One question for Christians

[Godscreated]

That's called special pleading. It's okay to concede points when you're proven wrong. People will think more of you for doing so.

You will do anything to look good want you bud, you should join Min in the sandbox.

[DeistPaladin]

Wasn't where I was going, and the scripture does not say it's the moons a light source, it is called the lesser light, now I wonder why, could it be that God was saying the moon needed the sun, would explain the word lesser.

...or perhaps it uses the term "lesser" because the (reflected) light of the moon is not as great as the light of the sun.

Had the ancient Hebrews realized the moon reflected the light of the sun, "lesser light" wouldn't be an accurate term. The more appropriate and descriptive terms would be "great light by day and its mirror to rule the night".

The logical fallacy you're using is called "confirmation bias", where you selectively use, cherry pick and interpret the data to fit a desired conclusion. Horoscope readers, Nostradamus fans and Bible believers all have that habit in common.

[Bad Writer]

That's called special pleading. It's okay to concede points when you're proven wrong. People will think more of you for doing so.

You will do anything to look good want you bud, you should join Min in the sandbox.

Well, I can't think more of you when you come back at me like that.

[Godscreated]

Wasn't where I was going, and the scripture does not say it's the moons a light source, it is called the lesser light, now I wonder why, could it be that God was saying the moon needed the sun, would explain the word lesser.

...or perhaps it uses the term "lesser" because the (reflected) light of the moon is not as great as the light of the sun.

Had the ancient Hebrews realized the moon reflected the light of the sun, "lesser light" wouldn't be an accurate term. The more appropriate and descriptive terms would be "great light by day and its mirror to rule the night".

The logical fallacy you're using is called "confirmation bias", where you selectively use, cherry pick and interpret the data to fit a desired conclusion. Horoscope readers, Nostradamus fans and Bible believers all have that habit in common.

I did not put that out as fact, it was a suggestion,just as it read. Tell me how was God to explain to the writers light reflecting off the moon that came from the sun.

[Cyberman]

How about something like "the Moon is a big ball of rock going round the Earth and reflects the light of the Sun like a mirror. That's why the Moon has a different shape every night and why sometimes you can see the shadow of the Earth on it"? Would that have worked, do you think?

[Esquilax]

I did not put that out as fact, it was a suggestion,just as it read. Tell me how was God to explain to the writers light reflecting off the moon that came from the sun.

"You know how, when you wear armor, the light of the sun reflects of the metal? The moon is a big rock orbiting your (definitely spherical, by the way!) world, and it works the same way."

This isn't hard, unless you're dishonestly trying to defend an incorrect position based around preconceived and biased notions that it's always right, that is.

[Godscreated]

I did not put that out as fact, it was a suggestion,just as it read. Tell me how was God to explain to the writers light reflecting off the moon that came from the sun.

"You know how, when you wear armor, the light of the sun reflects of the metal? The moon is a big rock orbiting your (definitely spherical, by the way!) world, and it works the same way."

This isn't hard, unless you're dishonestly trying to defend an incorrect position based around preconceived and biased notions that it's always right, that is.

They did not have armor during Moses day.

---

How about something like "the Moon is a big ball of rock going round the Earth and reflects the light of the Sun like a mirror. That's why the Moon has a different shape every night and why sometimes you can see the shadow of the Earth on it"? Would that have worked, do you think?

Oh, that's good, try to be real.

[Esquilax]

They did not have armor during Moses day.

And your proof of that?

But I can go back further, if you want: "You know metal?"

Oh, what's that? They didn't have metal? Okay: "You know water?"

See, you can't argue against the existence of reflective things, in this case, and so long as there was a reflective thing to compare the moon to, an explanation can be made. Oh, and if god was interested in being, you know, accurate in his supposedly divine, perfectly truthful account, then he could have created some exceedingly obvious parallel on earth, or even just made humanity with a mind capable of understanding the concept. I mean, we can do that today, right?

Why were the people back then so stupid?

Oh, that's good, try to be real.

Broken irony meter aside, this isn't an argument. Scoffing isn't a rebuttal, it's just you being an asshole. Why is Stimbo's answer so unrealistic?

[Mystical]

The batteries power the electrical charge to a filament that heats up lights up and the light reflects off of reflective surfaces hence the silvery shiny cone around the filament. Without the filament and the batteries, there is no light just with the reflective surface. Without the reflective surface, there's still light being emitted by the filament.

WHATS YOUR POINT GC?

[DeistPaladin]

Well, I can't think more of you when you come back at me like that.

Indeed. Someone should have told him a long time ago about vinegar and honey.