Convince me

[Calypsis4]

No, He did not. And He didn't create a flat earth or geocentric universe like the Scriptures describe, either.

Another attack upon God's Word by the would-be 'Christian' community.

God's Word teaches neither.

 

[Mallon]

Were does the scripture 'literally' say that the earth is flat?

Check out the proof-texts that EveryTongueConfess provided above. It's all there.

 

[Mallon]

Another attack upon God's Word by the would-be 'Christian' community.

God's Word teaches neither.

Sure it does. It's right in the Bible. Job even compares the formation of the earth to stamping clay under a seal. The plain/concordist/literal understanding of that is that the earth is flat. If you're going to deny that, then it's you who is attacking the Scriptures.

 

[crawfish]

God's Word teaches neither.

Then we all agree on this point. Tell me, what method do you use to determine when a piece of scripture should be viewed figuratively (as we all obviously do to the verses that literally read like they speak of a flat earth or a geocentric universe), and why can't these same principles be applied to the early verses in Genesis?

 

[juvenissun]

Sure it does. It's right in the Bible. Job even compares the formation of the earth to stamping clay under a seal. The plain/concordist/literal understanding of that is that the earth is flat. If you're going to deny that, then it's you who is attacking the Scriptures.

As I said many times, ancient (until 17? Century) "seal" was in 3D.
You just don't get it, do you?

 

[Mallon]

As I said many times, ancient (until 17? Century) "seal" was in 3D.
You just don't get it, do you?

Seals from the time of the Hebrews were typically made by stamping clay with a signet. That is, the clay was stamped flat, like this:

That's how Job describes the formation of the earth.

 

[philadiddle]

Useless effort. If you found one, you will call him/her a liar. And that would be the end of discussion.

If you do not do that, then there are many on the surface whom you already know.

I see ICR or AiG people as you do. I will not call them liars even some of their argument are questionable.

I'm not asking you for a name so that I can merely reply with "Liar!" I was planning on looking at what they've said to see if there are any obvious lies in the literature that they've produced.

 

[Calypsis4]

Sure it does. It's right in the Bible. Job even compares the formation of the earth to stamping clay under a seal. The plain/concordist/literal understanding of that is that the earth is flat. If you're going to deny that, then it's you who is attacking the Scriptures.

Good grief. How far from reality can a person get?

The reference in question was a quote spoken by God Himself: "That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? It is turned as clay to the seal; and they stand as a garment." Job 38:13-14.

I just did an experiment in front of six witnesses; I took a common U.S. mail stamp and placed it over a large blue ball. Guess what? The ball is still a sphere and the stamp is still flat.

But for my second example lets expand the stamp idea to equal the size of the earth. I give you this:

Notice that the whole world is depicted on this flat map. Does this therefore indicate or prove the world is flat rather than a sphere?

"It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.." Isaiah 40:22.

Quote - There is an occasional opinion offered that an early statement of a spherical earth occurs in the 8th century BC, in Isaiah 40:22 "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth...". The Hebrew word translated as "circle" is generally recognized as referring to a plane figure (perhaps the horizon), or possibly the vault of the heavens rather than the shape of the earth. However, this Hebrew word, chûgh, may also be rendered as "sphere" As a result, certain Bible translations read “the globe of the earth” (Douay Version) and “the round earth” (Moffatt) (from Wikipedia)

The Word of God does not teach that the world is flat...anywhere.

Furthermore, it is a myth that all people from ancient times believed the world was flat. That is evolutionary dogma for those who were educated knew better.

Quote - Beginning from ancient Greek astronomy, the paradigm of a round (or more accurately, spherical) earth gradually spread around the world supplanting the older cosmological belief in a flat earth.
The false belief that medieval Christianity believed in a flat earth has been referred to as The Myth of the Flat Earth. In 1945, it was listed by the Historical Association (of Britain) as the second of 20 in a pamphlet on common errors in history. The myth that people of the Middle Ages believed that the Earth was flat only entered the popular imagination in the 19th century, thanks largely to the publication of Washington Irving's fantasy The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus in 1828.
Although the hypothesis of the flat Earth has long been generally dismissed, there are still occasional modern advocates of the hypothesis.


