Wow, have you even graduated high-school yet? Of course I'm not claiming that at all. I'm claiming that there wasn't a word for sphere which you have yet to produce one in use at the time of the stories and that the people the stories were originally told did not need a word for sphere in order to understand what was being said. This entire flat earth thing is made up and doesn't exist and never has.<quoted text>
So are you claiming that the interpreters of the Bible did not know that the world was spherical? What are you doing? Trying to challenge Jimbo for master idiot of this part of Topix?
And your point is completely incorrect. You cannot be intellectually honest and say lets compare something of science and something not of science then declare the not of science to be not true because the science is not there. Science is contrived to support itself all the time, it's a if it works, don't mess with it. Even science itself is limited to saying this is only one of many possible ways if it finds something could have happened. What science does with evolution is gives us a useful model that we can build other things from. It does not mean evolution was the only way possible or that it was in fact what happened. Saying so would continue your legacy of unscientific thought.My point is that this is scientific debate. Science describes the real world. There are literally mountains of evidence for the theory of evolution and none for creation. Why believe in something that is not backed up by any evidence whatsoever?
Also, you should learn what evidence actually is. There are several types and you would be fallacious in claiming there is absolutely no evidence. There might not be any scientific evidence, but that does not mean it is not true or that there is no evidence at all.
Actually you do not seem to know what a concordance is or at least you are not acting like it. Please tell me where any of them translate it into flat at all? Circular is the meaning given and flat is all you injecting whatever you want it to be into it. Of course you have to do that in order to maintain your lie otherwise the truth seems more appealing.No, I do know what a concordance is. It is the best translation available. And please note. They did a fairly decent job. As written the Bible describes a flat circular Earth.
Once again, you are showing how limited your knowledge is and how ignorant you appear to anyone with the least bit of intelligence. Why would a scientific journal be accepting articles written about faith and religion? They already accept more scientific articles then they should with the problem or retracting quite a few of the articles. Your entire premise is flawed from the start.No, I am talking about real peer reviewed scientific journals. The so called Christian science journals are only a circle jerk that any real scientist would laugh at.
You simply are talking out your ass now. You have absolutely no facts to back the claim of christian scientists up and are more likely speaking about anecdotal observations found through confirmation bias which in and of itself is entirely unscientific. Why do you hate science until it supports your views? Why do you insist on scientific evidence for everything you disagree with and ignore that with what you want to push as if it is true?Once again. Many of the Christian scientists are published authors in their field. They then switch to a different field for sites like Creatard.com or others and write outside of their comfort zone and it shows.