Conquer Club

An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

What are the facts? Please keep an open mind and read the article first before casting your vote.

 
Total votes : 0

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby AAFitz on Thu Feb 21, 2013 12:18 pm

mejihn7779 wrote:I find it interesting that none of the supporters of evolution were willing to watch any more than 10 minutes of the videos. That's like listening to a hypothesis and saying it's wrong or useless before giving the person a chance to explain. I dare any of the evolution supporters to watch both the videos & refute all his evidence. I BET YOU CAN'T!


I didn't watch Mickey Mouse today either. Sorry.

But tell you what, you read all the literature about evolution, and then get back to us on the few examples refuting it. :lol:
I'm Spanking Monkey now....err...I mean I'm a Spanking Monkey now...that shoots milk
Too much. I know.
Sergeant 1st Class AAFitz
 
Posts: 7270
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 9:47 am
Location: On top of the World 2.1

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby Viceroy63 on Thu Feb 21, 2013 12:31 pm

Your bible description is just sloppy and the work of an amateur.


I sure wish that I could be an amateur writer like the amateur who wrote the Bible! Then I would be a Best seller author read by Billions all around the planet enjoying a life of luxury like no one has ever seen before based on my amateurish writing.
Image
An Unproven Hypothesis; The Rise of Ignorance.
Ultimate Proof of Creation. Click the show tab below.
show
User avatar
Major Viceroy63
 
Posts: 1117
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 8:34 pm
Location: A little back water, hill billy hick place called Earth.

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby AndyDufresne on Thu Feb 21, 2013 12:54 pm

Viceroy63 wrote:
Your bible description is just sloppy and the work of an amateur.


I sure wish that I could be an amateur writer like the amateur who wrote the Bible! Then I would be a Best seller author read by Billions all around the planet enjoying a life of luxury like no one has ever seen before based on my amateurish writing.

The Bible was like an early version of Wikipedia I think.


--Andy
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class AndyDufresne
 
Posts: 24919
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 8:22 pm
Location: A Banana Palm in Zihuatanejo

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby crispybits on Thu Feb 21, 2013 1:10 pm

If so they sure missed out a hell of a lot of [citation needed]!
User avatar
Major crispybits
 
Posts: 942
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby AAFitz on Thu Feb 21, 2013 1:31 pm

Viceroy63 wrote:
Your bible description is just sloppy and the work of an amateur.


I sure wish that I could be an amateur writer like the amateur who wrote the Bible! Then I would be a Best seller author read by Billions all around the planet enjoying a life of luxury like no one has ever seen before based on my amateurish writing.


Actually, the "work of an amateur" refers to the "work" of creating such a simplistic planet and solar system as described in your "very popular book". I was calling the "creation" as described in your bible as amateur, not the writing of the Bible itself.... That is to say, God would be an amateur, if he chose to create it so simplistically, with some finger snaps, compared to how we know it was actually created, which is infinitely more complex, and beautiful.

I can only imagine the insult a creator of something so gorgeous and mind boggling would feel, if someone like you reduced it into a few snaps of a finger, based on someones very unscientific observations and ramblings. In short, you give him so little credit, all the while assuming you are doing His work. Again, the hypocricy knows no bounds.

For what its worth though, I very much do think you have great potential for writing fiction.
I'm Spanking Monkey now....err...I mean I'm a Spanking Monkey now...that shoots milk
Too much. I know.
Sergeant 1st Class AAFitz
 
Posts: 7270
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 9:47 am
Location: On top of the World 2.1

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby AAFitz on Thu Feb 21, 2013 1:39 pm

crispybits wrote:If so they sure missed out a hell of a lot of [citation needed]!

=D>
I'm Spanking Monkey now....err...I mean I'm a Spanking Monkey now...that shoots milk
Too much. I know.
Sergeant 1st Class AAFitz
 
Posts: 7270
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 9:47 am
Location: On top of the World 2.1

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby Viceroy63 on Thu Feb 21, 2013 3:22 pm

AAFitz wrote:
Viceroy63 wrote:
Your bible description is just sloppy and the work of an amateur.


I sure wish that I could be an amateur writer like the amateur who wrote the Bible! Then I would be a Best seller author read by Billions all around the planet enjoying a life of luxury like no one has ever seen before based on my amateurish writing.


Actually, the "work of an amateur" refers to the "work" of creating such a simplistic planet and solar system as described in your "very popular book". I was calling the "creation" as described in your bible as amateur, not the writing of the Bible itself.... That is to say, God would be an amateur, if he chose to create it so simplistically, with some finger snaps, compared to how we know it was actually created, which is infinitely more complex, and beautiful.