Quote - Parmenides conceived of a spherical Earth.

Pythagoras in the 6th century BC, apparently on aesthetic grounds, held that all the celestial bodies were spherical. However, it was reported that Pythagoras reasoned from the perpetual round shape of lunar eclipses that the Earth could neither be flat nor cylindrical, but only spherical.

Quote - Around 330 BC, Aristotle provided observational evidence for the spherical Earth. (Wikipedia)

Yes, there were a lot of people throughout world history that believed the world was flat but niether Job nor the prophets did.

 

[bibleblevr]

Clock
Age Estimate
1. Receding Moon
750 m.y.a. max
2. Oil Pressure
5,000 - 10,000 years
3. The Sun
1,000,000 years max
4. The Oldest Living Thing
4,900 years max
5. Helium in the Atmosphere
1,750,000 years max
6. Short Period Comets
5,000 - 10,000 years
7. The Earth's Magnetic Field
10,000 years max
8. C-14 Dating of Dino Bones
10,000 - 50,000 years
9A. Dinosaur Blood and Ancient DNA
5,000 - 50,000 years​

9B. Unfossilized Dinosaur Bones 5,000 - 50,000 years
9C. 165 Million Year Old Ligaments 5,000 - 50,000 years

10. Axel Heiberg Island

5,000 - 10,000 years
11. Carbon-14 in Atmosphere
10,000 years max
12. The Dead Sea
13,000 years max
13. Niagara Falls
5,000 - 8,800 years max
14. Historical Records
5,000 years max
15. The San Andreas Fault
5,000 - 10,000 years
16. Mitochondrial Eve
6,500 years
17. Population Growth
10,000 years max​

18. Minerals in the Oceans Various (mostly young) Ages 19. Rapid Mountain Uplift Less than 10 million years 20. Carbon 14 from "Old" Sources 10,000 to 50,000 years 21. Dark Matter and Spiral Galaxies 100 - 500 million years (max) 22. Helium and lead in Zircons 6,000 years

The Age of the Earth: Evidence for a Young Earth, Young Earth Evidences.

Evidence for a Young World

But if you won't accept what God Himself has to say about it you won't believe the scientific facts about it either.

So it is with the so-called 'Christians' who believe in evolution.

I have seen the sun and moon argument before, done the math, and even with the most favorable models, it does not add up to anything that wouldn't accommodate the current scientific view of the earths age.

As for the other proofs, I am hesitant to believe them because of the blatantly false sun and Moon arguments that precede them. Nevertheless, I would like to see some concurrent evidence to prove these things if you can find it, (and not from a YEC site).

 

[crawfish]

Quote - There is an occasional opinion offered that an early statement of a spherical earth occurs in the 8th century BC, in Isaiah 40:22 "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth...". The Hebrew word translated as "circle" is generally recognized as referring to a plane figure (perhaps the horizon), or possibly the vault of the heavens rather than the shape of the earth. However, this Hebrew word, chûgh, may also be rendered as "sphere" As a result, certain Bible translations read “the globe of the earth” (Douay Version) and “the round earth” (Moffatt) (from Wikipedia)

No "duwr" is the closest Hebrew word to sphere, used to refer to a ball (Isaiah 22:18, "[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]And roll you tightly like a ball, To be cast into a vast country; There you will die And there your splendid chariots will be, You shame of your master's house .") [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]Chuwg refers to a circle, or a circuit (a two-dimensional circular path). It was, however, assigned the potential meaning of "sphere" in the 1700's, after the nature of the earth was already common knowledge.
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]
However, even given that, the verse is not referring to a flat earth. Isaiah is giving a visual representation of his perspective - from any vantage point the earth looks like a circle, the edges stretching on every horizon. This is nothing more than claiming that when the bible speaks of the sunrise, it is actually saying that the sun rises in the sky rather than the earth turns.

Well, I guess, not if you take the verse literally.

[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

 

[Calypsis4]

I have seen the sun and moon argument before, done the math, and even with the most favorable models, it does not add up to anything that wouldn't accommodate the current scientific view of the earths age.

