Creationism will only destroy science

[random_guy]

I will find the text books that this stuff is in. It may take me a bit but I remember that this stuff was used in my text books in my school. They used vestigial as useless not smaller and I never have seen a text book that says smaller organs. Also sometimes in the bible they wrote some things in the figurative to basicially paint a picture in ones mind. Sometimes they used literal. If you wanted to describe how the universe expanded and had limited resources how would you explaine it. Kent Hovind may be wrong about somethings but he does give you enough material to get you started to find the truth for your self. Also why didnt you reply about some of the more literal things in the bible. Like the streams in the oceans that scientist didn't discover untill the mid 70s. Or that in the bible the earth is round. To argue that the earth is spherical is pointless. It is just like saying salt shouldn't be called salt because it is sodium chloride. It means the same thing. Alos to comment about the time and year the bible states the first day. It talks about a literal 24 hours, and not billions of years. I do have a question about the billions of years though. Is this amount of time proven or guessed at as being this amount of timeAlso I wanted to know what evidence you have for proof of evolution. text book or other wise.

First of all, using paragraphs and punctation makes it easier to take you seriously. Blocks of text makes it extremely hard to read.

That said, why is it all of these prophecies are considered prophecies after science discovered them? Why didn't people use the Bible to justify underwater currents' existence? It's because it takes scientists to discover these things, and then people just search for any random verse and twist it to support them. Glaudys did an excellent job dissecting all the errors. Why haven't you responded to Glaudys' post, point by point like she did to yours? Second, I find it more amazing that the Greeks were able to accurately measure the radius of the Earth than you saying that the people who wrote the Bible knew it was round (which describes a flat disc, not a sphere). If the people who wrote the Bible knew the Earth was a sphere, why didn't they give a more accurate description like the Greeks?

As for evidence of evolution, one strong evidence is HERVs. If you have questions on what this means, let me know.

 

[theoddamerican]

It is a figure of speech Have you ever said the suns coming up or sun is setting? Does that mean that you believe that the sun is moving around the earth?What do you believe in. I was just reading over some of the stuff you wrote as a reply. At first I was thinking that you are an evolutionist but when you replied to The universe had a beginning Genesis 1:1, 2:4, Isaiah 42:5, it sounds like you believe in creation. (I do not believe in the big bang theory) Also when I talked about vestigial organs they were being referred to as useless"Humans also have vestigial organs. We have a set of miniature tailbones at the base of our spine - which obviously no longer support a tail.... The appendix is a vestigial organ that does not seem to serve a function in digestion today." Miller and Devine, Biology, 2000, p. 2841. Cosmic evolution-the origin of time, space and matter; Big Bang. 2. Chemical evolution-the origin of higher elements from hydrogen. 3. Stellar and planetary evolution-origin of stars and planets. 4. Organic evolution-origin of Life. 5. Macro-evolution-origin of major kinds. 6. Micro-evolution-variations within kinds. Only this one has been observed.http://www.nwcreation.net/articles/...cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie020.htmlthe Nebraska manhttp://www.sciencemadesimple.com/textbooks.htmlA bunch of text books that are getting bad grades for teaching out dated materialIn the Beginning, by Walt Brown, p. 124.Holt Biology 1994, p. 182This textbook say the whale has a vestigial pelvis that proves the whale used to walk on land but it is essential for whales to reproduceGlenco Biology 1994, p. 309Archaeopteryx is the missing link. But the scientific community declare it to be a bird.Glenco Biology 1994, p. 309Piltdown manErnst Haeckel anything by this guy should be taken out. He was a fraud on several occasionshttp://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/feedback/feedback10-9-2000.asptextbookhttp://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/307/5708/334bthis site shows that even if you try to take out the lies some people wont allow ithttp://www.iconsofevolution.com/embedJonsArticles.php3?id=468http://www.texscience.org/files/stokes-1960sun-debate.htmEven with all of the information I have given, maybe the real question is, is why should I prove this when we both know that these things are being taught in the schools. I listed several sites with the textbooks in question. We are brainwashed from the beginning of our first year in school until the last. There is absolutely no evidence of evolution besides micro. I will admit that maybe I don’t know as much about evolution as you, but I do know how to see a lie.Even before I was a christian and declared myself as an athiest, I knew that I was running from the truth. God is real, God did not use the gap theory. I asked in the begining about what you believed. If you believe in the gap theory, that says you believe in God and evolution. Right? If the Bible is inspired by God wouldnt that mean then that God lied in Genesis. If you do not believe in this I still would like your opinionAlso if you need more info I will try to find more.