I can only imagine the insult a creator of something so gorgeous and mind boggling would feel, if someone like you reduced it into a few snaps of a finger, based on someones very unscientific observations and ramblings. In short, you give him so little credit, all the while assuming you are doing His work. Again, the hypocricy knows no bounds.

For what its worth though, I very much do think you have great potential for writing fiction.


Thank you AAFitz, that means so very much coming from you. Really it does!

When I was a little boy and I told fictitious tales such as the theory of evolution, it was called a "Fib." I would get wrapped across my mouth for fibbing and as punishment would be sent to my room with out any supper so that I could contemplate the errors of my ways. Today so called scientist lie to masses of the populace and earn a paycheck in return. If only my father had known what lying to ignorant people would get me in life one day. A high paying salary position and the respect and admiration of so many ignorant people who just don't care to figure it out for themselves. Perhaps then my father might have spared that rod and the belt. huh?

But I implore you, if you like fiction, Please watch this Video, Evolutionist Dirty Little Secret. It really does explain the basis of the Darwinian lie.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjprkQbOouQ
Image
An Unproven Hypothesis; The Rise of Ignorance.
Ultimate Proof of Creation. Click the show tab below.
show
User avatar
Major Viceroy63
 
Posts: 1117
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 8:34 pm
Location: A little back water, hill billy hick place called Earth.

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby AndyDufresne on Thu Feb 21, 2013 3:25 pm

I like NOVA specials better I think.


--Andy
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class AndyDufresne
 
Posts: 24919
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 8:22 pm
Location: A Banana Palm in Zihuatanejo

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby tzor on Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:55 pm

Viceroy63 wrote:I have a theory that explains this. People who simply want to "kill" God, do not accept any logically concluding Theory that has anything to do with God.


Only how do the Secular Franciscans who love God with their whole heart and mind and who accept the evidence of evolution, figure into your theory?

I have a theory (actually it's Peter's). Some people twist the scripture to their own damnation.
Image
User avatar
Cadet tzor
 
Posts: 4076
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:43 pm
Location: Long Island, NY, USA

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby AAFitz on Thu Feb 21, 2013 10:01 pm

Viceroy63 wrote:
AAFitz wrote:
Viceroy63 wrote:
Your bible description is just sloppy and the work of an amateur.


I sure wish that I could be an amateur writer like the amateur who wrote the Bible! Then I would be a Best seller author read by Billions all around the planet enjoying a life of luxury like no one has ever seen before based on my amateurish writing.


Actually, the "work of an amateur" refers to the "work" of creating such a simplistic planet and solar system as described in your "very popular book". I was calling the "creation" as described in your bible as amateur, not the writing of the Bible itself.... That is to say, God would be an amateur, if he chose to create it so simplistically, with some finger snaps, compared to how we know it was actually created, which is infinitely more complex, and beautiful.

I can only imagine the insult a creator of something so gorgeous and mind boggling would feel, if someone like you reduced it into a few snaps of a finger, based on someones very unscientific observations and ramblings. In short, you give him so little credit, all the while assuming you are doing His work. Again, the hypocricy knows no bounds.

For what its worth though, I very much do think you have great potential for writing fiction.


Thank you AAFitz, that means so very much coming from you. Really it does!

When I was a little boy and I told fictitious tales such as the theory of evolution, it was called a "Fib." I would get wrapped across my mouth for fibbing and as punishment would be sent to my room with out any supper so that I could contemplate the errors of my ways. Today so called scientist lie to masses of the populace and earn a paycheck in return. If only my father had known what lying to ignorant people would get me in life one day. A high paying salary position and the respect and admiration of so many ignorant people who just don't care to figure it out for themselves. Perhaps then my father might have spared that rod and the belt. huh?

But I implore you, if you like fiction, Please watch this Video, Evolutionist Dirty Little Secret. It really does explain the basis of the Darwinian lie.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjprkQbOouQ


You poor thing...those scientists have been lying to you your whole life...and now you are forced to use this silly internet thingy that uses radio waves and electricity that those silly scientists made up and lied about and used witchcraft.

Dont worry though vice...your day will come. Until then, spread your lies and fight every scientific fact all you want. You really can change reality if you believe hard enough...

We luckilly have moved out of the days of darkness, run by the likes of you, and Science has taken over all, except those too blind to truly see. I know its tough, and you want to burn the lot of them at the stake for blasphemy, but you just dont have that power that you used to...because reason, has just taken over fantasy.

