Evolution vs. Creation

Full story: Best of New Orleans

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.
Comments
85,881 - 85,900 of 113,003 Comments Last updated 8 hrs ago

“I'm Your Huckleberry ”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

That's Just My Game

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#90791
May 27, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No, in context it describes a flat circle. Circles are always flat by definition. They had the word for "ball" in that time too. They never describe the Earth as a ball, but the word does appear in Isaiah. Does it make sense to "hang" a sky over a sphere lilke a tent? No. Does it make sense to "hand" one over a flat disc? Yes. With the sphere there would be no sky over half of the world. For them the supposed sky would be under their feet.
Here is a blog from a scholar of ancient Hebrew who can explain this better than I can:
http://youngausskeptics.com/2008/12/what-you-...
In your link he goes on to say one particular Christian pointed out that a circle and sphere are the same, wow, I know, but it’s so sadly true. He then tried to elaborate,”What is a box?”, my reply ”It’s a cube, it is three dimensional”, he said,”It’s a square” and I nearly fell over. Bach THEN they did not know of a cube, let alone a 3 dimensional cube. They called things square.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#90792
May 27, 2013
 
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Sub I understand what you are saying. But you all bring up biology, geology, algebra, geometry ect ect. One thing is those did not exist back in the biblical days. They were simple people with simple minds and ways. Ask any preschool kid the shape of a ball and 99.9% of them will tell you it is a circle. That's about what their mental capability was like back then. A preschooler compared to a professor now days. That is a silly comparison but again they were simple people that did not know a lot.
You can't have it both ways. You are right that they were a simple people. They thought the world was flat. Check with any historian who is familiar with these people.

Second, they had a perfectly good word for sphere, if that is what they thought the world was. They didn't. And it isn't just this verse. There are others too. You cannot sweep them all under the carpet. If you want to claim that they believed in a spherical Earth you need to find some real evidence that supports your claim.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#90793
May 27, 2013
 
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
In your link he goes on to say one particular Christian pointed out that a circle and sphere are the same, wow, I know, but it’s so sadly true. He then tried to elaborate,”What is a box?”, my reply ”It’s a cube, it is three dimensional”, he said,”It’s a square” and I nearly fell over. Bach THEN they did not know of a cube, let alone a 3 dimensional cube. They called things square.
His point was that they did not call boxes "squares" in the past. I think you misread this part of the article.

“I'm Your Huckleberry ”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

That's Just My Game

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#90794
May 27, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
His point was that they did not call boxes "squares" in the past. I think you misread this part of the article.
here it is word for word. I just read what was there.

Finally, just think for one second logically about what may have gone on when Isaiah was written. What the writer of Isaiah would have seen when he looked at the Moon, was not a sphere but a circle! What did he see if he was game enough to take a glimpse at the Sun, that’s right a circle. Is it not more probably that the writer of Isaiah was simply making an inference from observations he had made previously about the universe and the Earth specifically? Seems logical to me, is it?

It was after I had made all the previous points that this one particular Christian pointed out that a circle and sphere are the same, wow, I know, but it’s so sadly true. He then tried to elaborate,”What is a box?”, my reply ”It’s a cube, it is three dimensional”, he said,”It’s a square” and I nearly fell over. I know this is hard to believe but it is oh so true

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#90795
May 27, 2013
 
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
here it is word for word. I just read what was there.
Finally, just think for one second logically about what may have gone on when Isaiah was written. What the writer of Isaiah would have seen when he looked at the Moon, was not a sphere but a circle! What did he see if he was game enough to take a glimpse at the Sun, that’s right a circle. Is it not more probably that the writer of Isaiah was simply making an inference from observations he had made previously about the universe and the Earth specifically? Seems logical to me, is it?
It was after I had made all the previous points that this one particular Christian pointed out that a circle and sphere are the same, wow, I know, but it’s so sadly true. He then tried to elaborate,”What is a box?”, my reply ”It’s a cube, it is three dimensional”, he said,”It’s a square” and I nearly fell over. I know this is hard to believe but it is oh so true
Yes, and you forgot the rest of it:

" I have never blogged before this being my first time. I have commented others blogs occasionally, but I was so irritated at this reasoning that I just had to write down my thoughts and decided I should join the other bloggers and post them. I did try to explain further that a cube can be made of 6 squares but it is not a square. At that point I realized I was getting nowhere and decided to end the conversation. These people were not open to evidence and reason and simply dismissed others with no proof of their own as they often remarked ”You have to have faith”."

A cube is not a square. If you are far enough away from a cube it practically never looks like a square. Yet, if you are far enough away from a sphere it looks like a circle. If you make a two dimensional projection of a cube it will usually have six sides. Only if you are looking dead on at a flat surface will you see only four edges.

