Solution to the creation/evolution debate...?

[Subduction Zone]

Who said I have to? You?
If you were genuinely seeking you can find plenty of evidence showing that Jesus lived. I am sure over your past 32,560 posts many people have tried to show evidence. Some people seem to enjoy doing that, I have no interest as that is a waste of time.

The evidence that Jesus lived is not all that strong. And so what? The evidence that he lived only supports that there was a man named Jesus that was crucified. The resurrection story is not supported outside of the religion at all and those stories were not written until at least a generation after his death. None by eyewitnesses.

It could and it could also apply to other spiritual beings like angels and demons.
Which is why God must be spiritually discerned.
But to even begin to have spiritual discernment your spirit needs to be awake. You don't feel it because your spirit is, asleep for want of a better word, and you want to keep it that way. Which is completely your choice. No one can make someone believe something. Maybe for some seeing a miracle in front of them might cause them to change but just as many would attempt to write it off as something else.

That is only more self serving nonsense. It is a very weak excuse that only convinces believers. You forget that many atheists used to be believers.

The very reason the world has many religions, cults, occultist beliefs such as tarot cards and horoscopes is because people do feel the spiritual. Their discernment is pretty poor, tending to be looking in the wrong places but they at least feel and acknowledge the spiritual. If the spiritual was simply made up you would not have millions upon millions of people looking, experiencing and living for it, atheism would be the majority. It isn't because people feel and know that there is more out there even if they are confused about it.

No, people just like an explanation of the unexplained. Sadly they are usually wrong.

I was more talking about the people who have grabbed a verse or two and made huge claims around it. Like the Jehovah Witness (classed as a cult) say that the star over the house in Bethlehem at the birth of Christ was really Satan.

I will agree that that is an abuse of the Bible. But your use of verses is not terribly different.

As far as people who disagree over certain points in the Bible, some may be Christians some might not be, but only God knows that for certain. People are not just spiritual we are also mental and physical and those can get in the way, turn us down wrong paths. Emotions can cloud judgment. Once a certain path is taken we can be rather stubborn in it too. However even those arguing over something like baptism would still believe in the deity of Christ. They would still say repent.

If there is no God then atheists probably understand them better than most Christians. Have you considered that?

I don't believe any person who has communed with Jesus, who was born again spiritually has ever turned around and later become an atheist.
Not: Gone to church, read the Bible, called themselves Christian label' because this is what they grey up with, or believed with their heads; but born again where you feel God's presence.
The people who become atheists have never truly felt God or communed with God.
There is Christianity of the mind and that of the spirit and they are not the same. A true born again Christian can back slide, they can be angry with God and try and ignore God, but to become an atheist would mean denying ever feeling and knowing God. This would contradict the stance that "God doesn't exist", because someone cannot become a born again Christian without feeling God. I would more question if what they did feel was more hyped up emotion like some have felt from large gospel gatherings. That type of group euphoria may be caused by endorphins rather than spiritual discernment.
If someone becomes an atheist from 'understanding the Bible' then they too were never Christians to begin with. This is the head not the spirit.

You would be wrong in that assumption.

 

[coffee4u]

Don't give me even 2 minutes to edit my tags.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Don't give me even 2 minutes to edit my tags.

Sorry, I was catching up. I had to edit my answer a bit as a result.

 

[John Bannister]

Jesus described how God works. He plants seeds, and encourages them to grow, and he trims off the bad branches and pays extra attention to the good.
The evolution of species is exactly how you would expect God to have created all life, since it perfectly fits his MO.

As far as I know opposition to the idea of Evolution comes from the misunderstanding that knowing how God operates means there is no need for a God. This is a non-sequitur conclusion from any science.
Opposition to the apparent age of the Earth is done by using the Geneologies which the Pharisees inserted into the Old Testament.

It is, once again, a false dichotomy with both sides not understanding the other, and so failing to find the overarching truth which encompasses all of Creation.

 

[FullMoon]

The only nonsense here as pointed out by other posters is your inability to understand the difference between mass and weight, the effect of atmospheric resistance, and the acceleration of an object in a gravitational field is the same irrespective of its mass.


Conspiracy theories are poor arguments as a substitute for understanding.
If the science is wrong it’s up to you to demonstrate why it is wrong as well as the observations and experiments which support it.


