ecco
Veteran Member
Why do you need a creator to give you purpose? Can you not find your own?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Creation and Evolution Compatible...Questions
- Thread starter Deeje
- Start date
ecco
Veteran Member
Try answering questions instead of responding with questions. It might make you think.
ecco
Veteran Member
If scientists believed they know everything about any subject, there would be no scientists researching
that subject. The fact that there is a lot of research being done in regards to ToE, proves your statement is untrue.
ecco
Veteran Member
You disregard the findings of thousands of scientists over the past 150 years in multiple fields of research.
What would you consider real substantive evidence to be?
Perhaps you are on the receiving end of "many tirades" because people have told you over and over that the sciences, with the possible exception of mathematics, does not deal in "proof". They deal in providing evidence. When there is a preponderance of evidence, it becomes established and accepted. There is a preponderance of evidence for ToE just as there is for heliocentricity.
Personal attacks now? That's what people turn to when they cannot discuss a subject intelligently.
If they had just read the Bible, they would have discovered it says 'the Earth is round', and it is 'suspended on nothing.' -- Isaiah 40:22; Job 26:7
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
It does not say "round" it says "the circle of the Earth". Especially if one goes to the original Hebrew, where it is even worse. The word used is that of an inscribed circle, as with a compass.
For those that failed high school geometry circles are round, and they are flat.
This article and others I could link explain the difference between "dur" and "chug" in more detail than I care to at this time:
Circle Means CIRCLE – NOT Ball/Sphere/Globe! | Robs Channel
"The ancient Israelites envisaged a universe made up of a flat disc-shaped earth floating on water, heaven above, underworld below." Biblical cosmology - Wikipedia
AManCalledHorse
If you build it they will come
Those who passed history know the word shpere didn't exist when that was written.
AManCalledHorse
If you build it they will come
That's a new one I hadn't heard.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
The word "ball" existed. You should read the article. The Bible clearly describes the Earth as a flat circle. Your objection is amazingly weak.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
So you have never debated this before. This is well known to anyone that has looked into this with any depth at all.
AManCalledHorse
If you build it they will come
There's nothing to debate. Some accept it with lack of evidence and some reject it with lack of evidence.
When either there is evidence for or against, then its worth debating that evidence.
Last edited:
Drizzt Do'Urden
Deistic Drow Elf
When do you think the word/concept of a sphere came to exist in man's vernacular?
Yes, "disc-shaped", "round".
AManCalledHorse
If you build it they will come
I would guess 12th to 13th century. If you know when why not just provide it. Thanks in advance.
Drizzt Do'Urden
Deistic Drow Elf
Well, I thought you knew, and now you say you guess it's the 12th to 13th century? Weren't you just telling someone that they, the writers of Isaiah, didn't have the word/concept when it was written?
According to the cursory investigation I did when I saw the post and wanted to reply to it, the concept has been around certainly before the 12th to 13th century.
I guess you could argue that the word was created in the English language around the 12th to 13th century CE, but the Greek had the word sphaira, so at the very least the word/concept existed several hundred years BCE.
The writers of Isaiah probably knew the word/concept as well, since it was written around 800 BCE, yet they chose the word circle indicating they believed the world was flat, no?
Attachments
Last edited:
ecco
Veteran Member
No, it does not say 'the Earth is round'. Isaiah says: "the circle of the earth".
I guess you flunked reading as well as geometry; a circle is a not a sphere.
As for Job's "he suspends the earth over nothing"...do you believe the earth is suspended from something? But I guess it's a little better than...
There are many things that he has told us in his word, but he hasn't given us that information yet....maybe when we grow up, we will be able to understand it a bit better. If you are impatient...why don't you ask him?
Is a circle not round?No, it does not say 'the Earth is round'. Isaiah says: "the circle of the earth".
I guess you flunked reading as well as geometry; a circle is a not a sphere.
As for Job's "he suspends the earth over nothing"...do you believe the earth is suspended from something? But I guess it's a little better than...
I didn't say sphere, did I?
Actually, a better translation for the Hebrew chuwg is 'vault'.
Don't put words in my mouth, and keep your arguments ad hominem to yourself...I read quite well, and excelled in geometry.
And what harm did it do them to believe that until they had the knowledge and wherewithal's to explore beyond their flat earth?
Discovery is one of the joys of science, is it not? What did science understand 2,000 years ago? You crack me up...
Oh, Abiogenesis......you mean that branch of science that can't find out what caused life?
Yes, I have heard of it.
You do realize that in 150 years, they'll all be saying that "those bozo's back in the Noughties use to think that life poofed itself into existence one day, for no apparent reason, millions of years ago, and then it somehow magically transformed itself into every living thing on earth.....
How did they ever come to such a ridiculous conclusion?!"
In my own words, "life" on this planet.... is something biological that can reproduce copies of itself, yet not just clones, but totally separate and independent entities with the same characteristics, function and basic appearance of its parents....but only after its own "kind".....inorganic matter is not "living" but usually supplies what living things need to function and to continue the reproductive process indefinitely......like food production and water supply...also vital to sustaining life....this I believe, could never have happened by accident.
It is that inexplicable animating force that precipitates breathing or oxygen intake from lungs or from other methods (such as with marine life breathing through gills) and when the intake of oxygen to the cells ceases, the organism dies....or ceases to be alive.
"Bio" (life) followed by logical.....self explanatory.
