My Morris Challenge

[AV1611VET]

Internet scientists* here like to point out that real scientists are not qualified to refute Internet scientists' interpretations of the Scriptures, because these real scientists would be speaking outside of their respective fields of expertise.

So I'm going to give you poly-experts a chance to demonstrate your point.

Here is a passage of Scripture that you poly-experts interpret as saying the Bible teaches geocentrism:

Joshua 10:12 Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.
Joshua 10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

And here is [the late] Henry M. Morris' -- an hydraulics engineer -- interpretation of that passage:

One objection to the long day account is that the writer made a scientific mistake when he said that the sun stood still. The sun does not move, it is argued, so Joshua should have told the earth to stand still. The sun does move, however, and so does every star, planet and satellite in the universe, so far as known. Scientifically, every motion must therefore actually be expressed as relative motion, using some arbitrarily assumed reference point of zero motion. The latter is normally chosen for maximum convenience and simplicity of calculations. As far as relative motion of sun and earth is concerned, the optimum method normally used is to define the point of the observer as the point of zero motion. Thus the most scientific approach (as in the Bible) is to assume that the sun moves relative to the earth.

Here is my challenge:

Highlight in red what Morris said wrong.

* Those who appeal to the scientific method as a valid tool for refuting the Bible.

 

[Oafman]

One objection to the long day account is that the writer made a scientific mistake when he said that the sun stood still. The sun does not move, it is argued, so Joshua should have told the earth to stand still. The sun does move, however, and so does every star, planet and satellite in the universe, so far as known. Scientifically, every motion must therefore actually be expressed as relative motion, using some arbitrarily assumed reference point of zero motion. The latter is normally chosen for maximum convenience and simplicity of calculations. As far as relative motion of sun and earth is concerned, the optimum method normally used is to define the point of the observer as the point of zero motion. Thus the most scientific approach (as in the Bible) is to assume that the sun moves relative to the earth.

When discussing objects in the solar system, the sun (or in fact, its centre of mass) is used as the 'point of zero motion', because, relative to the rest of the system, it is the only object with 'zero motion'.

So Joshua got it wrong. Now, if he had only said "the world stopped turning" this thread would not exist.....

 

[AV1611VET]

As far as relative motion of sun and earth is concerned, the optimum method normally used is to define the point of the observer as the point of zero motion.

When discussing objects in the solar system, the sun (or in fact, its centre of mass) is used as the 'point of zero motion', because, relative to the rest of the system, it is the only object with 'zero motion'.

And yet the quote does not say 'solar system;' it says 'sun and earth.'

What's with the Arab phone?

So Joshua got it wrong.

Joshua who?

I'm talking about [the late] Henry M. Morris.

Now, if he had only said "the world stopped turning" this thread would not exist.....

He who?

The focus of this thread is not on Joshua.

 

[Oafman]

And yet the quote does not say 'solar system;' it says 'sun and earth.'

They are objects in the solar system. I doubt even you would disagree.

What's with the Arab phone?

Huh?

Joshua who?

The leader of the Israelites guy

The focus of this thread is not on Joshua.

So if the Bible says it, that doesn't settle it?

 

[Split Rock]

Internet scientists* here like to point out that real scientists are not qualified to refute Internet scientists' interpretations of the Scriptures, because these real scientists would be speaking outside of their respective fields of expertise.

So I'm going to give you poly-experts a chance to demonstrate your point.

Here is a passage of Scripture that you poly-experts interpret as saying the Bible teaches geocentrism:

Joshua 10:12 Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.
Joshua 10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

And here is [the late] Henry M. Morris' -- an hydraulics engineer -- interpretation of that passage:
Here is my challenge:

Highlight in red what Morris said wrong.

* Those who appeal to the scientific method as a valid tool for refuting the Bible.

Taking the passage in isolation, I would not say he was wrong. However, the bigger issue is the fact that in scripture the earth is created first and the sun and moon put into the firmament above the earth. This is clearly a geocentric model. In addition, no where in scripture is a heliocentric model implied. This is all consistent with what the writers would have understood at the time that GEN was written.