Is this some sort a joke?
What you are observing in the link is an example known as Newton's rings which is a real time phenomenon.
Star trails on the other hand are only apparent in time lapse photography, in real time stars are observed as points of light.
Drawing comparisons between the two is absurd and your actions are a classic case of trolling the internet to support a confirmation bias which is not a convincing way of presenting an argument.
Ironically your link provides a compelling case of why a firmament cannot explain stellar motion!!


This doesn’t even make any sense.
The reason why you cannot see Polaris from Perth WA is because it is below your horizon.
This raises another problem; if the earth is flat explain how the elevation angle of the celestial poles with the horizon varies with the observer’s latitude.
This will not happen if the Earth is flat.


The maths I used refers to tidal forces to illustrate the existence of gravity as a field gradient.
No field gradient implies no gravity and as the name suggests ocean tides are a physical manifestation of gravity.

A stronger affect using your gold example is when the moon is directly overhead.
Since F= ma = GMm/r²
Hence a = GM/r²
Since the Moons mass is M = 7.36 x 10²² kg and its distance r from Earth is 384,400 km then;
a = 0.000033 m/s²
Your 1000 kg gold weight has a mass of 1000/9.8 = 102 kg, the reduction in weight F due to the moon being directly overhead is 102 x 0.000033 = 0.34g.
A 1000 kg weight of gold reduced by 0.34g which is a 0.00034% reduction in weight and is not what I would call a significant change but it still illustrates the effects of gravity.

You are under the assumption that earth is a globe, and so all your reasoning stems from that (F=GMm/r^2 assumes earth is a sphere). How about you quit thinking "conspiracy theories" are false, and actually try to get to the truth of things, do you really think what you've been taught or is accepted by society in general is true?
I'm pretty sure that I've already mentioned the movement of the wondering stars (or "other planets") is centered around the sun (regarding your stellar motion comment).
To your ocean tides, here is something to look at:
Ocean Tides on Flat Earth Explained
Here is a video to look at regarding the firmament:
3 Rockets hit Dome in 2 minutes

 

[Hans Blaster]

You are under the assumption that earth is a globe, and so all your reasoning stems from that (F=GMm/r^2 assumes earth is a sphere). How about you quit thinking "conspiracy theories" are false, and actually try to get to the truth of things, do you really think what you've been taught or is accepted by society in general is true?
I'm pretty sure that I've already mentioned the movement of the wondering stars (or "other planets") is centered around the sun (regarding your stellar motion comment).
To your ocean tides, here is something to look at:
Ocean Tides on Flat Earth Explained
Here is a video to look at regarding the firmament:
3 Rockets hit Dome in 2 minutes

Why do you think we "assume" the Earth is a sphere. Some of us have even experienced it. I've been to the underbelly (or the up-side-down, if you like) of the Earth where the constellations are weird and seen it for myself.

You try to feed us with nonsense about the dielectric properties of water creating tides. (Where is an electric universe nutter when you need one?)

Do you think the Moon and Sun are also flat? (You really shouldn't. That they are spherical is obvious from the evidence of you own eye. [Caution -- do not look at the sun without proper solar filters.])

 

[sjastro]

You are under the assumption that earth is a globe, and so all your reasoning stems from that (F=GMm/r^2 assumes earth is a sphere). How about you quit thinking "conspiracy theories" are false, and actually try to get to the truth of things, do you really think what you've been taught or is accepted by society in general is true?
I'm pretty sure that I've already mentioned the movement of the wondering stars (or "other planets") is centered around the sun (regarding your stellar motion comment).

How about you stop being willfully ignorant?
I don’t have to assume the Earth is a globe to explain gravity.
The formula F = GMm/r² is the gravitational force between two point masses M and m where M and m are dimensionless.
The gravitational force exists between bodies of any shape if their point masses are non zero.

The evidence gathered over the centuries from Eratosthenes in 240 BC who not only demonstrated the Earth is curved but also gave an accurate calculation of its radius, to Fredrich Bessel in 1838 measuring the parallax of the star 61 Cygni proving beyond doubt the Earth rotates around the Sun is irrelevant to you because it contradicts your faith based arguments.
You are the one relying on conspiracy theories to defend your faith based arguments which is a logical fallacy based on false dichotomies.