 

[theoddamerican]

Ok with that last message I tried to get it all spaced out for easier reading but that didnt work. Sorry

 

[theoddamerican]

random_guy first of all thanx for the reply It is helping me understand both sides of the spectrum. I have never considered those things pophecies. I look at the list and think that it is cool because they talk about science in the bible. About the post from gladys to be honest I just dont have the time. I can give it a shot in my free time but no guarantees. to respond to the round earth point. I believe that I said it already in another post that they did not have a word for sphere.thanx for the link and I will check it out. I have already checked out and read the first one. 'Ubiquitous genes' I understand it to say that all life forms have things that relate to all life forms. The first thing that popped in to my mind that this does not prove evolution but just says that we all have the same designer. If we have the same designer then I see no reason for that designer to use other things. For example a painter painting a picture is going to use some paint. He finishes the painting and has left over paint. So since he has left over paint he uses it on another painting. Two paintings that are different but are made of some of the same things Maby that is not a good analogy. That is up to you. One of the things I wanted to ask an evolutionist is I have seen it a couple of times in science books that we all share a common heritage with earthworms. If that is true then what purpose do we have. Is it to populate the world. The more kids you have the better. Because if we have no purpose in life then there is no need to do this. Life then is meaningless.

 

[theoddamerican]

Also Random Guy why does every one of those say prediction?

 

[Markus6]

One of the things I wanted to ask an evolutionist is I have seen it a couple of times in science books that we all share a common heritage with earthworms. If that is true then what purpose do we have. Is it to populate the world. The more kids you have the better. Because if we have no purpose in life then there is no need to do this. Life then is meaningless.

Please don't confuse evolutionist with atheist or reductionist. Dawkins would have you believe that evolution says that our only purpose in life is gene propogation (see 'The Selfish Gene') but that is his belief and not science. Evolution is just a scientific theory and as such says nothing about our purpose or the existence of God. Theistic Evolutionists (the only evolutionists here) believe in God. We believe we are designed and given purpose by God (and that purpose can be found by reading the bible) but that the process of our creation was evolution.

 

[gluadys]

Excuse me. This is a side issue. But did you ever hear of paragraphing? It makes a post much easier to read if there are a few blanks lines every so often.

I will find the text books that this stuff is in. It may take me a bit but I remember that this stuff was used in my text books in my school. They used vestigial as useless not smaller and I never have seen a text book that says smaller organs.

I have. A common comparison is the human appendix to the caecum in rabbits.

Also sometimes in the bible they wrote some things in the figurative to basicially paint a picture in ones mind. Sometimes they used literal.

Exactly. So how do you tell which is which? Look at Mercury's question to you about Eccelesiates 1:5-7. Why is 1:5 figurative while 1:6 and 1:7 according to you are literal?

If you wanted to describe how the universe expanded and had limited resources how would you explaine it.

It is not that the universe expanded; it is expanding. I already drew that to your attention. So, at a minimum, instead of saying God stretched out the heavens, it should say God is stretching out the heavens. I don't think that would tax their limited resources.

Kent Hovind may be wrong about somethings but he does give you enough material to get you started to find the truth for your self.

How does a pack of lies and distortions and misrepresentations get anyone started to find the truth for themselves?

Also why didnt you reply about some of the more literal things in the bible. Like the streams in the oceans that scientist didn't discover untill the mid 70s.

I replied to every one of the 26 items listed.

20 Ocean currents in the sea Psalms 8:8

This is weird. Given that people did sail the sea in those days, of course they would be aware of currents, but this text does not seem to be referring to them.

Or that in the bible the earth is round. To argue that the earth is spherical is pointless.

Actually it was your source that said "sphere".

13 Earth is a sphere Isaiah 40:22 Job 26:10

Both verses refer to a circle. In fact, the KJV translates the Job citation as "compassed" which means to draw a circle or circuit. (Remember your basic math tool set includes a compass for drawing circles.) The same idea is found in Proverbs 8:27 "when he set a compass (i.e."drew a circle") on the face of the deep."

"Round" can mean either "sphere" or "circle". Which did you intend it to mean?

It means the same thing. Alos to comment about the time and year the bible states the first day. It talks about a literal 24 hours, and not billions of years.