The current scientific view is the biblical one. Evolution is not science and never was. It is merely an interpretation of facts but the interpretations do not fit those facts. I am an ex-evolutionist.

As for the other proofs, I am hesitant to believe them because of the blatantly false sun and Moon arguments that precede them. Nevertheless, I would like to see some concurrent evidence to prove these things if you can find it, (and not from a YEC site).

The sources that Fred Williams quoted were all evolutionists. You failed to notice that fact.

Concerning the 'sun and Moon arguments that are, 'blatantly false'...Oh, really? Are you aware that the formula for the lunar recession that we use against evolutionary theory concerning the so-called 4.5 billion yr age was developed by...(guess who?)

George Darwin...the son of Charles himself.

Just believe God's Word, friend. The Lord didn't lie to us about the creation and He didn't do it a different way than scripture describes it.

 

[Calypsis4]

No "duwr" is the closest Hebrew word to sphere, used to refer to a ball (Isaiah 22:18, "[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]And roll you tightly like a ball, To be cast into a vast country; There you will die And there your splendid chariots will be, You shame of your master's house .") [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]Chuwg refers to a circle, or a circuit (a two-dimensional circular path). It was, however, assigned the potential meaning of "sphere" in the 1700's, after the nature of the earth was already common knowledge.

Your scholarship is off.

Quote - "chwug" or "hugh" (circle or circuit) the sun's orbit. In Psalm 19:6 the vault of the heavens. (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia). The 'vault of the heaven's' is spherical.

Poor Job, for according to your comrade, God lied to him and led him to believe that he was speaking of a flat surfaced world!

Really?

Hmm. Quote - At a very early period the Jews, like the other peoples of western Asia, used signets which were cut in intaglio on cylindrical, spherical, or hemispherical stones, and which were employed both to attest documents (Neh. x. 1 et seq.) instead of a signature, and as seals (Isa. xxix. 11)

Read more: JewishEncyclopedia.com - SEAL:​

Point: Spheres are round...documents are flat. The two were joined together in such instances as mentioned above.​

[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]

However, even given that, the verse is not referring to a flat earth. Isaiah is giving a visual representation of his perspective - from any vantage point the earth looks like a circle, the edges stretching on every horizon. This is nothing more than claiming that when the bible speaks of the sunrise, it is actually saying that the sun rises in the sky rather than the earth turns.

[/FONT]

[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]I don't disagree with that. But the prophets knew just what we know about it. See my documentation above and in my previous post on this.

[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]

Well, I guess, not if you take the verse literally.

[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

Symbolism mixed with literal fact...all true.

 

[Papias]

Caly4 wrote:

Clock

Age Estimate

OK, let’s look at those.

1. Receding Moon
750 m.y.a. max

First, 750 million years ago is over 1,000 times as old as your literalist approach of 6,000 years – so even if true, this would give evidence against a creationist model.

In fact, scientists have looked at this creationist line, and found no evidence of a young earth. The fact that the continents used to be near the equator greatly reduced the past recession rate, and these studies show ages consistent with the well established 4.6 billion year age of the earth. One can read more at Brush, Stephen G. 1982. "Finding the age of the earth: By physics or by faith?" Journal of Geological Education, vol.30, pp.34-58.

2. Oil Pressure
5,000 - 10,000 years

Impenetrable rock can hold pressure for many millions of years, and geological rock movement can add pressure at any time, including now. There is no reason to think that the pressure would bleed off over time in our geologic circumstances.

3. The Sun
1,000,000 years max

The 5 feet a year number is not accurate because many measurements have shown that the sun size fluctuates a bit in both directions. To take one measurement from around 1980, ignore tons of subsequent measurements, and say it shows shrinkage, is like saying that because it warmed from 50 F this morning to 80 F this afternoon, then it must have been below zero yesterday afternoon.

4. The Oldest Living Thing

4,900 years max

Simply false. The King creosote plant in the Mojave desert is 11,700 years old, and the Jurupa Oak is 13,000 years old, and there are many more (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/at-13000-years-tree-is-worldrsquos-oldest-organism-1848009.html). Besides, the literalist chronology puts the flood at 4,600 years ago, so the 4,900 cited in this article disproves the creationist line anyway.