To your ocean tides, here is something to look at:
Ocean Tides on Flat Earth Explained

And here you are relying on pseudoscience to support your faith based arguments.
If the Sun and Moon have opposite charges what is the Earth’s charge?
When describing a ternary or three body system, an electromagnetic model literally falls apart as the Earth depending on its charge will result in a repulsive force with either the Sun or Moon given that like charges repel.
This is basic high school science.
Not only can it not explain tides but the moon’s orbit around the Earth, or Earth’s orbit around the Sun would not be possible if a repulsive force exists.

Here is a video to look at regarding the firmament:
3 Rockets hit Dome in 2 minutes

So according to this ridiculous video the firmament is at an altitude of 73 miles.
As a result modern civilization must be built around a massive lie as the rockets which launch satellites into Earth orbit well beyond 73 miles for weather tracking, provide global telecommunication and GPS tracking, monitoring of surface and atmospheric temperatures, and spying to name a few must be fake.
The Hubble Space telescope images must be fake as well including the up and coming data from the JWST.

 

[sjastro]

Why do you think we "assume" the Earth is a sphere. Some of us have even experienced it. I've been to the underbelly (or the up-side-down, if you like) of the Earth where the constellations are weird and seen it for myself.

You try to feed us with nonsense about the dielectric properties of water creating tides. (Where is an electric universe nutter when you need one?)

Do you think the Moon and Sun are also flat? (You really shouldn't. That they are spherical is obvious from the evidence of you own eye. [Caution -- do not look at the sun without proper solar filters.])

That's all we need a coalition between electric universe nutters and flat Earthers.

 

[Shemjaza]

That's all we need a coalition between electric universe nutters and flat Earthers.

To be fair neither camp care particularly about any details of their models... as long as they can say that they are right and NASA/them are wrong/lying/deceived.

 

[FullMoon]

The formula F = GMm/r² is the gravitational force between two point masses M and m where M and m are dimensionless.

So, you're saying "kg" is not a dimension? Speaking of M and m.
If you're saying the equation does not assume a globe, then where is the point on earth you are referring to? Isn't "r" from the center of a sphere here?

The evidence gathered over the centuries from Eratosthenes in 240 BC who not only demonstrated the Earth is curved but also gave an accurate calculation of its radius, to Fredrich Bessel in 1838 measuring the parallax of the star 61 Cygni proving beyond doubt the Earth rotates around the Sun is irrelevant to you because it contradicts your faith based arguments.

Your senses rejects a moving and spinning earth, you chose to ignore your senses. I choose not to ignore mine. Find me evidence of said curvature, and not the altered images readily available.

And here you are relying on pseudoscience to support your faith based arguments.
If the Sun and Moon have opposite charges what is the Earth’s charge?
When describing a ternary or three body system, an electromagnetic model literally falls apart as the Earth depending on its charge will result in a repulsive force with either the Sun or Moon given that like charges repel.
This is basic high school science.
Not only can it not explain tides but the moon’s orbit around the Earth, or Earth’s orbit around the Sun would not be possible if a repulsive force exists.

Again, back to speaking about a globe earth. Your foundation is wrong.

So according to this ridiculous video the firmament is at an altitude of 73 miles.
As a result modern civilization must be built around a massive lie as the rockets which launch satellites into Earth orbit well beyond 73 miles for weather tracking, provide global telecommunication and GPS tracking, monitoring of surface and atmospheric temperatures, and spying to name a few must be fake.
The Hubble Space telescope images must be fake as well including the up and coming data from the JWST.

Yes, build around a massive lie. All fake, they "might" use high altitude balloons, but that's about it. For telecommunications, we have submarine communication cables. For GPS, have you heard of cell tower triangulation? They are all ground based. In a full moon night, have you every seen a satellites go by in front of the moon? Tonight is a full moon, you should have a look. With how many they say have been launched, you should be able to see at least one...right? Might as well use a telescope just to be sure.

 

[FullMoon]

Why do you think we "assume" the Earth is a sphere. Some of us have even experienced it. I've been to the underbelly (or the up-side-down, if you like) of the Earth where the constellations are weird and seen it for myself.

I don't know what you mean here by "the up-side-down", earth has one face, when we look up, we are all looking to one direction. I don't know what you mean by "weird" constellations. On a related note, on a global model, with a moving and spinning earth, there wouldn't be any constellations as the stars would seem to be moving in random directions. Star trail photos would not show the circles we see.