As I said I am not a Day-Ageist. I agree that most instances of 'yom' in Gen. 1 refer to solar days, not an indeterminate length of time.

What I do not agree to is that they are historical days. Days that occur within a story are days in the story, not necessarily days in history. The topical arrangement of the days in Gen. 1 and their conflict with the witness of God's creation confirm that Gen.1 is a story about creation, not a chronological report of the order of creation.

I do have a question about the billions of years though. Is this amount of time proven or guessed at as being this amount of time.

It is the amount of time measured by various means such as (but not limited to) the speed of light.

Also I wanted to know what evidence you have for proof of evolution. text book or other wise.

Science doesn't do proof. Mathematicians do and logicians do, but not science. Science presents evidence and makes conclusions (always tentative) based on the evidence. The more evidence is shown to be consistent with a theory, and only with this particular theory as compared with alternatives, the more confidence scientists have that the theory is correct.

It would take a library of considerable size to present all the evidence in favour of evolution.

But the first step is to understand what evolution is and the evidence that shows evolution happens.

The second is to understand how evolution works and the evidence that demonstrates how it works.


The rest is the history of evolution. This is the most controversial part of evolution as often we have little evidence for parts of the history. Nevertheless, what evidence we do have is consistent with our expectations.

So, let us concentrate on just the first step. As long as you have an incorrect concept of what evolution is, you will be floundering in the dark and looking for the wrong kind of evidence.

Once you understand what evolution is, we can go to the next step: how does evolution happen?

Can you give a single-sentence description of what, in your opinion, evolution is.

Then we will look at the scientific description of evolution.

 

[gluadys]

Ok with that last message I tried to get it all spaced out for easier reading but that didnt work. Sorry

When I want to create a blank line in a post I just position my cursor where I want it and hit "Enter" on my key board once or twice.

Are you saying this does not work for you?

 

[gluadys]

It is a figure of speech Have you ever said the suns coming up or sun is setting? Does that mean that you believe that the sun is moving around the earth?

What in scripture tells you that this is a figure of speech? If you did not already know that science contradicts this (and this was not known for over a thousand years after the bible was written) what would tell you it is a figure of speech, yet the very next verses are not?

Martin Luther did not agree it was a figure of speech.

What do you believe in. I was just reading over some of the stuff you wrote as a reply. At first I was thinking that you are an evolutionist but when you replied to The universe had a beginning Genesis 1:1, 2:4, Isaiah 42:5, it sounds like you believe in creation. (I do not believe in the big bang theory)

Do you remember that you had to affirm the Nicene Creed to gain the right to post in the Christians Only Forums? Origins Theology is one of the Christians Only Forums. All the evolutionists posting here are theistic evolutionists. We all agree with the first statement of the Nicene Creed "I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth and of all things visible and invisible."

We also consider that evolution is part of nature as God created it and does not conflict with belief in creation.

Also when I talked about vestigial organs they were being referred to as useless"Humans also have vestigial organs. We have a set of miniature tailbones at the base of our spine - which obviously no longer support a tail.... The appendix is a vestigial organ that does not seem to serve a function in digestion today." Miller and Devine, Biology, 2000, p. 2841.

Your own quotations do not say "useless". The tailbones at the base of our spine "obviously no longer support a tail", but I think you find them very useful when you sit.

The appendix "does not seem to serve a function in digestion today." Does that mean it serves no other function and is useless? Some have suggested it serves a role in the immune system.

You need to read scientific work carefully and note the limits put on scientific statements. It can be equally true that an appendix serves no role in digestion but does serve a role in some other way. So it is both vestigial and useful.

Cosmic evolution-the origin of time, space and matter; Big Bang. 2. Chemical evolution-the origin of higher elements from hydrogen. 3. Stellar and planetary evolution-origin of stars and planets. 4. Organic evolution-origin of Life. 5. Macro-evolution-origin of major kinds. 6. Micro-evolution-variations within kinds. Only this one has been observed.http://www.nwcreation.net/articles/...cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie020.htmlthe

This, clearly, is not from a science text (unless it is from a creationist source) and is scientific nonsense.

http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/textbooks.htmlA bunch of text books that are getting bad grades for teaching out dated material.

You should read the articles you link to. It does not say the unsatisfactory texts were teaching outdated material. It says the method of teaching science was unsatisfactory because:

1) Most texts cover too many topics.

2) The topics are discussed superficially, and not covered in depth.