Join us, if you ever get bored of your clouds and fiction. its an amazing universe, and you are just missing out.
I'm Spanking Monkey now....err...I mean I'm a Spanking Monkey now...that shoots milk
Too much. I know.
Sergeant 1st Class AAFitz
 
Posts: 7270
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 9:47 am
Location: On top of the World 2.1

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby Viceroy63 on Thu Feb 21, 2013 11:01 pm

Oh I know that Science is true and God is true but mankind is a liar. Those who realize that are not deceived.

"God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged."
-Romans 3:4
Image
An Unproven Hypothesis; The Rise of Ignorance.
Ultimate Proof of Creation. Click the show tab below.
show
User avatar
Major Viceroy63
 
Posts: 1117
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 8:34 pm
Location: A little back water, hill billy hick place called Earth.

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby AAFitz on Thu Feb 21, 2013 11:09 pm

Viceroy63 wrote:Oh I know that Science is true and God is true but mankind is a liar. Those who realize that are not deceived.

"God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged."
-Romans 3:4


Well, you are mankind, and many of those believers you believe in...are mankind too.

"God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged."
-Romans 3:4[/quote]

And this particular quote, defends my position, just as much as your own...and in fact, is the exact sentiment I was eluding to before.

You see, I know I dont know exactly the situation. I know there are unknowns...however, you are the one claiming to actually know the true reality for sure, and are calling all others liars.

You are the judge-er, not the judge-ee. You just have been lied to by mankind and by yourself, and are no longer able to see that basic fact, which all of us, see clear as day.
I'm Spanking Monkey now....err...I mean I'm a Spanking Monkey now...that shoots milk
Too much. I know.
Sergeant 1st Class AAFitz
 
Posts: 7270
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 9:47 am
Location: On top of the World 2.1

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby chang50 on Thu Feb 21, 2013 11:21 pm

AAFitz wrote:
Viceroy63 wrote:Oh I know that Science is true and God is true but mankind is a liar. Those who realize that are not deceived.

"God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged."
-Romans 3:4


Well, you are mankind, and many of those believers you believe in...are mankind too.

"God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged."
-Romans 3:4


And this particular quote, defends my position, just as much as your own...and in fact, is the exact sentiment I was eluding to before.

You see, I know I dont know exactly the situation. I know there are unknowns...however, you are the one claiming to actually know the true reality for sure, and are calling all others liars.

You are the judge-er, not the judge-ee. You just have been lied to by mankind and by yourself, and are no longer able to see that basic fact, which all of us, see clear as day.[/quote]


There is a word that perfectly describes the stupid vanity displayed by creationists like Viceroy,it is fatuousness.They are in fact the polar opposite of what they imagine themselves to be,rather than humbling themselves before the supreme creator,they claim special knowledge denied to the rest of us in a breathtakingly arrogant way..
User avatar
Captain chang50
 
Posts: 659
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 4:54 am
Location: pattaya,thailand

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby AAFitz on Thu Feb 21, 2013 11:28 pm

chang50 wrote:
AAFitz wrote:
Viceroy63 wrote:Oh I know that Science is true and God is true but mankind is a liar. Those who realize that are not deceived.

"God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged."
-Romans 3:4


Well, you are mankind, and many of those believers you believe in...are mankind too.

"God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged."
-Romans 3:4


And this particular quote, defends my position, just as much as your own...and in fact, is the exact sentiment I was eluding to before.

You see, I know I dont know exactly the situation. I know there are unknowns...however, you are the one claiming to actually know the true reality for sure, and are calling all others liars.

You are the judge-er, not the judge-ee. You just have been lied to by mankind and by yourself, and are no longer able to see that basic fact, which all of us, see clear as day.



There is a word that perfectly describes the stupid vanity displayed by creationists like Viceroy,it is fatuousness.They are in fact the polar opposite of what they imagine themselves to be,rather than humbling themselves before the supreme creator,they claim special knowledge denied to the rest of us in a breathtakingly arrogant way..[/quote]

Its not just creationists, its human nature. Its easier to choose to believe in something, than it is to walk around not knowing. I have believed many incorrect things in my life, but have been lucky enough to have been wrong about enough of them, to realize that believing that deeply, without real evidence is simply a human propensity towards delusion.

While it does mean not knowing quite a few things, it does mean not being wrong about so many either, and further, I feel, allows me to learn much more freely than others. Of course, that is a belief as well, which means its contradictory, and could be wrong....but...I accept that, and cant wait till I learn something new tomorrow.