Do you think the Moon and Sun are also flat? (You really shouldn't. That they are spherical is obvious from the evidence of you own eye. [Caution -- do not look at the sun without proper solar filters.])

All I'll say is we haven't seen the other side of the moon, and with the sun, well, hard to see.

 

[John Bannister]

The false dichotomy brought up between the 'flat earth' and globe models is really frustrating because it is actually hiding ancient knowledge from us, and it seems like both sides are in on it at this point.

Yes, you are right that the 'flat earth' model is totally valid, and is how we understood the world for a very long time, including thousands of years while being aware it is a globe (or at least an upturned dish half the size of the globe by most estimations).

The 'flat earth' model is what we experience on our 2D plane wrapped around a 3D object, and it is an intuitive way to view the world as it is how the world looks from our perspective.
The modern scientific model does have problems because it is non-intuitive, and drags our perspective away from earth, thereby disconnecting our knowledge of the universe between the ancient and modern, and gatekeeping detailed knowledge of the universe while hiding it in plain sight.

Scientists pretend that the 2D model we used since the Ice Age has no value and merit, because it is from the Earth's perspective instead of the Sun's, and the flat earthers pretend that the entire world around them is designed to trick them into thinking the earth is a globe for unknown reasons. Both sides talk past each other and refuse to listen to what each other has to say, so there is this split in human knowledge between the Geocentric and Heliocentric models despite them being effectively exactly the same.

Fold the flat earth into a 3D shape - move the modern model perspective back to the earth, then render it on a piece of paper.

Stop shouting past each other

 

[FullMoon]

The evolution of species is exactly how you would expect God to have created all life, since it perfectly fits his MO.

I disagree. When he created things, he said it was good, no need for evolution. It is also made clear that he did it in six days and rested on the seventh. This is mentioned multiple times in scripture even. We are instructed to rest on the seventh day to remember his work in creation. I personally think this is so that we never forget this, or fall for things such as "evolution". God doesn't lie, but men do. It is obvious who to trust.

 

[John Bannister]

I disagree. When he created things, he said it was good, no need for evolution. It is also made clear that he did it in six days and rested on the seventh. This is mentioned multiple times in scripture even. We are instructed to rest on the seventh day to remember his work in creation. I personally think this is so that we never forget this, or fall for things such as "evolution". God doesn't lie, but men do. It is obvious who to trust.

How exactly do you turn 'he saw it was good' into 'he locked it in its self same physical form forever and ever contrary to everything we know about the functionality of Creation', when in the book it just says 'he saw that it was good'?

God plants seeds and encourages them to grow. The bad branches are burned, and the good branches tended

 

[SkyWriting]

This post is going to be about both creation and evolution being true or being a reality, based on this thread (below) and starting with some of my more recent posts in it (below)...

Genesis and Creation, Days are long "ages" ect...?

Genesis 1 to Genesis 2:4 it is describing a literal history of an entire creation from beginning to end, days 1 through 7... And in or after Genesis 2:4 or starting with Genesis 2:5, it begins to to describe "it" in detail now or this time, beginning with everything that was happening with (the two races of) man and the land animals/beasts on day 6...

The whole of all the rest of the Bible (after Genesis 2:4) and even up to now, is all on day 6, and day 6 only, etc...

Day 7 begins after Armageddon or after Jesus returns to set up His Kingdom or rule and reign on earth, and that day will last until the end of this whole creations age final ending, etc...

The Garden of Eden was a special creation located in a specific region on the earth, and was populated with what would eventually become the race of the Sons of God both during and afterwards, etc, but that race, once they started encountering and began intermixing with the sons and daughters of men, were all but wiped out by the flood, which happened in the specific region of Mesopotamia, (where the original Son's of God were dwelling after the fall and after getting kicked out of the Garden), Anyway, were all but wiped out by a/the flood that happened there around 5700 BC, with only Noah and his family, and maybe Cain, remaining after that, etc, and they then eventually had no choice but to begin intermixing and interbreeding with the sons and daughters or men, or the other lesser race of man, after which their race and/or bloodline dwindled, or was made less, and became all but lost and/or gone after that, etc...