3) Classroom activities are either irrelevant to learning key science ideas or don't help students relate what they are doing to the underlying ideas.

Nothing there about outdated materials at all.

In the Beginning, by Walt Brown, p. 124.Holt Biology 1994, p. 182This textbook say the whale has a vestigial pelvis that proves the whale used to walk on land but it is essential for whales to reproduce

Which is correct. Remember that something can be both vestigial and useful. The rudimentary whale pelvic bones no longer support a pelvis. So they are vestigial. But they do serve a different function, so they are not useless.

Glenco Biology 1994, p. 309Archaeopteryx is the missing link. But the scientific community declare it to be a bird.Glenco Biology 1994, p. 309

Not good enough. I am not going to accept a creationist paraphrase of what they claim the text says. I very much doubt that the text uses the term "missing link" or says that Archeopteryx is not a bird, or even says that it is the ancestor of modern birds.

I would lay a wager that what the text actually says is something along the line of Archeopteryx being a primitive bird that illustrates the transition from dinosaur to bird and may be related to the common ancestor of modern birds.

Piltdown man

Does any textbook used in American public schools today mention Piltdown man other than to name it as a hoax?

Ernst Haeckel anything by this guy should be taken out. He was a fraud on several occasionshttp://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/feedback/feedback10-9-2000.asptextbookhttp://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/307/5708/334bthis site shows that even if you try to take out the lies some people wont allow ithttp://www.iconsofevolution.com/embedJonsArticles.php3?id=468http://www.texscience.org/files/stokes-1960sun-debate.htm

Actually, his fraud consisted of exaggerating the features in 6 of over a 100 drawings of vertebrate embryos. His theory of embryology was also incorrect and that is the principal reason his work is not used much today.

However, a textbook will sometimes mention Haekel for historical interest. And since his drawings are not copyrighted (as most photos are) textbook publishers used them to keep the price of textbooks down. That, I agree, was not a good idea.

Even with all of the information I have given, maybe the real question is, is why should I prove this when we both know that these things are being taught in the schools.

Because we do not know these things are being taught in schools. The charge is often made, but seldom substantiated with reference to actual textbooks actually being used in public schools.

And because, when and where the charges can be substantiated, scientists are just as interested in getting such texts and teaching out of the system as creationists are.

If the Bible is inspired by God wouldnt that mean then that God lied in Genesis.

No, it just means the text is not to be understood as indicative history but as a story-form to teach the theology of creation.

 

[gluadys]

About the post from gladys to be honest I just dont have the time. I can give it a shot in my free time but no guarantees. .

Do you realize how unfair this is? How long did it take you to cut and paste that list? A minute or two?

Would you like to estimate how much time it took me to look up every single scriptural reference and type an original reply (not one cut and pasted from somewhere else)?

You can bet it was over an hour--well over an hour.


I took your post seriously and spent time to answer it. You owe it to me to take my post just as seriously. The neat thing about a forum like this is that you don't have to respond the very next day. And you don't have to respond to all 26 points in the same post. So even if your time is limited and it takes you a month to get through the whole post, you can give a serious reply.


Alternately, if you genuinely do not have time for lengthy answers, you can stop cutting and pasting things that require lengthy answers.

Ask your own original questions, one at a time, instead of asking people to respond to a long list of somebody else's questions.

I believe that I said it already in another post that they did not have a word for sphere.

So they had a word for "round" that can mean either "sphere" or "circle". How does that show they meant it to mean "sphere" and not "circle" in the texts cited?

One of the things I wanted to ask an evolutionist is I have seen it a couple of times in science books that we all share a common heritage with earthworms. If that is true then what purpose do we have.

The purpose of science is to figure out how nature works. It shows us what is. But knowing what is does not tell us why it is. That is where faith comes in. That is where the scriptures are a principal resource. Look to science to understand how nature works, but look to God's revelation to understand the meaning and purpose of existence.

Is it to populate the world. The more kids you have the better.

Even in terms of evolution, that's not true. It is not how many kids you have, but how many survive to have kids of their own.

And even then, its not a matter of what is better. It just means that those who have more descendants than others have their genes replicated more often so that they come to be more common in the species gene pool.

Whether that makes the species "better" or not is a judgment call. Better in what sense?

Because if we have no purpose in life then there is no need to do this. Life then is meaningless.

