Can Creationists justify not being Flat Earthers?

[Resha Caner]

No offense to you, Black Dog, but I have never talked with an atheist who could interpret the Bible properly. They're too busy trying to find gotchas or inconsistencies instead of trying to understand what's being said. Someone will read where Jesus said, "I am the door" and cry foul because Jesus wasn't made of wood. Then then'll read that John saw a great red dragon and cry foul because there are no such things as dragons.

I wouldn't say all atheists do this, but many do. I don't see the point of debating someone who is going to insist we accept his interpretation of our religion with the purpose of criticizing that interpretation.

 

[Jimmy D]

That's how DNA and birth works, though. You take a sperm cell, and an egg cell, they come together and produce the DNA library of an organism and become a single cell.

From that 1 cell, they start to multiply and divide, however, some cells become this, some cells become that. But yet, that first cell, or the "master cell" if you will... had the instructions, the blueprints for every kind and type of cell that would eventually make up the organism.

How did each cell know what to become? Every cell was capable of becoming anything, but yet the entire organism somehow "knew" to grow all the things it would need -- muscle, bone, organs, blood cells, antibodies, hair, etc.

Scientists did the research and told us about sperm cells, DNA, blood cells, antibodies etc, do you believe those things really exist? Are these same scientists only wrong when what they say conflicts with your religious beliefs? Weird that.

 

[Xalith]

Scientists did the research and told us about sperm cells, DNA, blood cells, antibodies etc, do you believe those things really exist? Are these same scientists only wrong when what they say conflicts with your religious beliefs? Weird that.

Cells, antibodies, etc can be seen by anybody with a powerful enough microscope. I, of course, am not going to debate against things that have been proven to exist beyond reasonable doubt. You can prove sperm cells exist. You can prove eggs exist, etc etc.

No such hard proof has been given for evolution and every model of it I've seen, I see holes in it, that can be explained by other means (creation).

 

[JackRT]

No such hard proof has been given for evolution and every model of it I've seen, I see holes in it, that can be explained by other means (creation).

Creation can be an explanation for literally EVERYTHING. But creation has absolutely no predictive power. It is successful predictive power that is the hallmark of every successful theory and evolution is certainly a part of that.

 

[Loudmouth]

I've not seen Creationism thoroughly disproven, though.

As we have already seen, if the evidence disagrees with creationism, you throw out the evidence.

And I can't think of a more silly notion than a complex organism featuring thousands of working parts, when viewed under a microscope resemble human machines being formed out of lifeless goop over millions of years.

Ridicule is not an argument.

Nor can evolution explain the "everybody can be everything" paradox:

Step 1): Get 100 people who can play every instrument in an orchestra.
Step 2): Have 100 of every instrument on the premises.
Step 3): Have 100 of every musical notation of the music on the premises.
Step 4): Do not bring a conductor in.

Step 5): Remove one note that doesn't fit the symphony.
Step 6): Make a random change.
Step 7): Repeat steps 5 and 6.

Will that result in a symphony over time? Yes.

That's how DNA and birth works, though. You take a sperm cell, and an egg cell, they come together and produce the DNA library of an organism and become a single cell.

From that 1 cell, they start to multiply and divide, however, some cells become this, some cells become that. But yet, that first cell, or the "master cell" if you will... had the instructions, the blueprints for every kind and type of cell that would eventually make up the organism.

How did each cell know what to become? Every cell was capable of becoming anything, but yet the entire organism somehow "knew" to grow all the things it would need -- muscle, bone, organs, blood cells, antibodies, hair, etc.

Unless, of course, there were a conductor....

No conductor needed. It is entirely spontaneous. Have you ever studied embryonic development? There is no deity that has to swoop in and tell each cell what to become.

 

[Loudmouth]

Cells, antibodies, etc can be seen by anybody with a powerful enough microscope. I, of course, am not going to debate against things that have been proven to exist beyond reasonable doubt. You can prove sperm cells exist. You can prove eggs exist, etc etc.

No such hard proof has been given for evolution and every model of it I've seen, I see holes in it, that can be explained by other means (creation).

Then show us how creationism can explain the nested hierarchy.