The original Sons of God, are called "just men made perfect", etc, but were of a different race or bloodline historically, etc, and began interbreeding with the other lesser race of man/men, etc, which in turn caused God to bring about the flood in their region, and wipe almost all of them out, etc...

And they lived perfectly, or their society was perfect really, but their great egotism and arrogance, resulted in them acting very wickedly, and when they began mixing with, and even interbreeding/crossbreeding with, the lesser race of man/men, etc, God had "had enough", etc, and that was "the last straw" concerning them for Him, etc, and so He decided to wipe out almost all of them from the face of the earth at that point, etc...

And then great egotism and/or arrogance persisted even yet again after the flood with the new race that had populated/re-populated there, etc, when they built the Tower of Babel, etc, when they then made or had caused God to have "had enough" yet again, etc, and the rest of that story you/me/we know, etc...

And it just seemed to keep happening again and again after that, etc...

But forget about about the whole arrogance/egotism of man and/or Sons of God for a minute, but let's just discuss the whole creation/evolution debate with what I just said, etc...

Questions so far...?

Discuss...?

God Bless!

Day 7 is the day of rest for all working humans.
So, no.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I don't know what you mean here by "the up-side-down", earth has one face, when we look up, we are all looking to one direction. I don't know what you mean by "weird" constellations. On a related note, on a global model, with a moving and spinning earth, there wouldn't be any constellations as the stars would seem to be moving in random directions. Star trail photos would not show the circles we see.

This is odd for a upside-down resident to say...

When you look up at the sky do you see the Big Dipper (Ursa Major) or the Little Dipper (Ursa Minor) every clear night? I do.

You probably see the "Southern Cross" every clear night in the sky, right? I've only seen it on my one week visit to your inverted country.

Why would stars move "randomly" viewed from a rotating sphere? They are very far away. They trace circles on the sky each night. From the topside of the Earth they appear to circle around Polaris (alpha UMi). Do they circle about Polaris in your sky?

All I'll say is we haven't seen the other side of the moon, and with the sun, well, hard to see.

You don't need to "see the other side" to see that it is spherical. Limb darkening shows that all by itself.

[And we have seen it. Here is what it looks like:

Far side of the Moon - Wikipedia


What about Jupiter? Here is a picture of Jupiter, can you not see that it is spherical by the shading?

https://cdn.spacetelescope.org/archives/images/screen/heic1410a.jpg

(Also, you didn't answer the question. Do you think the Sun and Moon are flat as well? All I got was some diversionary claim about the far side.)

 

[sjastro]

So, you're saying "kg" is not a dimension? Speaking of M and m.
If you're saying the equation does not assume a globe, then where is the point on earth you are referring to? Isn't "r" from the center of a sphere here?

Kg is not a spatial dimension.
Mathematically a point is spatially dimensionless but can be modeled to have physical characteristics such as mass or charge.
This is what the equation F = GMm/r² describes for point masses M and m while Coulomb’s law F = kq₁q₂/r² is for point charges q₁ and q₂.

These force laws for point particles depend on the dimensionality of space not on the shape of the objects and have the general equation F = C/rⁿ⁻¹ where n is the number of spatial dimensions and C is a proportionality constant.

Your senses rejects a moving and spinning earth, you chose to ignore your senses. I choose not to ignore mine. Find me evidence of said curvature, and not the altered images readily available.

I presented you with evidence of curvature such as the elevation of the celestial pole with respect to the horizon which depends on the latitude of the observer and cannot be summarily dismissed with the nonsensical argument of being a fake which is your get out of jail card as it doesn’t require any form of fake imaging as the naked eye alone is sufficient to detect the differences in elevation.

I even gave you the opportunity to explain the phenomenon from a flat earth perspective which you ignored so I think it is quite disingenuous to state no evidence of curvature has been presented

Again, back to speaking about a globe earth. Your foundation is wrong.

This is the best you can do in responding to how electromagnetic forces cannot explain tides let alone how a ternary system can be stable????

Yes, build around a massive lie. All fake, they "might" use high altitude balloons, but that's about it. For telecommunications, we have submarine communication cables. For GPS, have you heard of cell tower triangulation? They are all ground based. In a full moon night, have you every seen a satellites go by in front of the moon? Tonight is a full moon, you should have a look. With how many they say have been launched, you should be able to see at least one...right? Might as well use a telescope just to be sure.