I and the millions of other theistic evolutionists can assure you that evolution does not make life meaningless. Only a life without God could make life meaningless, and evolution does not require us to give up on God.

 

[Markus6]

Do you realize how unfair this is? How long did it take you to cut and paste that list? A minute or two?

Would you like to estimate how much time it took me to look up every single scriptural reference and type an original reply (not one cut and pasted from somewhere else)?

You can bet it was over an hour--well over an hour.

Well he might not appreciate but I do. Much respect for that post. I can tell it took a lot of work and it payed off. If he can't be bothered replying then you win by default .

I've only been on this site for a couple of days but I can already tell you're a major asset to the evolution side. You'll be sorely missed when you go away.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

If that is true then what purpose do we have.


emergent properties of increasingly sophisticated levels


why don't you sleep in a crib, cry all day, and use a diaper like you did when you were a child? because you grew up and are no longer a child.

because we share a substantial amount of genetic material with earthworms does not imply we are nothing but an earthworm. You are genetically the same as you were when you were a baby, does that make you the same child today?

and that was just a few years ago, the commonality with earthworms was a million years ago. (maybe, i didn't look up the exact timing)

 

[Marshall Janzen]

to respond to the round earth point. I believe that I said it already in another post that they did not have a word for sphere.

Yes, you said that, and you were shown that your statement was in error. From post #120:

They had the word "ball", and Isaiah used it earlier in the book (Isaiah 22:18).

 

[steen]

Mmmm.............I'm curious to know if you christian evolutionists beleive that humans and the earth etc. could evolve without God.

"could"? Everything is possible if you apply enough fanatsy. but as Christians, we have Fith in God's action. That is all that is needed. We don't need science to prove this for us, neither is scientific evidence of physical processes in any way negating God's existence in our lives and God's role in our Chreation per our Faith.

 

[steen]

I will find the text books that this stuff is in. It may take me a bit but I remember that this stuff was used in my text books in my school.

OK, we shall await your evidence.

They used vestigial as useless not smaller and I never have seen a text book that says smaller organs.

Mine did, both in HS and in college. It also has that definition in medicine, f.ex.

Also sometimes in the bible they wrote some things in the figurative to basicially paint a picture in ones mind. Sometimes they used literal. If you wanted to describe how the universe expanded and had limited resources how would you explaine it.

Irrelevant to the textbook example, and not related to science per the Bible. Science is the exploration of observable and measurable phenomena through the application of the Scientific Method. As such, the Bible may have correlates to science, but it doesn't contain science per se.

Kent Hovind may be wrong about somethings but he does give you enough material to get you started to find the truth for your self.

Actually Hovind's claims are basically bogus from one end to the other. And yes we HAVE found the answers ourselves. We looked at the Scientific Evidence.

Also why didnt you reply about some of the more literal things in the bible. Like the streams in the oceans that scientist didn't discover untill the mid 70s.

Could you give that reference again? None of us are going to read a solid block of text that is not spaced out and references appropriately. But from what I have seen, you have not given any evidence, only conjecture.

Or that in the bible the earth is round.

The Bible is inconsistent in this claim.

To argue that the earth is spherical is pointless. It is just like saying salt shouldn't be called salt because it is sodium chloride. It means the same thing.

Huh????

Alos to comment about the time and year the bible states the first day. It talks about a literal 24 hours, and not billions of years.

Well, that's a nice "just because I say so" postulation. What is your evidence?

I do have a question about the billions of years though. Is this amount of time proven or guessed at as being this amount of time

It is evidenced from multiple different sources in multiple different scientific disciplines

Also I wanted to know what evidence you have for proof of evolution. text book or other wise.

Ah, so you want us to provide you with a graduate degree in biology? I can't really be bothered with doing that much work when you haven't bothered even one bit to learn anything about the thing you try to criticize, but suffice to say that Evolution has been directly observed many times.

 

[steen]

What do you believe in. I was just reading over some of the stuff you wrote as a reply. At first I was thinking that you are an evolutionist but when you replied to The universe had a beginning Genesis 1:1, 2:4, Isaiah 42:5, it sounds like you believe in creation.

Huh? Are you saying that "Evolutionists" are not Christians? You REALLY need to learn more about this before making more false and insulting claims.

(I do not believe in the big bang theory)

And?

Also when I talked about vestigial organs they were being referred to as useless"Humans also have vestigial organs. We have a set of miniature tailbones at the base of our spine - which obviously no longer support a tail.... The appendix is a vestigial organ that does not seem to serve a function in digestion today." Miller and Devine, Biology, 2000, p. 2841.

