Round earth evolutionists

What? You think your better than flat earth creationists?

Originally posted by whodey
What? You think your better than flat earth creationists?

In that particular area, certainly. If I think I am right about something and someone else is wrong about it then I tend to think that I am better (as far as that particular thing goes). However I do have a lot of respect for people who dont share all my beliefs, and in some cases think that some of them are better than me in certain ways.

What I dont understand is people who try to support an idea like "flat earth". I am never quite sure whether they really believe it, are just pretending for fun, are just pretending for serious reasons, or simply want to believe it really really badly. I think that there must be ways to determine a persons true beliefs, but I havent yet found a reliable method.

However when someone has one story today and another tommorow, then you can be fairly sure that he is not being genuine.

Originally posted by whodey
What? You think your better than flat earth creationists?

I don't have any problems with Flat Earthers. Only those who persistantly try to persuade people that their beliefs are the only one possible, and if you don't believe in th right way, their right way, then you can go to the flat below.

So if I may believe in my Round Earth, you can believe in your Flat One, and we don't need to start any war on the subject.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I don't have any problems with Flat Earthers. Only those who persistantly try to persuade people that their beliefs are the only one possible, and if you don't believe in th right way, their right way, then you can go to the flat below.

So if I may believe in my Round Earth, you can believe in your Flat One, and we don't need to start any war on the subject.

My only point here is, is that creationists do not preach flat earth. At least, none that I know of. The reason it was even brough up was to try and discredit creationists. However, consider the message of Christ which is to love your neighbor as yourself. In my opinion, love is what creationists should be preaching. After all, it is the central message of Christ. I suppose you could knit pick all day long regarding other obscure passages in the Bible, but why when you are staining at a nat rather than the main message?

Having said that, considering that the central message is love, it is superior or, at best, equal to yours. That is because the message is founded in perfection. Who really then cares what you believe the earth to be if you adopt such perfection?

Originally posted by whodey
My only point here is, is that creationists do not preach flat earth. At least, none that I know of. The reason it was even brough up was to try and discredit creationists. However, consider the message of Christ which is to love your neighbor as yourself. In my opinion, love is what creationists should be preaching. After all, it is the central message ...[text shortened]... erfection. Who really then cares what you believe the earth to be if you adopt such perfection?

I understood you perfectly.

We should all be friends, Flat Earthers and Round Earthers. We should all respect the other's view. That is the true right of free opinion.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I understood you perfectly.

We should all be friends, Flat Earthers and Round Earthers. We should all respect the other's view. That is the true right of free opinion.

Would you believe I am a round earth evolutionist creationist?

Now does that make your head spin or what?

Originally posted by whodey
Would you believe I am a round earth evolutionist creationist?

Now does that make your head spin or what?

Cannot a Flat Earth spin?

I think that there are creationists of every kind. Round Creationistic Earthers and Flat Creationistic Earthers.

But I do think that you have to decide if you are a creationist or a evolutionist. Why? Because creationists want evolutionists to go to hell of the sole reason that they have the wrong belief.

Originally posted by whodey
What? You think your better than flat earth creationists?

Not better, but open to evidence and reason.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Cannot a Flat Earth spin?

I think that there are creationists of every kind. Round Creationistic Earthers and Flat Creationistic Earthers.

But I do think that you have to decide if you are a creationist or a evolutionist. Why? Because creationists want evolutionists to go to hell of the sole reason that they have the wrong belief.

Therein lies the problem: not ALL creationists want ALL evolutionists to go to hell. I am a creationist evolutionist and I don't want anybody to go to hell (except maybe the boss I had when I worked at the Blood Center 😀 ) , so as long as I am here, then "all" creationists includes me, and I poke a big hole in your statement.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
Not better, but open to evidence and reason.

I think that perhaps those of faith and those not so operate much in the same way. For example, data or evidence by itself is nothing. It is only when you begin to interpret such evidence that beliefs are formed. In addition, what beliefs you hold prior to such interpretations often dictate how you interpret your data. For those of faith who reject evolution, this is an example. Without influences from their faith they more than likely would have no issue with evolution. They simply let those of "religious authority" tell them what to or not to believe regarding evolution based upon their interpretations of scripture whether they be right or wrong.

An example of the same phenomenon occuring for the atheist might be Noah's ark being found up on a mountain somewhere. If it is found, you will more than likely have atheists who insist it is not really Noah's ark. Then you will have some who will concede that it exists, but not according to the Biblical account nor does it mean that the God of the Bible exists.