5. Helium in the Atmosphere

1,750,000 years max

Like the receding moon PRATT (Point Refuted A Thousand Times), this is over 1,000 times as old as the literalist approach of 6,000 years – so even if true, this would give evidence against a creationist model. Of course, this, like all of these, is done by ignoring most of the evidence in the field. The magnetic field lines of the earth are well known to assist in helium removal, and the data is consistent with a 4.6 billion year old earth. This PRATT is used by Humphreys, a well known liar who fabricates data by using rigged conditions, such as using a vacuum to “simulate” rocks under high pressure under the earth.

6. Short Period Comets

5,000 - 10,000 years

First, short period comets are replenished by the scattered disk, which is observable and is not hypothetical. Also, the comets we see show a range of ages, as would be expected if they were being replenished and decaying.

OK, there are the first 6 without trying very hard. Thank you, Cal4, for being so helpful. We were discussing lying by creationists, and you stepped in and gave us a numbered list of over a dozen creationist lies! If you like, we can go into the rest of them, showing each to be a simply lie, based on at best a distortion of the evidence. This is a good example of why creationism, by making it look like Christians are immoral liars, is doing more to extinguish Christianity than any atheist could wish to do. It’s sad to see.

Papias.

7. The Earth's Magnetic Fieldhttp://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/evidence_for_a_young_earth.htm#The Earth's Magnetic Field:http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/evidence_for_a_young_earth.htm#The Earth's Magnetic Field:
10,000 years max
8. C-14 Dating of Dino Boneshttp://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/evidence_for_a_young_earth.htm#The Earth's Magnetic Field:http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/evidence_for_a_young_earth.htm#The Earth's Magnetic Field:http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/evidence_for_a_young_earth.htm#The Earth's Magnetic Field:
10,000 - 50,000 years
9A. Dinosaur Blood and Ancient DNAhttp://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/evidence_for_a_young_earth.htm#The Earth's Magnetic Field:http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/evidence_for_a_young_earth.htm#The Earth's Magnetic Field:
5,000 - 50,000 years

9B. Unfossilized Dinosaur Boneshttp://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/evidence_for_a_young_earth.htm#The Earth's Magnetic Field:http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/evidence_for_a_young_earth.htm#The Earth's Magnetic Field:http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/evidence_for_a_young_earth.htm#The Earth's Magnetic Field: 5,000 - 50,000 years
9C. 165 Million Year Old Ligamentshttp://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/evidence_for_a_young_earth.htm#The Earth's Magnetic Field:http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/evidence_for_a_young_earth.htm#The Earth's Magnetic Field:http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/evidence_for_a_young_earth.htm#The Earth's Magnetic Field: 5,000 - 50,000 years
10. Axel Heiberg Islandhttp://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/evidence_for_a_young_earth.htm#The Earth's Magnetic Field:http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/evidence_for_a_young_earth.htm#The Earth's Magnetic Field:http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/evidence_for_a_young_earth.htm#The Earth's Magnetic Field:

http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/evidence_for_a_young_earth.htm#The Earth's Magnetic Field:http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/evidence_for_a_young_earth.htm#The Earth's Magnetic Field:

http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/evidence_for_a_young_earth.htm#The Earth's Magnetic Field:http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/evidence_for_a_young_earth.htm#The Earth's Magnetic Field:http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/evidence_for_a_young_earth.htm#The Earth's Magnetic Field:

5,000 - 10,000 years
11. Carbon-14 in Atmosphere
10,000 years max
12. The Dead Sea
13,000 years max
13. Niagara Falls
5,000 - 8,800 years max
14. Historical Records
5,000 years max
15. The San Andreas Fault
5,000 - 10,000 years
16. Mitochondrial Eve
6,500 years
17. Population Growth
10,000 years max
18. Minerals in the OceansVarious (mostly young) Ages19. Rapid Mountain UpliftLess than 10 million years20. Carbon 14 from "Old" Sources10,000 to 50,000 years21. Dark Matter and Spiral Galaxies100 - 500 million years (max)22. Helium and lead in Zircons6,000 years

 

[metherion]

As far as the list goes, I'll gladly take a couple now, just the ones that don't require any science to even show wrong.