I’m sorry to a disappoint you this is not the 1950s and technology has progressed from weather balloons, submarine cables and cell towers.
I’m certain if any of these technologies contradicted a flat Earth model these too would become part of a massive conspiracy as this seems to be the only point you make along with showing a lack of understanding of basic physics.

As an amateur astrophotographer satellites are a scourge as they can ruin long exposure images and appear as lines in the image.

To professional astronomers Elon Musk’s Starlink satellites present serious problems.
Astronomers are very frustrated with Elon Musk’s satellites

Now according to your logic satellite trails that turn up in my images are fakes to discredit the flat earth model and professional astronomers and Elon Musk are also involved in this dastardly plot.

 

[FullMoon]

How exactly do you turn 'he saw it was good' into 'he locked it in its self same physical form forever and ever contrary to everything we know about the functionality of Creation', when in the book it just says 'he saw that it was good'?

Why would you take it any other way? If it needed any more work, the creation work would not be finished, furthermore, you would be doubting God's perfect nature. I take it that the reason you question creation is because of the "knowledge" of today. Today's "knowledge" still cannot explain miracles, for example, how did the Messiah multiply bread and fish, or turn water into wine, or heal many? So how can it be used to explain, or "explain away" creation. Miracles originate from the spiritual, but men's knowledge is limited to the physical; hence it is insufficient to explain creation. Creation is not to be labelled as "fictional" just because men cannot explain it in their limited capacity.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Why would you take it any other way? If it needed any more work, the creation work would not be finished,

Well, let's take a look around, shall we?

• Life on Earth is in a constant state of change. New species rise, grow and adapt, while old species die out and go extinct. This planet has had five such extinction events in its past, and is currently in the middle of the sixth, arguably caused by... us.
• The Earth itself is in a constant state of flux. Tectonic plates shift, mountains rise and fall (very slowly, but they rise and fall nonetheless), rivers flood and dry out, the climate warms and cools, turning forests into deserts and tundra into grassland... you get the picture.
• The entire universe is ever-growing and changing. Stars, solar systems, entire galaxies, trillions in number, of which we are but the tiniest most insignificant speck in the biggest of all big pictures, are at this moment, being born, forming, going through predictable life cycles, and fizzling out on a time scale one would need a scientific calculator to even get a grip on..

Looks decidedly un-"finished" to me.

furthermore, you would be doubting God's perfect nature.

"Perfect," you say? Seriously, have you read Genesis?

Eden, The Flood, Babel... God's hopping from one foot to the next, slapping quick fixes on problems that an office temp would've seen coming a mile away.

I take it that the reason you question creation is because of the "knowledge" of today. Today's "knowledge" still cannot explain miracles,

Weren't you stumbling with explaining helium balloons not too long ago?

for example, how did the Messiah multiply bread and fish, or turn water into wine, or heal many?

He didn't; it was poetic license. Easy.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Today's "knowledge" still cannot explain miracles, for example, how did the Messiah multiply bread and fish, or turn water into wine, or heal many?

1. Neither of these miracle stories are *necessary* to the basic theological conclusions of Christianity. Christianity could be completely true even if these were not.

2. Both of these resemble common conjuring tricks. If they happened, they could be so.

3. The gospels are written long after the events took places (several decades). The writers could have included stories they didn't realize were legends.

4. The water-to-wine story only appears in the last of the gospels (John). Either the earlier gospel writers didn't think it was important enough to include or hadn't heard that story. (The longer interval also makes it more likely to be legend.)

5. It seem rather implausible that thousands of people just wandered into the desert with inadequate food following a preacher. Surely some would have had food.

6. Perhaps the loaves & fishes tale is a morality tale about sharing. Since it is unlikely that *no one* in the crowd had food, perhaps those that did were just worried that if they tried to eat (or share) they would have what they did have taken from them so they kept it hidden. Jesus, being a wise moral teacher, noticed this and passed around a basket with some already in it for anyone to take and those that had their own (and surplus) were willing to give knowing that they wouldn't lose all. This created an excess as there was more than enough food in the crowd to feed everyone.

To reiterate: We have no need to explain every miraculous or supernatural claim in the bible or any other scripture, especially when there is no reason to think that they actually happened as written.