“I'm Your Huckleberry ”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

That's Just My Game

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#90796
May 27, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, and you forgot the rest of it:
" I have never blogged before this being my first time. I have commented others blogs occasionally, but I was so irritated at this reasoning that I just had to write down my thoughts and decided I should join the other bloggers and post them. I did try to explain further that a cube can be made of 6 squares but it is not a square. At that point I realized I was getting nowhere and decided to end the conversation. These people were not open to evidence and reason and simply dismissed others with no proof of their own as they often remarked ”You have to have faith”."
A cube is not a square. If you are far enough away from a cube it practically never looks like a square. Yet, if you are far enough away from a sphere it looks like a circle. If you make a two dimensional projection of a cube it will usually have six sides. Only if you are looking dead on at a flat surface will you see only four edges.
I read that but I don't agree. If I took a box and a flat square stood up(end of a box and set them 100 yards from you would be pressed to tell which one was which by looking directly at them.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#90797
May 27, 2013
 
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
I read that but I don't agree. If I took a box and a flat square stood up(end of a box and set them 100 yards from you would be pressed to tell which one was which by looking directly at them.
That is only because you looked at it in the one aspect where I said it would look like a square. Look at it from a random orientation and odds are that it will have six edges, not four.

“I'm Your Huckleberry ”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

That's Just My Game

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#90798
May 27, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, and you forgot the rest of it:
" I have never blogged before this being my first time. I have commented others blogs occasionally, but I was so irritated at this reasoning that I just had to write down my thoughts and decided I should join the other bloggers and post them. I did try to explain further that a cube can be made of 6 squares but it is not a square. At that point I realized I was getting nowhere and decided to end the conversation. These people were not open to evidence and reason and simply dismissed others with no proof of their own as they often remarked ”You have to have faith”."
A cube is not a square. If you are far enough away from a cube it practically never looks like a square. Yet, if you are far enough away from a sphere it looks like a circle. If you make a two dimensional projection of a cube it will usually have six sides. Only if you are looking dead on at a flat surface will you see only four edges.
The box would be like an optical illusion as the things in this video. Now is it real or not? I don't know for I am not there. But it is cool!
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#90799
May 27, 2013
 
macumazahn wrote:
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>
Agreed
Does Evolution contradict the Bible?
Is it possible to believe in evolution and still be a Christian?
If being a Christian means believing that the Bible is the authentic, trustworthy Word of God and that Christ is our Creator and Savior, the answer is “No.” One cannot believe these things and also believe in evolution as the explanation for the origin of life on our earth as we know it.
"

Why would anyone need to "believe" in evolution?

That's a bit like needing to believe in concrete. Or that if I drop this here bowling ball, it's not going to fall up.
It never happened.

“I'm Your Huckleberry ”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

That's Just My Game

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#90800
May 27, 2013
 
Now if you look close you can see what looks like a shadow from the rubix cube, the tape and the shoe and what ever the picture is, is not in the background until after the picture changes then the prior is setting in the background..
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#90801
May 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

MikeF wrote:
By the way, KJV, thanks for the shit-storm of spam. Duane Gish would be so proud.
He asked for evidence for the flood.
So I gave him a very small sample.
I can't help it that there is so much evidence for the flood.
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#90802
May 27, 2013
 
susanblange wrote:
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>
Never failed,
http://www.bethlehemstar.net/
For centuries, believers, scoffers and the curious have wondered at the Biblical account of the Star of Bethlehem. The Bible recounts unusual or even impossible astronomical events at Christ’s birth. For many doubters, the account of the Star is easily dismissed as myth. For many believers, it’s a mystery accepted on faith. But what happens if we combine current scriptural accounts, astronomical fact and a desire for truth? The Star of Bethlehem documents the search to understand how the Lord used the stars and planets to reveal His plans for Christ’s birth. Uncover the mystery for yourself.
From Producer Stephen McEveety, The Passion Of The Christ
http://www.christiancinema.com/catalog/produc...
"

The star of Bethlehem never happened, it is a Christian myth or more exactly a lie. They actually believe 3 kings from vastly different areas of the world got together and followed a star for thousands of miles because they knew it was a Jewish omen. Also, the star would've been in the west, not the east. A star does not stand over a certain place. The star in the east did appear on January 6, 1984 which is 3 kings day in Puerto Rico. The kings of the east and the west were at a summit close by and they visited the Messiah after seeing the article in the newspaper. It was a very large 6 pointed star in the eastern sky and they recognized it as a sign because it was popularized by Christianity.
Wrong again. It was before you were born though, maybe that's why you're so confused.
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#90803
May 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