4. The Oldest Living thing. Whoop de doo, just because nothing currently alive has been around longer than 5000 years doesn't mean the entire Earth hasn't been. It just means nothing has been alive longer than 5000 years.

12. The Dead Sea. All this would mean is THE DEAD SEA ITSELF might have a max age of 13,000 years. Not the entire world.

13. Niagra Falls. All this would mean is that NIAGRA FALLS ITSELF would only be about 7-9000 years old. Not the entire world.

14. First recorded date. All this would mean is that WRITING would have only been around that long. Not humanity, and not the world.

15. San Andreas Fault. All this would mean is that THE FAULT ITSELF is only... you get where I'm going with this.

17. Population growth. OH GEEZ. This canard again. Okay, NOW the world doubles in population every 50 years or so. There are these WONDERFUL things called : carrying capacity, reduced disease, agricultural technology, etc, that kept this from happening in the past. We know this to be false based on human population at other points in history besides the past 100 years or so.

18. Sea minerals

By measuring the amounts of various minerals that are present in the oceans and calculating the amounts of each that are added each year by river runoff, scientists can estimate how old the oceans are.

Yes, because river runoff is the ONLY WAY they are added, and there is NO WAY that they are removed from the ocean and MUST still be there, dissolved. Which is false, there are such wonderful phenomenon as nodules.
Manganese nodule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I mean, let's take another example, using that logic.

Negit Island (Negit Island - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) is less than 2000 years old. Therefore, the earth is less than 2000 years old.

Oh wait.

Metherion

 

[Calypsis4]

Caly4 wrote:

OK, let’s look at those.

First, 750 million years ago is over 1,000 times as old as your literalist approach of 6,000 years – so even if true, this would give evidence against a creationist model.

Do you know what the word 'max' means?

​

In fact, scientists have looked at this creationist line, and found no evidence of a young earth. The fact that the continents used to be near the equator greatly reduced the past recession rate, and these studies show ages consistent with the well established 4.6 billion year age of the earth. One can read more at

Brush, Stephen G. 1982. "Finding the age of the earth: By physics or by faith?" Journal of Geological Education, vol.30, pp.34-58.

That's because, like you, they have a deep seeded prejudice against the real facts and against the biblical teaching to begin with. I've been around long enough to see that in multiple examples.

The continents 'used to be near the equator'. Really? Give the name of your observer for this 'fact'.

Impenetrable rock can hold pressure for many millions of years, and geological rock movement can add pressure at any time, including now. There is no reason to think that the pressure would bleed off over time in our geologic circumstances.

Except that that is exactly what the evidence points to.

http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/RATE_ICC_Vardiman.pdf

The 5 feet a year number is not accurate because many measurements have shown that the sun size fluctuates a bit in both directions. To take one measurement from around 1980, ignore tons of subsequent measurements, and say it shows shrinkage, is like saying that because it warmed from 50 F this morning to 80 F this afternoon, then it must have been below zero yesterday afternoon.

You didn't document your 'facts'. The creationists did.

Quote - How far back in the past must one go to have a sun so large that its surface touches the surface of the earth? The solar radius changes at 2.5 feet per hour, half the 5 feet per hour change of the solar diameter. The distance from the sun to the earth is 93 million miles, and there are 5,280 feet in one mile. Assuming (by uniformitarian-type reasoning) that the rate of shrinkage has not changed with time, then the surface of the sun would touch the surface of the earth at a time in the past equal to
t = (93,000,000 miles) (5,280 ft/mile) (2.5 ft/hr) (24 hr/da) (365 day/yr)
or approximately 20 million B.C. However, the time scales required for organic evolution range from 500 million years to 2,000 million years.3It is amazing that all of this evolutionary development, except the last 20 million years, took place on a planet that was inside the sun. By 20 million B.C., all of evolution had occurred except the final stage, the evolution of the primate into man. (ICR)​

*3 Source: Scientific American, V. 239, No. 3, 1978.​

Simply false. The King creosote plant in the Mojave desert is 11,700 years old, and the Jurupa Oak is 13,000 years old, and there are many more (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/at-13000-years-tree-is-worldrsquos-oldest-organism-1848009.html). Besides, the literalist chronology puts the flood at 4,600 years ago, so the 4,900 cited in this article disproves the creationist line anyway.