Originally posted by whodey
I think that perhaps those of faith and those not so operate much in the same way. For example, data or evidence by itself is nothing. It is only when you begin to interpret such evidence that beliefs are formed. In addition, what beliefs you hold prior to such interpretations often dictate how you interpret your data. For those of faith who reject evolut but not according to the Biblical account nor does it mean that the God of the Bible exists.

….An example of the same phenomenon occurring for the atheist might be Noah's ark being found up on a mountain somewhere. If it is found, you will more than likely have atheists who insist it is not really Noah's ark..…

In the unlikely event of some remains of a “Noah's ark” being found with irrefutable scientific evidence that it is for real, the vast majority of atheists (including myself -no hesitation) would insist that it IS for real because any belief that it is for real would cease to be based on faith and become based on the EVIDENCE. In this hypothetical scenario, the existence of a “Noah's ark” would then become to be considered to be a scientific FACT and would then simply be regarded as part of science. This wouldn’t in any way conflict with atheistic views.
Actually, I personally think there probably really was a “Noah's ark” (why not?) but no world-wide flood (else where did all the water go?) and the stories about it have been inevitably both exaggerated and greatly distorted as it was passed down from one generation to the next.

…Then you will have SOME who will CONCEDE that it exists, .… (my emphasis)

Not “SOME” but “virtually all” and not “CONCEDE” because atheists don’t generally “CONCEDE” that the scientific facts are true -they just know they are true and, as I have already said, this wouldn’t in any way conflict with atheistic views.

…but not according to the Biblical account …

Of course -where did all the water go?

…nor does it mean that the God of the Bible exists..…

Of course -how would it logically follow from a bit of scientifically proven historical truth in the bible that “God of the Bible exists”?

Actually, in the extremely unlikely event that there was found some irrefutable scientific evidence that a “god” exists, then that would only simply mean that theism would become part of science and virtually all atheists would be converted overnight to theists. I believe this fact shows a fundamental difference between the psychology of most atheists and at least some theists -current atheists are atheists because they base their beliefs on the evidence (or the lack of it) and current theists are normally theists because they base their beliefs on faith.

Originally posted by whodey
I think that perhaps those of faith and those not so operate much in the same way. For example, data or evidence by itself is nothing. It is only when you begin to interpret such evidence that beliefs are formed. In addition, what beliefs you hold prior to such interpretations often dictate how you interpret your data. For those of faith who reject evolut ...[text shortened]... but not according to the Biblical account nor does it mean that the God of the Bible exists.

authority is neither reason nor evidence

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton


In the unlikely event of some remains of a “Noah's ark” being found with irrefutable scientific evidence that it is for real, the vast majority of atheists (including myself -no hesitation) would insist that it IS for real because any belief that it is for real would cease to be based on faith and become based on the EVIDENCE. In this hypothetical s bly both exaggerated and greatly distorted as it was passed down from one generation to the next.

Ok, lets take a real life scenerio that seems miraculous. Namely, the exodus of the Jews from Eygept. Recently, archeaology digs have more or less confirmed the existence of slave Jews in Eygept with exodus stories to go with it. So it begs the question how they escaped? At first, those who did not believe the Bible story disputed such events, however, now it is much harder to do so. Despite the evidence, however, it is merely just that. It is evidence subject to interpretations and such interpretations are guided by ones beliefs as to how much credence one gives the Biblical story.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
Of course -where did all the water go?

Where did the water go? Who cares? After all, how did the boat that size get all the way to the top of a mountain that size? That is the question.

You see, there will ALWAYS be unknowns and questions. The only thing that matters are your interpretations of events to be able to peice the puzzle together the right way.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
in the bible that “God of the Bible exists”?

Actually, in the extremely unlikely event that there was found some irrefutable scientific evidence that a “god” exists, then that would only simply mean that theism would become part of science and virtually all atheists would be converted overnight to theists. I believe this fact shows a fundamental dif ...[text shortened]... e lack of it) and current theists are normally theists because they base their beliefs on faith.[/b]

Without evidence, my faith would be baseless and I have evidences to back my beliefs. However, with irrefutable evidence, my faith would be suspect because it is my belief that an immaterial God created a material universe. Therefore, how does one come up with material evidence for an immaterial God that is irrefutable?