except that his faith was genuine. He was not willing to be ordained by the Church of England, so he focused on science. Well, listen to this, his basis for the notion that the same forces of gravity in the upper atmosphere apply very locally to the objects on the earth was . . . (drum-roll . . .) "that since the same God created the heavens as well as the earth, the same laws should apply throughout." He also vehemently affirmed that genuine science ultimately leads to stronger faith in God. One invisible world, and I didn't make it up. Paul said it in Ephesians 6. Satan is a pitiful pauper and can no more be compared to God than an ape (or Darwin) to Shakespeare. Again, you misunderstand.

Not quite. Satan, is an evil ruler, an evil authority--of the unseen1world. He exercises mighty power, unlawfully, in this dark2world. Just as he can make suggestions subliminally in the human mind in this dark world, he can even completely occupy an inferior creature, such as a serpent. The serpent was good, without Satan's coercion. 1-2 These are only two distinct worlds. There are also the heavenly realms. The base context for any thoughtful discussion should never be a closed world. The base context, for math, poetry, cooking for dummies and yes, even the holy grail (I mean science), must always be universal knowledge, and the base for that, if one is truly sound, must be wisdom.

What you just said is that competency requires 1) haste, 2) polished scholarship, 3) self-promotion. If I lived during Jesus' life on earth, I would have nothing to do with pen and paper until after his ascent. You misunderstand who he is. Yes, they attacked Christ through the time of Constantine, who epitomized the mantra, "If you can't beat them, counterfeit them." Again, you misunderstand because you've not given care to the text. Christ always sought escape from the masses from the very close of his very first Sermon, masses growing numerously by the day. If any Roman soldier so much as laid a hand on him there would have been horrific riots. His arrest depended on betrayal by a close friend. The price God required of his Son, the penalty paid for all human sin. When a person is pierced in their side, and water and blood flow, as in Jesus' case, he is indeed dead. Perhaps notable, but not of much force in your argument. It should be expected that opinions would clash since local calendars were not always in sync with the Julian Calendar, nor with one another, not to mention the transitions of calendars that followed. It should frighten you to assume so much without shame. Very uninformed induction. The Eden story begins the history of a fallen world, due to human pride. Adam and Eve were forbidden the fruit from the tree of knowledge, of one kind, of the knowledge of good and evil. People reject Christ because they are not content with just good. They prefer good, with evil. As for those who are his, our portion will always be with Him.

Clearly, these are cyclical patterns in nature with a primary purpose to set times, established by a divinity. Actually it's a principle of Providence. That's actually not what I said. I said rather, that a harmonious universe, even in spite of all the anomalies, strongly affirms the divinity.

God blames none for disobedience. He punished his own Son, who owns all of our disobedience.