DanFromSmithville wrote:
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>
http://www.grandcanyontreks.org/geology2.htm
"Inevitably, some of these visitors will turn to a park ranger and ask: "How did the Grand Canyon get formed? Why did this happen here and nowhere else?"
The honest answer is that nobody knows. One hundred and thirty-one years after John Wesley Powell first mapped the Colorado River by riding its 161 rapids in heavy wooden boats, no one can prove how the canyon was formed.
But it is not for lack of trying.
Geologists are puzzle freaks who love nothing more than collecting fragmentary clues -- clumps of gravel, fossilized shells and pollens, the dates that muddy sediments were deposited in dried-up lakes or whole mountain ranges were lifted -- and then trying desperately to figure out how the modern topography before their eyes was produced.
More.....
The modern Colorado appears to be a young river that flows out of the Rockies and hits a huge plateau, called the Kaibab Upwarp, which is 50 million to 70 million years old. Instead of being shunted away from this barrier, the river runs right through it. Moreover, when sediments from the river are examined closely, it is clear that the western end of the canyon -- where it flattens out and begins its final run to the Gulf of California -- is many millions of years younger than the eastern part of the river.
To many experts, this difference means that the Grand Canyon could have been cobbled together from ancient river basins that were created during different geologic eras. But if so, when and how were those ancient rivers formed and where did they go?
"

The Grand Canyon was formed over millions of years by the action of the Colorado River. If you have a simple question, you should just ask.
Nope, rivers can't flow up hill.
Never could and there for the Colorado river never made that canyon.

Look it up dolt!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#90804
May 27, 2013
 
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
The box would be like an optical illusion as the things in this video. Now is it real or not? I don't know for I am not there. But it is cool!
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Cool video. Yes, the box would be similar to the "Rubik's Cube". Pause it at 15 seconds and count the number of lines around the outside. You will see that there are six lines at apporximately 15 seconds.
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#90805
May 27, 2013
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>Unless it's a Holy Apache I'm not impressed.
No, it's the Holy Hand Grenade.
susanblange

Norfolk, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#90806
May 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>
Wrong again. It was before you were born though, maybe that's why you're so confused.[/QUOTE]The star in the east appeared on Friday evening, January 6, 1984 and was a huge six pointed star containing a cross-X. Ronald Reagan and Zao Zyoung of China were at a summit in Williamsburg at the time. The prophecy says they were close by. At the same time, I appeared in the newspaper and was publically humiliated and the two kings drove down in a limo just to see and I chased them away. January 6 also happens to be three kings day in Puerto Rico.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Lagrangian L2

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#90807
May 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>
He asked for evidence for the flood.
So I gave him a very small sample.
I can't help it that there is so much evidence for the flood.[/QUOTE]

There is NO scientifically valid evidence for a world-wide flood at ANY time in history

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Lagrangian L2

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#90808
May 27, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

susanblange wrote:
<quoted text>There's a reason certain books were not canonized. Sometimes their validity or authenticity was suspect. I have a copy of the Apocrypha but don't give it much weight, it was written by Christians. Angels cannot procreate, that is a fact. They don't have the organs to do so.
The four books of the Gospels are known to be written by anonymous authors. These authors were NOT eyewitnesses to what they wrote about and yet they were placed in the Bible.

One New Testament scholar has said that we may not even have the real words of Jesus because of this. What was eventually placed in the Bible had more to do with politics than anything else.
susanblange

Norfolk, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#90809
May 27, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
The four books of the Gospels are known to be written by anonymous authors. These authors were NOT eyewitnesses to what they wrote about and yet they were placed in the Bible.
One New Testament scholar has said that we may not even have the real words of Jesus because of this. What was eventually placed in the Bible had more to do with politics than anything else.
You're right, and their names were not Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. They chose those names because they fulfilled prophecy. Mark and John were friends and neighbors of the Messiah, Matthew and Luke were fraternity brothers of Adam who hung themselves in January 1984. Zechariah 11:8. The NT is not even remotely inspired by God, it is the book of Satan. Job 31:35.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#90810
May 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Sub I understand what you are saying. But you all bring up biology, geology, algebra, geometry ect ect. One thing is those did not exist back in the biblical days. They were simple people with simple minds and ways. Ask any preschool kid the shape of a ball and 99.9% of them will tell you it is a circle. That's about what their mental capability was like back then. A preschooler compared to a professor now days. That is a silly comparison but again they were simple people that did not know a lot.
They were well familiar with the concept of "orb" or "ball". If they lacked the word "sphere", there are others.

Oh, and it's "etc", not "ect". It's an abbreviation of "et cetera".

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••