I also have two specific objections to the O.P.
1. I do not think the bible teaches geocentricism. Rather, it implies geocentricism.
2. I do not think that the scientific method is a valid tool for refuting the bible. It is a valid tool for refuting interpretations of the bible that seek to use scripture incorrectly to interpret what we see in nature.

 

[florida2]

So I'm going to give you poly-experts a chance to demonstrate your point.

Oooooo - AV's got a new catchphrase!

I think the term you are looking for is 'polymath'

 

[AV1611VET]

Oooooo - AV's got a new catchphrase!

I think the term you are looking for is 'polymath'

Thank you, sir.

 

[MikeCarra]

Highlight in red what Morris said wrong.

Aside from what Oafman said about center of mass or gravity being the preferred frame, everything can be taken from an arbitrary frame of reference. So Morris could, technically, be correct.

It would then be up to God to have inspired his writers to write more clearly such that hundreds of generations of humans didn't assume that the sun went 'round the earth on a larger scale. You know, the scale from which God presumably sees it all.

So it sounds like Morris is taking up God's slack. Or covering for His failure to be more clear.

 

[AV1611VET]

So it sounds like Morris is taking up God's slack. Or covering for His failure to be more clear.

Or perhaps God gave us Albert Einstein to give us relativity laws, so you guys can ignore them when it comes to the Bible?

 

[Vergil10]

"

"One objection to the long day account is that the writer made a scientific mistake when he said that the sun stood still. The sun does not move, it is argued, so Joshua should have told the earth to stand still. The sun does move, however, and so does every star, planet and satellite in the universe, so far as known. Scientifically, every motion must therefore actually be expressed as relative motion, using some arbitrarily assumed reference point of zero motion. The latter is normally chosen for maximum convenience and simplicity of calculations. As far as relative motion of sun and earth is concerned, the optimum method normally used is to define the point of the observer as the point of zero motion. Thus the most scientific approach (as in the Bible) is to assume that the sun moves relative to the earth."
found the problem

​

 

[Vergil10]

Internet scientists* here like to point out that real scientists are not qualified to refute Internet scientists' interpretations of the Scriptures, because these real scientists would be speaking outside of their respective fields of expertise.

So I'm going to give you poly-experts a chance to demonstrate your point.

Here is a passage of Scripture that you poly-experts interpret as saying the Bible teaches geocentrism:

Joshua 10:12 Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.
Joshua 10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

And here is [the late] Henry M. Morris' -- an hydraulics engineer -- interpretation of that passage:
Here is my challenge:

Highlight in red what Morris said wrong.

* Those who appeal to the scientific method as a valid tool for refuting the Bible.

if you want a serious answer to this It doesn't sound like he's calling the Bible valid science (at least not in terms of today) It looks like he's saying for the time that the Bible was written at, that you could get the geocentric model out of a scientific process, although that doesn't make it valid science. is this all there is to his argument or is this just part of it i am seeing?

 

[Strathos]

Once again, it is and historically was Christians who claimed the Bible taught geocentrism. It wasn't something that non-Christians invented to try to discredit the Bible.

Ask JacobLaw on these very forums.

 

[MikeCarra]

Or perhaps God gave us Albert Einstein to give us relativity laws, so you guys can ignore them when it comes to the Bible?

So you think that looking at the earth-sun system from outside of the earth-sun system will show the sun going around the earth?

 

[VProud]

One objection to the long day account is that the writer made a scientific mistake when he said that the sun stood still. The sun does not move, it is argued, so Joshua should have told the earth to stand still. The sun does move, however, and so does every star, planet and satellite in the universe, so far as known. Scientifically, every motion must therefore actually be expressed as relative motion, using some arbitrarily assumed reference point of zero motion. The latter is normally chosen for maximum convenience and simplicity of calculations. As far as relative motion of sun and earth is concerned, the optimum method normally used is to define the point of the observer as the point of zero motion. Thus the most scientific approach (as in the Bible) is to assume that the sun moves relative to the earth.

