A flat earth

[AV1611VET]

Actually, what it says is that there are people out there whose beliefs are so over-the-top and asinine, that when someone tries to parody those beliefs, they'll never achieve enough of a parody that people won't think they're sincere.

In Poe's Law, who is the ignorant one: the sender, or the receiver?

 

[Nathan Poe]

In Poe's Law, who is the ignorant one: the sender, or the receiver?

Why are you obsessed with ignorance, AV?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why are you obsessed with ignorance, AV?

So I can fit in with everyone else who is so obsessed with ignorance they'll actually list the countries of the world by level of education and make a game out of who gets what credit for what discovery.

Instead of countries sharing their discoveries, they have to gloat for awhile first.

 

[Nathan Poe]

So I can fit in with everyone else who is so obsessed with ignorance they'll actually list the countries of the world by level of education and make a game out of who gets what credit for what discovery.

Instead of countries sharing their discoveries, they have to gloat for awhile first.

That's an obsession with achievement, AV -- which, granted, isn't much better, but it's not surprising that you're not familiar with the sensation.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

"Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it's impossible to make a parody of fundamentalism that someone won't mistake for the real thing."

Once again: I don't see a winking smiley in this post.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Once again: I don't see a winking smiley in this post.

What are the chances that it's because there is none?

Or, as AV would say -- "Keep Looking."

 

[Ellinas]

Once again: I don't see a winking smiley in this post.

Blasphemer! Have ye no respect for the father of the law?

 

[Split Rock]

Actually, what it says is that there are people out there whose beliefs are so over-the-top and asinine, that when someone tries to parody those beliefs, they'll never achieve enough of a parody that people won't think they're sincere.

The funniest thing is that it is the real creationists who are most often taken in by Poes.

 

[Cabal]

Radioactive isotopes existed 451 years ago?

Uh...yes.

 

[Cabal]

The funniest thing is that it is the real creationists who are most often taken in by Poes.

I think the clue is in the word "creationists".

(Maybe God just forgot to end Genesis 1 with (^_-)or whatever)

Although I do like the generally negative reaction the Flat Earth society has gotten from our resident creationists. It's the David Icke effect in action again.

Flat-earthers - so crazy they are to pseudoscience fans what pseudoscience fans are to normal people.

 

[AV1611VET]

The funniest thing is that it is the real creationists who are most often taken in by Poes.

I took a lot of you guys in on this doosey: 68 .

 

[Nathan Poe]

I took a lot of you guys in on this doosey: 68 .

of course you did -- your attempts at parody aren't even as ridiculous as your real assertions.

AV, you're the only person I know who could take pride at being a better unintentional self-parody.

 

[Split Rock]

(Remember, I agree with 95% of science.)
.

Wrong. You do not. You disagree with everything that contradicts your fallible interpretation of scripture. Here is a short list:
1. Biology
2. Geology
3. Astronomy
4. Cosmology
5. Archeology
6. Paleontology
7. Physics
8. Chemistry
9. Linguistics
10. Sociology

That doesn't leave much.... does it AVET? What you guys fail to grasp with your "I only disagree with a little science," is that it is all connected into one large understanding of our physical world. One you creationists reject, in its entirety. Except, of course, when you turn on your computer in the morning or start your car up, or put frozen food into your freezer, etc.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Wrong. You do not. You disagree with everything that contradicts your fallible interpretation of scripture. Here is a short list:
1. Biology
2. Geology
3. Astronomy
4. Cosmology
5. Archeology
6. Paleontology
7. Physics
8. Chemistry
9. Linguistics
10. Sociology

That doesn't leave much.... does it AVET? What you guys fail to grasp with your "I only disagree with a little science," is that it is all connected into one large understanding of our physical world. One you creationists reject, in its entirety. Except, of course, when you turn on your computer in the morning or start your car up, or put frozen food into your freezer, etc.

It's not even a case of "you guys," at least not so much as AV would like to think. Creationists, by and large, are out to promote one thing, whether they realize it or not -- themselves.

Science -- carefully cherry-picked -- is simply AVET's tool of choice.

 

[super animator]

Off-topic but
“The biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense." is something that I don't exactly agree with. Is he imply that sin always exist ever since the universe was created?

 

[Wedjat]

I'm not sure that's the point.

 

[Split Rock]

Off-topic but
“The biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense." is something that I don't exactly agree with. Is he imply that sin always exist ever since the universe was created?

That's an interesting question. Clearly Shelby does not read Genesis as literal history, but I'm not sure what his ideas on the origin of sin are.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Off-topic but
“The biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense." is something that I don't exactly agree with. Is he imply that sin always exist ever since the universe was created?

He's implying that "sin" is a human concept, and has existed as long as:

1. Human beings were able to conceptualize "God."
2. Human beings believed that their "god" wants them to act a certain way.
3. Human beings believe there are consequences for not following the instructions of their "god."

 

[Asycthian]

The Bible informs the earth is flat, and the Church Fathers, and earliest Christians were all in agreement the earth was flat as well.

I don't think it really needs a debate. You either believe in what the scripture says (as a Christian) or don't. Christians are not at liberty to twist the scripture to prove the earth is round, when it informs us it is flat. I have seen Christians twist Is. xl. 22 for example which describes the earth as a ''circle'', yet what is being said here if you check the original hebrew is a flat literal circle not a sphere.

 

[Ellinas]

The Bible informs the earth is flat, and the Church Fathers, and earliest Christians were all in agreement the earth was flat as well.

I don't think it really needs a debate. You either believe in what the scripture says (as a Christian) or don't. Christians are not at liberty to twist the scripture to prove the earth is round, when it informs us it is flat. I have seen Christians twist Is. xl. 22 for example which describes the earth as a ''circle'', yet what is being said here if you check the original hebrew is a flat literal circle not a sphere.

I second that