Nope. You haven't done your homework well enough. The above dates are based upon fallacious assumptions. quote - "a two-week dry spell followed by watering can cause a tree to shut down and then re-establish growth, mimicking a “winter” season’s ring. (Why Aren't Earth's Oldest Trees Older?

Dendrochronology is a legitimate science but the assumptions they sometimes make are not.

Like the receding moon PRATT (Point Refuted A Thousand Times), this is over 1,000 times as old as the literalist approach of 6,000 years – so even if true, this would give evidence against a creationist model. Of course, this, like all of these, is done by ignoring most of the evidence in the field. The magnetic field lines of the earth are well known to assist in helium removal, and the data is consistent with a 4.6 billion year old earth. This PRATT is used by Humphreys, a well known liar who fabricates data by using rigged conditions, such as using a vacuum to “simulate” rocks under high pressure under the earth.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I've heard it all before. Humphreys is not a liar. But the evolutionists are...deliberately to escape the truth. Proof:

"However, the last such event, called the Brunhes–Matuyama reversal, is observed to have occurred some 780,000 years ago."

And just who was the observer of this fact 780,000 yrs ago? There is none and you know it. They simply extrapolate present measurments to justify what they THINK happened in the distant past. That is dishonest for they don't know.

​

First, short period comets are replenished by the scattered disk, which is observable and is not hypothetical. Also, the comets we see show a range of ages, as would be expected if they were being replenished and decaying.

That is purely your opinion without documented facts to support it.

OK, there are the first 6 without trying very hard. Thank you, Cal4, for being so helpful. We were discussing lying by creationists, and you stepped in and gave us a numbered list of over a dozen creationist lies! If you like, we can go into the rest of them, showing each to be a simply lie, based on at best a distortion of the evidence. This is a good example of why creationism, by making it look like Christians are immoral liars, is doing more to extinguish Christianity than any atheist could wish to do. It’s sad to see.

You failed on each point. It wasn't even close.

 

[Partaker of Christ]

Did God create the heavens and the earth in six days or not?

No, He did not. And He didn't create a flat earth or geocentric universe like the Scriptures describe, either. Therefore, I reject scientific concordism.

John 5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
John 5:47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

So, are you saying that the ten commandments were not literal?

Exo 20:1 And God spake all these words, saying,

Exo 20:2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
Exo 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Exo 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
Exo 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
Exo 20:6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. Exo 20:7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Exo 20:9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
Exo 20:10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Exo 20:12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
Exo 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.
Exo 20:14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Exo 20:15 Thou shalt not steal.
Exo 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
Exo 20:17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

So, tell us; was this passage literal or not?

 

[metherion]

Do you know what the word 'max' means?

Does your source know how gravity works?

Your source claims that in the past, when the moon was closer, it would have receded faster. This is quite obviously wrong because anyone who knows gravity know the equation G=(m1*m2)/(r^2), which means the closer it is, the stronger the pull. So being closer would have SLOWED the rate of recession as gravity would be much stronger the closer the moon was.

That's because, like you, they have a deep seeded prejudice against the real facts and against the biblical teaching to begin with. I've been around long enough to see that in multiple examples.

The continents 'used to be near the equator'. Really? Give the name of your observer for this 'fact'.

Yes, us Christians have deep seated prejudices against Biblical teachings. That’s why we’re CHRISTIANS. Oh. Wait.

Furthermore, you don’t need to have an eyewitness to show something happened. There is other evidence.
You could use, say, Google to find some of it. Here you go:
The Pangaea Theory

Except that that is exactly what the evidence points to.

http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/RATE_ICC_Vardiman.pdf

Your source is on radioactive decay, not oil pressure. Fail.

You didn't document your 'facts'. The creationists did.

Ah, yes, ICR, one of the bastions of creationist falsehood.

Question: Do you know WHY the sun shrinks? It’s because mass is being lost due to the process of fusion.