 

[Papias]

From our global brainwashing,

"Global brainwashing"? So you reject a spherical earth in favor of a flat earth?

and "Four Corners" was the common phrase of the time.

Source? Or did you just make that up?

...
The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.
How is this "proof" of an earth that does not move?

Ummm.... because that's what it says.

That's enough. Video is so hard to critique. Said "proofs" all fail.

No, just because you are ignoring your own scripture doesn't mean they fail. We've also got the dozens of ones I listed before as well.

This guy is not a literalist. He is an agendist.

No true scotsman.

I don't accept evolution, because God Himself said that He did it in 6 days, and rested on the 7th in Exodus 20:10-12. When God writes something in stone with His own 'finger', you might want to think twice about taking what was said allegorically.

First, you are implying that those verses not written with his finger can't be allegory, which is silly. God could write allegory just as easily as he could write anything else.

Secondly, by referring to Genesis 1, if you are going to claim that fingerwriting means it's literal, proves my point, not yours, since Genesis 1 describes a flat earth, under a hard dome, with water above it.

Thirdly, when God writes (even with his own finger), he can be speaking to the people in ways they'll understand, as you yourself pointed out.

From Genesis 1:

And God said, “Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so. God called the dome Sky. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.

And God said, “Let the waters under the sky be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas.​

I've not seen Creationism thoroughly disproven, though. It's been tried, but no such disproving has ever been done.
.

you haven't seen it because you haven't studied the relevant fields. That's like me claiming that I've never seen proof of atoms existing, so atoms must not exist! Those in the relevant fields (including millions of Christians) are practically unanimous that creationism has been thoroughly disproven.

And I can't think of a more silly notion than a complex organism featuring thousands of working parts, when viewed under a microscope resemble human machines being formed out of lifeless goop over millions of years.

Of course you think that way - because you are clueless about the relevant fields. I could just as well say "I can't think of a more silly notion that parts of our own bodies attack our bodies" - yet that's exactly what happens with autoimmune diseases.

Cells, antibodies, etc can be seen by anybody with a powerful enough microscope. I, of course, am not going to debate against things that have been proven to exist beyond reasonable doubt. You can prove sperm cells exist. You can prove eggs exist, etc etc.
.

the reality of evolution has been proven over and over beyond a reasonable doubt. That's why practically all the experts (including the experts who are Christian) dismiss creationism. It's certainly proven as well or better than sperm or egg cells.

.... that can be explained by other means (creation).

Because creationism is like last thursdayism in that regard. I propose that you were made by aliens from the planet Kolob, last thursday - and every possible evidence you can raise in disagreement can be explained by other means (Kolobian Aliens).

In Christ-

Papias

 

[SkyWriting]

"Global brainwashing"? So you reject a spherical earth in favor of a flat earth?

I've covered this in my "The Earth is Flat" thread. While I admit
that from space, the earth can be seen to be a sphere, I reject
that this "Globe Mentality" has much practical application and
I don't fault anyone for thinking that their life is spent on a flat
plane of existence.

Nobody takes a long drive in their car and thinks in terms of an
arc where their body is leaning one way when they start, and
leans away at an angle at the end of their journey.

Yet that is the case. I don't fault anyone for thinking "flat" since
ground will always be perceived as level even as you travel around
the globe. "Globe mentality" is for queer people. Like scientists.

Let me draw you a picture of normal. A girl where I work is our
mechanic. She is divorced and has one kid. She drives a pickup
truck and spends time with friends on the weekend. She likes
riding escalators because there are very few of them in the small
town where she grew up. Her earth is quite flat.

Most people in the world live on a flat earth.

 

[SkyWriting]

The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.
How is this "proof" of an earth that does not move? - Sky

Ummm.... because that's what it says.

But the earth does move, so you must be not understanding what was written.
You can't claim that scripture means the earth is stationary and ignore
that the earth does move, then claim it doesn't. The scripture writers
were in a earthquake active area. So you must be interpreting wrong.

 

[SkyWriting]

No true scotsman.

In Australia?

 

[SkyWriting]

No, just because you are ignoring your own scripture doesn't mean they fail.

Here you can read that the earth hangs in empty space. Are you going to ignore this passage?
Or does this prove the model Christian astronauts use.

7 "He stretches out the north over empty space And hangs the earth on nothing.

