Can Creationists justify not being Flat Earthers?

[Aman777]

But there have undoubtedly always been people who scoffed at the idea of a world wide flood. Also, since the time of Jesus people have been using the bible to predict the end times, yet they have always been wrong. Heck, even Jesus got it wrong when he predicted the end times, and his return, in less than 100 years.

Amen, and since Today remains the 6th Day, Jesus got it absolutely correct. This Day began when Jesus made the beasts of the field and birds and Adam named them. Gen 2:19 It will NOT end until AFTER Jesus rules and reigns for a thousand years AFTER He changes all living creatures into vegetarians. Gen 1:30 The problem lies in the ancient theology of men who lived thousands of years ago and could NOT understand Scripture.

BTW, The world wide flood did NOT destroy the 3rd Rock from the Sun but it did totally destroy Adam's Earth which was NOT a rock with a molten core. Amen?

 

[Hoghead1]

Indeed, who would believe Hovind? He has degrees in music, not science. The scientific community views him as lunatic fringe. In 2007, he began serving a 10-year prison term. Nice, reliable source. Not even creation-science people use him much.

 

[Aman777]

OK, I think I understand your position. Just so you understand my position, I'm against creationism being taught in science class. I have no problem teaching it in applicable classes, such as comparative religion.

Anyways, it sounds like you might agree that creationism should not be taught in science class. Is this correct?

Amen, since the traditional religious story does NOT agree with Scripture, Science nor History. It does agree with what is actually written in the Bible and totally destroys the False Theory of Evolution, which should be removed from the public schools. Amen?

 

[Black Dog]

Then put the Bible back in school where It belongs

That's not where it belongs. Take a lesson from Muslims, who did exactly that. Do you want our country to be as easily defeated as Muslim countries?

and learn to recognize what is literal and what is a figure of speech.

Even Christians can't agree on what is literal and what is a figure of speech. What makes you the final arbiter in this regard?

If you're really interested in being Biblically mature ... which I don't think you are ... then you would employ a set of standards that allow you to differentiate between the two. And even if your standards are wrong, you would at least get an A for effort.

Again, Christians can't agree. I agree about the finding a set of standards, that would certainly help.

You guys are so hot-shot with your standards of science ... your so-called scientific method ... but when it comes to any standards of Biblical interpretation, you guys are some of the sorriest people around here.

Well yeah, science has doubled our life spans, allows us to easily and quickly explore the entire world, and all the wonders it contains.

To be honest, I didn't know Christians had a biblical standard for separating what is literal and what is not. Could you please provide it? Thanks in advance.

As I'm fond of saying:

All you scientists are dong here is venting and ridiculing from behind question marks.

In the interest of accuracy, could you please include "and doubling our life spans, and providing instant access to the combined knowledge of mankind, and allowing us to instantly communicate around the world, and allowing us to easily travel anywhere in the world."

 

[Black Dog]

Amen, since the traditional religious story does NOT agree with Scripture, Science nor History. It does agree with what is actually written in the Bible and totally destroys the False Theory of Evolution, which should be removed from the public schools. Amen?

So, no common ground here. The bible as much "totally destroys the False Theory" of a Spherical Earth, so should we also remove that from public schools. And what about where the bible states that pi is 3? I don't think this is significant, but I bet there is a Christian somewhere who thinks that means pi exactly equals three, so should we also remove the teaching of pi from public schools?

 

[Hoghead1]

The Genesis account says that Noah was to bring living creatures of every kind, whatever kind means. Also, there is nothing here about hibernation. That smacks of something creation-science people read into the Bible to make the story credible. But Scripture never claims that, so it's really a bogus effort on their part.

 

[Aman777]

So, no common ground here. The bible as much "totally destroys the False Theory" of a Spherical Earth, so should we also remove that from public schools. And what about where the bible states that pi is 3? I don't think this is significant, but I bet there is a Christian somewhere who thinks that means pi exactly equals three, so should we also remove the teaching of pi from public schools?

Pi is 3 when you round it off. Unless you round it off, it would take another Book the size of the Bible to list all the digits. Amen?

