Proof of "flat" earth.

[Jazer]

I don't believe in God, there is no evidence in MY opinion that he created me.Therefore I do not fear him.

There is no evidence that you exist. All I see is pixels on a screen.

 

[SkyWriting]

....It's amusing how creationists are both quick to cry persecution when presented with evidence, but at the same time scoff at the absurdity of a bowl/flat/hollow earth.

It's absurd to equate testable facts with fictional history tales.
I'll be glad to entertain your data on the size of a baseball vs a softball, but when you tell me one evolved into the other because the smaller one is older, I just can't avoid spewing milk out my nose.

 

[Psudopod]

I'll be glad to entertain your data on the size of a baseball vs a softball, but when you tell me one evolved into the other because the smaller one is older, I just can't avoid spewing milk out my nose.

You do know softballs and baseballs are not imperfect replicators, right? Anyone who told you one evolved from the other would clearly be ignorant about evolution.

 

[Cabal]

It's amusing how creationists are both quick to cry persecution when presented with evidence, but at the same time scoff at the absurdity of a bowl/flat/hollow earth.

If nothing else, you'd think they'd have learned from that "geocentrism" debacle, that the Bible CLEARLY SUPPORTED!

But creationists seem to be allergic to the concept of learning from their mistakes.

 

[Delphiki]

But creationists seem to be allergic to the concept of learning

FTFY

 

[Split Rock]

It's absurd to equate testable facts with fictional history tales.

Then why do you guys do this with GEN 1 and 2?

I'll be glad to entertain your data on the size of a baseball vs a softball, but when you tell me one evolved into the other because the smaller one is older, I just can't avoid spewing milk out my nose.

No one is going to tell you that a baseball evovled into a softball. Nice straw man, though.

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

It's absurd to equate testable facts with fictional history tales.

Whoa my irony detector just went CrAzY! I hope it's not broken.

I'll be glad to entertain your data on the size of a baseball vs a softball, but when you tell me one evolved into the other because the smaller one is older, I just can't avoid spewing milk out my nose.

No one has ever told you that softballs evolved from baseballs. If someone told you that's what evolutionary scientists are saying or is anything LIKE what they are saying, then you were lied to and you need to stop reading Answers in Genesis.

Softballs don't reproduce and therefor don't pass down genetic information. They don't even HAVE genetic information. You're deliberately misrepresenting the issue and that is dishonest. (And please don't bring up tornados and junk yards.)

 

[SkyWriting]

Then why do you guys do this with GEN 1 and 2?

Becasue as followers of Jesus, He never let on that it was fictional. So I trust His judgment more than most forum posters.

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

Becasue as followers of Jesus, He never let on that it was fictional. So I trust His judgment more than most forum posters.

You believe the sketchy historical account of Genesis in the face of all the facts because Jesus never said it was false....according the sketchy historical account of Jesus...in the face of all the facts.

 

[Split Rock]

Becasue as followers of Jesus, He never let on that it was fictional. So I trust His judgment more than most forum posters.

Maybe he figured you were smart enough to figure it out on your own.

 

[Research6]

When the first chapters of Genesis was written (or orally produced), the authors only had knowledge of about 180 - 200 miles. The archaeologist Leonard Woolley reconstrusted this ancient near eastern limited geography of Mesopotamia c. 5000 BC.

- 180 miles of course looks flat on the ground. Therefore the authors of Genesis were quite correct that specific segment of land (their 'world') was flat, they couldn't have believed the earth was non-flat.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

When the first chapters of Genesis was written (or orally produced), the authors only had knowledge of about 180 - 200 miles. The archaeologist Leonard Woolley reconstrusted this ancient near eastern limited geography of Mesopotamia c. 5000 BC.

- 180 miles of course looks flat on the ground. Therefore the authors of Genesis were quite correct that specific segment of land (their 'world') was flat, they couldn't have believed the earth was non-flat.

Yep, there is nothing written in the Bible that could not have been written by men with common knowledge at the time.

 

[MoonLancer]

Yep, there is nothing written in the Bible that could not have been written by men with common knowledge at the time.

that's very bothersome when you consider they supposedly had access to infinite knowledge.