 

[SkyWriting]

Scientists did the research and told us about sperm cells, DNA, blood cells, antibodies etc, do you believe those things really exist? Are these same scientists only wrong when what they say conflicts with your religious beliefs? Weird that.

Well of course we don't believe everything they say. That would be stupid and
opposed to the scientific method requiring us to test everything. That's the Berean
method as well.

 

[com7fy8]

"The earth is flat."

"Then you can take a plane or helicopter up high enough to view Saudi Arabia from Massachusetts."

"The Bible doesn't say that. The earth is flat. I won't go up and do that, because that would be seeking proof without faith but by sight."

"So, how about volcanos? How deep down does that larva come from? Does it come from a center of molten earth?"

"God makes it happen."

"Then the earth has an edge to which you can go and and look down, I suppose."

"I haven't done that. But I don't need to, because I believe by faith, not the proof of sight. And anyone who says they have tried to go to the edge of the earth but have not found it is a liar, simple as that!!"

"It does appear that we humans are capable of believing anything we are told, even exact opposite things. So then, perhaps we could say humans have flat heads . . . like flat writing tablets where anyone can write anything!"

 

[Black Dog]

So.....you being on a globe shaped earth.....how would you describe gathering
your people using the four (or 8) directions you saw them leave in?
You may imagine the earth is 200 feet in diameter, if that helps.

Keep in mind that the earth is 99.98 percent flat.

I talked about "taking hold of the ends of the earth". This does not explain that.

 

[Black Dog]

According to earlier posts in this thread, the Evolutionists attacking Creationists are going "How can you say Creationism without Flat Earth when the Bible says the "Ends of the World", because they seem to think "Ends of the World" MUST be referring to a Flat Earth.

No. It's because creationists say God created everything because the bible must be taken literally. But when it comes to the parts where the bible literally describes a flat earth, they suddenly say the bible shouldn't be taken literally.

 

[Black Dog]

I don't accept evolution, because God Himself said that He did it in 6 days, and rested on the 7th in Exodus 20:10-12. When God writes something in stone with His own 'finger', you might want to think twice about taking what was said allegorically.

See Post 76. I honestly hadn't read this post when I wrote post 76. Thank you for confirming my argument.

 

[Black Dog]

But not one of them does. A flat earth is just a convention, like sun rise and sun set.
Use of the convention does not prove NASA supports a flat earth.
Sunrise Over the South Pacific Ocean | NASA

Yet Magellan states that the church says the earth is flat. Is Magellan lying? Did the church come to this conclusion even though the bible says the earth is spherical? Come on, that's silly. The bible says the earth is flat, and that's what the church believed. Just like the bible says God created man, and that's what some churches still believe.

(thanks JackRT for quote)
"The church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the church." — Ferdinand Magellan (first person to circumnavigate the globe)

 

[Black Dog]

I wouldn't say all atheists do this, but many do. I don't see the point of debating someone who is going to insist we accept his interpretation of our religion with the purpose of criticizing that interpretation.

Creationists say the bible must be interpreted literally. But then they say you can't interpret the bible literally when it states the earth is flat. Clearly the bible is wrong about certain things, so how do creationists know that the parts about God creating man are correct? When they have zero evidence?

 

[AV1611VET]

No. It's because creationists say God created everything because the bible must be taken literally. But when it comes to the parts where the bible literally describes a flat earth, they suddenly say the bible shouldn't be taken literally.

Knowing the difference contributes to Bible maturity, doesn't it?

And by the way, that door swings both ways.

Scientists swear Genesis 1 is allegory (if not a fable); while at the same time swear the Bible literally speaks of a flat earth.

 

[Black Dog]

Knowing the difference contributes to Bible maturity, doesn't it?

And by the way, that door swings both ways.

Scientists swear Genesis 1 is allegory (if not a fable); while at the same time swear the Bible literally speaks of a flat earth.

Huh? You're confused here AV. Obviously Genesis literally speaks of God creating the Universe, Planets, Animals, Man, etc.. Please find one scientist who understands the language of the bible they are reading, and denies that. Equally obviously, there is no evidence for this, or any other supernatural being, having created anything. So yeah, scientists don't believe that is a fact.