DID YOU KNOW: The Sun can be approximated as a sphere. The volume of a sphere is 4/3 * pi * (r^3). The Sun currently contains about 99.86% of the mass in the solar system, with a current diameter of ~865,000 miles. Now, if the sun were the size of the Earth’s orbit, it’s radius would be (865,000/2=432500)+93000000 miles or about 93.5 million miles. Its radius would be 213.5 times what it is now. Which means its volume would be (213.5^3=)about 9.7 million times what it is now. So it would MASS 9.7 million times what it does now. Which would mean there would BE no solar system, because nothing would have escaped the Sun’s gravity. It ALSO means the Sun would have to be burning millions of times faster to lose that mass and thus that diameter.

See what happens when you linearly extrapolate without thinking about the WHY? And given how wrong they are about the moon and the population of the earth, I don’t trust them with numbers here, either.

Nope. You haven't done your homework well enough. The above dates are based upon fallacious assumptions. quote - "a two-week dry spell followed by watering can cause a tree to shut down and then re-establish growth, mimicking a “winter” season’s ring. (Why Aren't Earth's Oldest Trees Older?

Dendrochronology is a legitimate science but the assumptions they sometimes make are not.

Did you even read his link? They didn’t USE tree rings.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I've heard it all before. Humphreys is not a liar. But the evolutionists are...deliberately to escape the truth. Proof:
...
And just who was the observer of this fact 780,000 yrs ago? There is none and you know it. They simply extrapolate present measurments to justify what they THINK happened in the distant past. That is dishonest for they don't know.

1. You do not need an eyewitness. Get over it.
2.CD701: Decay of Earth's magnetic field

Next.

That is purely your opinion without documented facts to support it.

The Kuiper Belt and the Solar System's Comet Disk -- Gladman 307 (5706): 71 -- Science

So, all in all, all still wrong. Thanks again for playing.

Metherion

 

[crawfish]

John 5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
John 5:47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

So, are you saying that the ten commandments were not literal?

Exo 20:1 And God spake all these words, saying,

Exo 20:2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
Exo 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Exo 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
Exo 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
Exo 20:6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. Exo 20:7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Exo 20:9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
Exo 20:10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Exo 20:12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
Exo 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.
Exo 20:14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Exo 20:15 Thou shalt not steal.
Exo 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
Exo 20:17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

So, tell us; was this passage literal or not?

It is literal in the sense that it is using the known motif of creation in order to establish a day of rest. It is not literal in a scientific sense, in that it is being used to establish the 6 days of creation as a scientific fact. The same way we're not literally eating Christ's flesh and drinking his blood during communion.

 

[Mallon]

The reference in question was a quote spoken by God Himself: "That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? It is turned as clay to the seal; and they stand as a garment." Job 38:13-14.

I just did an experiment in front of six witnesses; I took a common U.S. mail stamp and placed it over a large blue ball. Guess what? The ball is still a sphere and the stamp is still flat.

Back when seals (called bullae) were still used, the clay balls were stamped flat. Observe:

So, yes, Job is describing a flat earth here. That is what the Hebrew people would have understood by this verse (and by all the other verses in the Bible that imply a flat earth). You are just trying to avoid the obvious implications of this fact by twisting the meaning of the Scriptures in order to fit your preconvictions about the world.

Notice that the whole world is depicted on this flat map. Does this therefore indicate or prove the world is flat rather than a sphere?

This analogy makes no sense. If God said the earth is shaped like a map, then yes, He would be implying that the earth is flat. But God doesn't say the earth is shaped like a map; He says it is shaped like a flat piece of clay.

 

[philadiddle]

Back when seals (called bullae) were still used, the clay balls were stamped flat. Observe:

So, yes, Job is describing a flat earth here. That is what the Hebrew people would have understood by this verse (and by all the other verses in the Bible that imply a flat earth). You are just trying to avoid the obvious implications of this fact by twisting the meaning of the Scriptures in order to fit your preconvictions about the world.


This analogy makes no sense. If God said the earth is shaped like a map, then yes, He would be implying that the earth is flat. But God doesn't say the earth is shaped like a map; He says it is shaped like a flat piece of clay.

Don't worry C4 I got this one.

Nuh uh!!!!

There, I took care of it for you.