This part.
It would cause so many paradoxes to assume that a point in space can be viewed as objective in any way. And to assume that, for any problem, it's logical to assume one point is stationary in all frames would generate a lot of problems.
It's true that we always view the observer to be stationary, but we cannot view something like this from the perspective of a single observer.
If you're going to do that, it's best to view it from a frame that is neither object in question.
E.g. Jupiter or such.

 

[digitalgoth]

This part.
It would cause so many paradoxes to assume that a point in space can be viewed as objective in any way. And to assume that, for any problem, it's logical to assume one point is stationary in all frames would generate a lot of problems.
It's true that we always view the observer to be stationary, but we cannot view something like this from the perspective of a single observer.
If you're going to do that, it's best to view it from a frame that is neither object in question.
E.g. Jupiter or such.

The only way it would work is if the physics of the universe stopped all at once to make the day stand still. Relative shmelative. So what happened was, the entire universe froze, so that Joshua could get a little extra afternoon time, but the physics of the universe were not frozen on his section of planet.

It follows that after he was done screwing around with physics, the universe then started up. I'm not going to try and calculate what the energy requirements would be to restart the universe, but I'm going to assume it was a lot. Say between a 9v battery and the big bang.

That energy, of course, basically rips apart space time, and vaporizes, I mean absolutely vaporizes, unclean animals like dinosaurs that were saddled at the time AND several million years before it because now it has the appearance of an old earth due to space-time refraction, and most species wipe out, leaving only a few "kinds" of species if you know what I mean, which of course explains why there are no fossilized dinosaurs from a few thousand years ago, because they died out ALL at once (this has been suggested by so called science) and turned to photons or whatever is left, but what was already buried just has the appearance of old age because the universe's start up isn't accounted for in our age-measuring instruments.

So dinosaurs are gone, the universe froze, Joshua did some things because he needed some overtime, the fossil record now makes sense, AND this explains the red shift that makes people think there was a big bang because the universe starting up makes the outward expansion look like an outward expansion. The "big bang" red-shift is the SAME reason we see the fossil record have big gaps in it...everything appears to be moving in time space but its just a patch job.

I mean seriously Stop the earth or the sun only? God would just stop the universe so Joshua could do whatever he did that I didn't bother to read.

I defy anyone to claim otherwise using "science" or whatever materialism you people think happened compared to a simple "God stopped the universe" solution.

 

[VProud]

The only way it would work is if the physics of the universe stopped all at once to make the day stand still. Relative shmelative. So what happened was, the entire universe froze, so that Joshua could get a little extra afternoon time, but the physics of the universe were not frozen on his section of planet.

It follows that after he was done screwing around with physics, the universe then started up. I'm not going to try and calculate what the energy requirements would be to restart the universe, but I'm going to assume it was a lot. Say between a 9v battery and the big bang.

That energy, of course, basically rips apart space time, and vaporizes, I mean absolutely vaporizes, unclean animals like dinosaurs that were saddled at the time AND several million years before it because now it has the appearance of an old earth due to space-time refraction, and most species wipe out, leaving only a few "kinds" of species if you know what I mean, which of course explains why there are no fossilized dinosaurs from a few thousand years ago, because they died out ALL at once (this has been suggested by so called science) and turned to photons or whatever is left, but what was already buried just has the appearance of old age because the universe's start up isn't accounted for in our age-measuring instruments.

So dinosaurs are gone, the universe froze, Joshua did some things because he needed some overtime, the fossil record now makes sense, AND this explains the red shift that makes people think there was a big bang because the universe starting up makes the outward expansion look like an outward expansion. The "big bang" red-shift is the SAME reason we see the fossil record have big gaps in it...everything appears to be moving in time space but its just a patch job.

I mean seriously Stop the earth or the sun only? God would just stop the universe so Joshua could do whatever he did that I didn't bother to read.

I defy anyone to claim otherwise using "science" or whatever materialism you people think happened compared to a simple "God stopped the universe" solution.