 

[Greg1234]

You do know softballs and baseballs are not imperfect replicators, right? Anyone who told you one evolved from the other would clearly be ignorant about evolution.

What does being an imperfect replicator have to do with anything? You people still think that mutations in adaptation are a random act. Somatic cells are imperfect replicators. Everyday billions of cells die and are re-generated. Every regeneration is in fact a generation. Imagine the amount of generations in a single person's lifetime and compare that to the generations required by Darwinian evolution.

Germ cells need to wait for a progeny to be expressed. Generations in somatic cells don't need to wait and can be expressed directly. That's why you can get cancer. Speaking if which, this is the type of variation we see. And even over billions upon billions of generations, with slight random variations, we see a high conservation of information.

The dilemma is solved via the discovery of an intelligent mechanism governing
mutations in reproductive adaptation. Now we dont need billions of years as we are not depending on random mutations. To find out if an organism can adapt in a certain way, all you need is the stress to be induced. A billion years' worth in Darwinism can be investigated in a couple years. Lenski's experiments are overkill. To those who believe in random mutation, they can bawl out for Father time. For those who acknowledge however, that adaptation is not governed by random mutations, getting bacteria for more than 30 years is sufficient.

 

[Blayz]

What does being an imperfect replicator have to do with anything?

If it was perfect it there would never be any mutations. random, directed or otherwise.

You people still think that mutations in adaptation are a random act.

You people have yet to provide any evidence to the contrary.

The dilemma is solved via the discovery of an intelligent mechanism governing
mutations in reproductive adaptation.

Got some evidence for this discovery? Also, all this talk of cancer, are you suggesting that the mutation that cause cancer are also a part of an intelligent mechanism?

For those who acknowledge however, that adaptation is not governed by random mutations, getting bacteria for more than 30 years is sufficient.

And yet, Lenski is an evolutionist who believes in random mutation, and 30 years was sufficient for him.

 

[AV1611VET]

I (and others here) have made the argument on occasion that creationism is similar to the belief that the earth was flat in several ways.

The Bible starts out with a whole chapter, consisting of thirty-one verses, that -- if taken literally -- refute both atheism and evolution.

I take Genesis 1 literally, therefore I say atheism and evolution are dead issues.

The Bible also has verses -- usually one-liner poetry, scattered about here and there -- that, if taken literally, could be construed as saying the earth is flat.

I take these verses poetically, therefore I say flat-earth cosmology is a dead issue.

And yes -- the Bible also has one-liners scattered here and there that, if taken literally, speak of the universe expanding, which I take literally.

It all boils down to how much science one allows to dictate his beliefs.

ALL SCIENCE should lead to God taking the reins at one point -- all of it; and if we can't trace science back to God, then it becomes an issue of personal choice.

In my opinion.

 

[SkyWriting]

When the first chapters of Genesis was written (or orally produced), the authors only had knowledge of about 180 - 200 miles. The archaeologist Leonard Woolley reconstrusted this ancient near eastern limited geography of Mesopotamia c. 5000 BC.- 180 miles of course looks flat on the ground. Therefore the authors of Genesis were quite correct that specific segment of land (their 'world') was flat, they couldn't have believed the earth was non-flat.

There is no current day language for giving directions on a curved surface. A curved vector may work, but we don't have one. So what would you have them say....in language we don't use?

 

[SkyWriting]

Maybe he figured you were smart enough to figure it out on your own.

Actually no. Jesus spoke in parables and language so that people would understand his message clearly.
Mostly in Aramaic because it is hard to distort the sentence structure and change the meaning.

 

[Hespera]

And that is why there is no disagreement about the meaning
of Jesus' supposed words.

 

[SkyWriting]

If nothing else, you'd think they'd have learned from that "geocentrism" debacle, that the Bible CLEARLY SUPPORTED!
But creationists seem to be allergic to the concept of learning from their mistakes.

Earth is the population center of the Cosmos.
And the only occurrence of life.
It will take science forever to finally figure that out.
It actually is the center of everything that matters.
Particularly in a spiritual book.