 

[Aman777]

So, no common ground here. The bible as much "totally destroys the False Theory" of a Spherical Earth, so should we also remove that from public schools. And what about where the bible states that pi is 3? I don't think this is significant, but I bet there is a Christian somewhere who thinks that means pi exactly equals three, so should we also remove the teaching of pi from public schools?

The teaching of a spherical Earth should be continued in Schools since it is TRUE of the present Earth. It is not true of Adam's Flat Earth. Read Gen 1:9-10 and see that God put water in the bottom of Adam's hollow firmament and put dry ground on top of the water. Take any container, put water in the bottom and dry ground on top of the water and you too will make a Flat Earth. Amen?

 

[Hoghead1]

I'm also against teaching creation-science in the classrooms. It is definitely not science in anyway, shape, or form, to start with. Furthermore, how is a science teacher qualified to teach theology, or religion, to start with? And if you do bring God into the picture, you most certainly do not have to throw out evolution. The people that pushed this idea in Kansas, as I recall, kept arguing that evolution is just a "theory." To start with, this is a bit off. The term "theory" has nothing to do with whether something is proven or not. It simply denotes two or more related statements being made. As far as evolution goes, yes, it has a solid scientific basis, is probably one the best supported doctrines in science. The other issue is that the question of God is definitely not a scientific question. If we are gong to discuss God, then we have to move out of the scientific arena into a different court.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's not where it belongs.

Yes, It does.

But as my pastor says, evolutionists don't want the Bible taught in school because It is so anti-evolution.

Take a lesson from Muslims,

No, thanks.

The Muslims aren't going to teach me anything.

Muslims are for scientists.

Do you want our country to be as easily defeated as Muslim countries?

No.

But scientists have dragged this country down morally by teaching the doctrine, way, and error of Baalim.

Even Christians can't agree on what is literal and what is a figure of speech.

Would it matter if they did?

Virtually every single Christian that ever lived and will live believes IN THE BEGINNING, GOD.

And that means absolutely nothing to scientists.

So please don't appeal to our differences, if our similarities don't matter.

What makes you the final arbiter in this regard?

Cute.

I could be 99% wrong with my theology, and scientists would still hate me.

It's not what I say that matters to them -- it's what I am.

Again, Christians can't agree.

Then focus on what we do agree on and address those.

I agree about the finding a set of standards, that would certainly help.

Uh-huh.

Help what?

Help you guys ridicule.

(You are familiar with my Boolean Standards, aren't you?)

Well yeah, science has doubled our life spans,

Oh, wow!

All science has done is doubled something that was reduced to about a tenth of what it used to be.

I don't see anyone living to be 1938 years old.

In the interest of accuracy, could you please include "and doubling our life spans,..."

Sure.

Speaking of doubling, what did Jesus say to the scientists of His time?

Matthew 23:15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm also against teaching creation-science in the classrooms.

So am I.

Two things here:

1. Creation-science can take a hike.
2. Creationism needs to be taught in history class, not science class.

My guess though, is that you'll disagree, because the truth is, you don't want the Bible taught in school at all.

I could be wrong, but if I am, you're an exception to the rule.

 

[Hoghead1]

Granted, there are plenty of religious schools that teach Bible. However, teaching Bible does have problems in the public schools. For example, what teacher is qualified to do this? Should other holy books and religions also be taught? Another problem with Scripture is that kind of morality it may promote. For example, the OT sanctifies slavery and the beating of slaves, just don't kill them, the killing of the innocent first-born, genocide, and a host of other cruel practices. The Bible is also seen as fostering sexual oppression and discrimination against women, who are given but a secondary role in Scripture. So fi you are going to knock evolution for lowering moral standards, the same also goes for Scripture.
Also, your claim that scientists do not believe in God is way, way off. Some scientists don't, but others do. And the fact o ne believes in God in no way rules out evolution. As far as I am concerned creation is god's own self-evolution from unconsciousness and mere potentiality into self-consciousness and self-actualization. Incidentally, a major source of early support for my notion is the Christian mystical tradition, whidh spoke quite openly of the evolution of God.