Fun Fact: The energy requirement to 'restart' the universe would be 0, as space always wants to expand due to latent vacuum energy, it would be the energy required to make it stop and keep it stopped that would be unimaginable.

Anyway, if that was aimed at me, you completely misunderstood my position. xD

 

[[serious]]

Internet scientists* here like to point out that real scientists are not qualified to refute Internet scientists' interpretations of the Scriptures, because these real scientists would be speaking outside of their respective fields of expertise.

So I'm going to give you poly-experts a chance to demonstrate your point.

Here is a passage of Scripture that you poly-experts interpret as saying the Bible teaches geocentrism:

Joshua 10:12 Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.
Joshua 10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

And here is [the late] Henry M. Morris' -- an hydraulics engineer -- interpretation of that passage:
Here is my challenge:

Highlight in red what Morris said wrong.

* Those who appeal to the scientific method as a valid tool for refuting the Bible.

1. I'm disappointed that your Morris challenge wasn't about Morris the cat.

2. It isn't that a scientist can't speak outside his field of expertise, it's that when they do, they are speaking as a layperson, not an expert. For example, Stephen Hawking might write about the French renaissance. His writing on the subject should bear the same scrutiny as Mike, my plumber.

With those two notes, my answer to your challenge:

One objection to the long day account is that the writer made a scientific mistake when he said that the sun stood still. The sun does not move, it is argued, so Joshua should have told the earth to stand still. The sun does move, however, and so does every star, planet and satellite in the universe, so far as known. Scientifically, every motion must therefore actually be expressed as relative motion, using some arbitrarily assumed reference point of zero motion. The latter is normally chosen for maximum convenience and simplicity of calculations. As far as relative motion of sun and earth is concerned, the optimum method normally used is to define the point of the observer as the point of zero motion. Thus the most scientific approach (as in the Bible) is to assume that the sun moves relative to the earth.

The problem is 2 fold:
1. Relative motion need not assume an arbitrary frame of zero motion
2. The rotation of earth is not a "motion" in that sense of the word, but rather an acceleration. Zero acceleration is a meaningful statement. Changes in acceleration are measurable and have an impact regardless of the inertial reference frame.

 

[Heissonear]

Or perhaps God gave us Albert Einstein to give us relativity laws, so you guys can ignore them when it comes to the Bible?

 

[Kylie]

Internet scientists* here like to point out that real scientists are not qualified to refute Internet scientists' interpretations of the Scriptures, because these real scientists would be speaking outside of their respective fields of expertise.

So I'm going to give you poly-experts a chance to demonstrate your point.

Here is a passage of Scripture that you poly-experts interpret as saying the Bible teaches geocentrism:

Joshua 10:12 Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.
Joshua 10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

And here is [the late] Henry M. Morris' -- an hydraulics engineer -- interpretation of that passage:

One objection to the long day account is that the writer made a scientific mistake when he said that the sun stood still. The sun does not move, it is argued, so Joshua should have told the earth to stand still. The sun does move, however, and so does every star, planet and satellite in the universe, so far as known. Scientifically, every motion must therefore actually be expressed as relative motion, using some arbitrarily assumed reference point of zero motion. The latter is normally chosen for maximum convenience and simplicity of calculations. As far as relative motion of sun and earth is concerned, the optimum method normally used is to define the point of the observer as the point of zero motion. Thus the most scientific approach (as in the Bible) is to assume that the sun moves relative to the earth.

Here is my challenge:

Highlight in red what Morris said wrong.

* Those who appeal to the scientific method as a valid tool for refuting the Bible.

While this part is technically true, the passage in the Bible is talking of the sun's apparent motion across the sky, and this is caused by the rotation of the Earth on its axis, not the sun's movement through space.

 

[AV1611VET]

While this part is technically true, the passage in the Bible is talking of the sun's apparent motion across the sky, and this is caused by the rotation of the Earth on its axis, not the sun's movement through space.

It's sad that others can't see that.