And thus this source says that they don't seem to hold their original purpose. It doesn't say that they don't have ANY purpose.

Cosmic evolution-the origin of time, space and matter; Big Bang. 2. Chemical evolution-the origin of higher elements from hydrogen. 3. Stellar and planetary evolution-origin of stars and planets. 4.

None of which has anything to do with the Scientific Theory of Evolution, instead being a "pop-version" use of the term. As such, we really can't be bothered with it.

Organic evolution-origin of Life.

That is flat-out false. You are now bearing false witness.

5. Macro-evolution-origin of major kinds. 6. Micro-evolution-variations within kinds. Only this one has been observed.

Utter nonsense. First of all, what is a "kind"? It is not a term that has anything to do with biology or evolution. It is not a scientific term or definition you are giving out here.

Nebraska man

Huh? What are you talking about?

Http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/textbooks.html

A bunch of text books that are getting bad grades for teaching out dated material

More claptrap nonsense. Your link is to a commercial site that is selling a product. You can find lots of suites that advertises junk by outright lies.

In the Beginning, by Walt Brown, p. 124.Holt Biology 1994, p. 182This textbook say the whale has a vestigial pelvis that proves the whale used to walk on land but it is essential for whales to reproduce

False.

Glenco Biology 1994, p. 309Archaeopteryx is the missing link. But the scientific community declare it to be a bird.

Again false.

Glenco Biology 1994, p. 309Piltdown man

Really? As science? please prove this.

Ernst Haeckel anything by this guy should be taken out. He was a fraud on several occasions

What specifically are you talking about? his embryonic drawings?

textbookhttp://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/307/5708/334b

this site shows that even if you try to take out the lies some people wont allow it

How so?

http://www.iconsofevolution.com/emb...ience.org/files/stokes-1960sun-debate.htmEven with all of the information I have given,

Actually, you haven't provided ANY meaningful information or even an indication that you have even a little bit of a clue of what you are talking about.

maybe the real question is, is why should I prove this when we both know that these things are being taught in the schools.

Do we? We only have your claim for it.

I listed several sites with the textbooks in question.

You have listed a jumble of text and a bunch of unsubstantiated claims.

We are brainwashed from the beginning of our first year in school until the last. There is absolutely no evidence of evolution besides micro.

Babbling nonsense again.

I will admit that maybe I don’t know as much about evolution as you, but I do know how to see a lie.

Such as?

Even before I was a christian and declared myself as an athiest, I knew that I was running from the truth. God is real, God did not use the gap theory.

What does that have to do with evolution? Are you repeating that very silly claim of Evolution being contrary to being a Christian?

I asked in the begining about what you believed. If you believe in the gap theory, that says you believe in God and evolution. Right?

No. You obviously don't even know what the gap theory is.

If the Bible is inspired by God wouldnt that mean then that God lied in Genesis.

Nope.

 

[Melethiel]

It is just like saying salt shouldn't be called salt because it is sodium chloride. It means the same thing.

Technically, no. "Salt" is a very broad term that is not applied exclusively to sodium chloride.

 

[Pats]

Ok with that last message I tried to get it all spaced out for easier reading but that didnt work. Sorry

When I want to create a blank line in a post I just position my cursor where I want it and hit "Enter" on my key board once or twice.

Are you saying this does not work for you?

Off topic, this happens to me when I use the computers at my local library. Something about them causes me to only be able to respond in HTML, and I can't create spaces without the proper tags. I recomend asking for help in the site support forum. They might have an idea for you.

 

[Pats]

To argue that the earth is spherical is pointless. It is just like saying salt shouldn't be called salt because it is sodium chloride. It means the same thing.

In ancient times, when they refered to the "round" earth, this did not imply "spherical." Round simply meant that it was not a square, like the floor of a teepee.

Round actually did not mean the same thing to the writers of the scriptures as spherical does mean to us, so your salt analogy doesn't really apply.

 

[gluadys]

[/I]

Off topic, this happens to me when I use the computers at my local library. Something about them causes me to only be able to respond in HTML, and I can't create spaces without the proper tags. I recomend asking for help in the site support forum. They might have an idea for you.

Ah, that indeed could be the problem. I know html ignores spaces unless you put in the proper tags.

It may have something to do with one's browser as well.