 

[AV1611VET]

Also, your claim that scientists do not believe in God is way, way off. Some scientists don't, but others do.

Where I come from, the ones that do are called "Christians."

And for the record, why did you say "some-others" and not "most-some"?

Are you trying to water down the ratio?

 

[Hoghead1]

Yes, true, some are Christians, but some are also Deists, which is a bit different.

 

[Aman777]

I'm also against teaching creation-science in the classrooms. It is definitely not science in anyway, shape, or form, to start with. Furthermore, how is a science teacher qualified to teach theology, or religion, to start with? And if you do bring God into the picture, you most certainly do not have to throw out evolution. The people that pushed this idea in Kansas, as I recall, kept arguing that evolution is just a "theory." To start with, this is a bit off. The term "theory" has nothing to do with whether something is proven or not. It simply denotes two or more related statements being made. As far as evolution goes, yes, it has a solid scientific basis, is probably one the best supported doctrines in science. The other issue is that the question of God is definitely not a scientific question. If we are gong to discuss God, then we have to move out of the scientific arena into a different court.

The False Theory of Evolution is the biggest Lie ever told. It was made up by Godless people who rejected God's Truth. Not knowing that Adam's world was totally and utterly destroyed in the Flood, they speculated that Humans must have evolved from the common ancestor of Apes. They were confused by the bones of the sons of God (prehistoric people) who did have their origin in the water on the 5th Day, which began some 3.77 Billion years ago on our Planet. Gen 1:21

Humans were first made on Adam's Earth which was totally destroyed in the flood. ll Peter 3:6 Adam was made with an intelligence like God's Gen 3:22 instead of the animal intelligence which the sons of God had. HOWEVER, the sons of God AND Humans (descendants of Adam) could produce offspring together Gen 6:4 and that is HOW God produced the Seven Billion Humans (descendants of Adam) alive on Planet Earth today.

in the last days the Scoffers will NOT believe that Adam's world was utterly destroyed in the flood, which means that they MUST be told since they cannot understand God's Truth. Read ll Peter 3:3-7 and decide whether you are a Scoffer of the last days or whether you believe God's Holy Word.

History AGREES with Scripture and shows that Human civilization began just south of Lake Van, Turkey in the valleys of Northern Mesopotamia, as the following Map shows, some 11k years ago. Until the Ark arrived there were NO Human traits shown on Planet Earth. After Noah arrived, Human History records the first Human cities and they AGREE with Gen 10:10 which shows that Noah's descendants built them. http://www.fsmitha.com/h1/map00-fc.html

IF you don't agree, let's see your map of How and When Humans magically evolved our superior intelligence from people who did NOT have it. I know in advance that NO one can show ANY evidence of this made up event, but go ahead and try. Amen?

 

[Hoghead1]

I don't see how or why the Bible should be taught in the public schools. What are the Sunday-school classes for? Who is qualified? On a university level, that is different. Most universities have a department of religion and solid college-level classes on Scripture.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't see how or why the Bible should be taught in the public schools.

Thanks for the QED.

What are the Sunday-school classes for?

Teaching the Bible.

Who is qualified?

Literalists.

On a university level, that is different.

No argument there.

Higher aceldama is just as bad, if not worse.

Most universities have a department of religion ...

The Bible isn't a religious Book.

... and solid college-level classes on Scripture.

Um ...

 

[Hoghead1]

Higher aceldema? You mean higher academia. Please spell check. Figured you go there. That is your anti-intellectualism and disrespect for education coming out. Interesting how you put the babbling over onto the intellectual side and never onto your own. I don't suppose it ever occurred to you that you might be a little off base in your reasoning.
The Bible isn't a religious book? Oh, c'mon. I don't even want to her how you came up with that whopper.

 

[AV1611VET]

Higher aceldema? You mean higher academia. Please spell check.

... You're kinda new here, aren't you?

Nice to meet you.

 

[Hoghead1]

Aman, I find most of your material so chaotic and poorly thought out that it really isn't worth my time to respond to. I do find it amusing to read what you have to say.