I genuinely feel bad for those who closed off that experience, long ago.
I'm Spanking Monkey now....err...I mean I'm a Spanking Monkey now...that shoots milk
Too much. I know.
Sergeant 1st Class AAFitz
 
Posts: 7270
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 9:47 am
Location: On top of the World 2.1

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby chang50 on Thu Feb 21, 2013 11:48 pm

AAFitz wrote:
chang50 wrote:
AAFitz wrote:
Viceroy63 wrote:Oh I know that Science is true and God is true but mankind is a liar. Those who realize that are not deceived.

"God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged."
-Romans 3:4


Well, you are mankind, and many of those believers you believe in...are mankind too.

"God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged."
-Romans 3:4


And this particular quote, defends my position, just as much as your own...and in fact, is the exact sentiment I was eluding to before.

You see, I know I dont know exactly the situation. I know there are unknowns...however, you are the one claiming to actually know the true reality for sure, and are calling all others liars.

You are the judge-er, not the judge-ee. You just have been lied to by mankind and by yourself, and are no longer able to see that basic fact, which all of us, see clear as day.



There is a word that perfectly describes the stupid vanity displayed by creationists like Viceroy,it is fatuousness.They are in fact the polar opposite of what they imagine themselves to be,rather than humbling themselves before the supreme creator,they claim special knowledge denied to the rest of us in a breathtakingly arrogant way..


Its not just creationists, its human nature. Its easier to choose to believe in something, than it is to walk around not knowing. I have believed many incorrect things in my life, but have been lucky enough to have been wrong about enough of them, to realize that believing that deeply, without real evidence is simply a human propensity towards delusion.

While it does mean not knowing quite a few things, it does mean not being wrong about so many either, and further, I feel, allows me to learn much more freely than others. Of course, that is a belief as well, which means its contradictory, and could be wrong....but...I accept that, and cant wait till I learn something new tomorrow.

I genuinely feel bad for those who closed off that experience, long ago.[/quote]


Couldn't argue with any of that,a lot of people seem to see having doubt,or not knowing,or changing their mind as weakness when it is actually strength.
User avatar
Captain chang50
 
Posts: 659
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 4:54 am
Location: pattaya,thailand

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby crispybits on Fri Feb 22, 2013 3:12 am

mejihn7779 wrote:I find it interesting that none of the supporters of evolution were willing to watch any more than 10 minutes of the videos. That's like listening to a hypothesis and saying it's wrong or useless before giving the person a chance to explain. I dare any of the evolution supporters to watch both the videos & refute all his evidence. I BET YOU CAN'T!


I'll tell you what - you watch this and refute every argument the presenters make, and I'll go back and watch the rest of your video and refute all the other claims, not just the one I've already refuted...

User avatar
Major crispybits
 
Posts: 942
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby PLAYER57832 on Fri Feb 22, 2013 5:24 am

Viceroy63 wrote:By Creationist; All of them!

And it's still science if the observations are logical.

No, actually science requires a testable theory... and the tests.


Viceroy63 wrote:The question is really why would a logically concluding theory be accepted while another logically concluding theory not be accepted?

Becuause one is backed by evidence and the other is not.

Viceroy63 wrote:I have a theory that explains this. People who simply want to "kill" God, do not accept any logically concluding Theory that has anything to do with God.

Fine, but now explain all the very faithful individuals who have not been duped into thinking science is just about defeating God.

.Oh, I get it, you and your group are "special" :roll:
Last edited by PLAYER57832 on Fri Feb 22, 2013 5:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby PLAYER57832 on Fri Feb 22, 2013 5:33 am

Viceroy63 wrote:Youtube Video "Evolutionist Dirty Little Secret" at the bottom of this comment.
Thank you.

AAFitz wrote:
Viceroy63 wrote:By Creationist; All of them!

And it's still science if the observations are logical.

The question is really why would a logically concluding theory be accepted while another logically concluding theory not be accepted?

I have a theory that explains this. People who simply want to "kill" God, do not accept any logically concluding Theory that has anything to do with God.


I hate to poke another hole in another one of your "theories", but many of the scientists that you suggest want to "kill" God, actively believe and worship him as well, but still believe in evolution, because the actual science behind it, is beyond reproach.

It is you that have let your beliefs affect your view of the evidence, and are therefore the illogical one, and as such, perhaps the most hypocritical being in existence....and if that's a stretch, which it is, certainly you hold the crown in CC land.


Please, Poke away! And don't let the fact that you twist my words bother you in the slightest, while you're doing all of your "poking away." OK. ;)

I never said "scientist" who want to kill God but rather "People," as in people in general of whom some of them do play the role of the "scientist" from time to time. But it's People who generally want to Kill God.

There are true Scientist out there and they do go on record for being anti-envolutionist.

No, actually almost no true scientists go no record as being anti-evolutionist. When they do, you generally find that their PhD has nothing at all to do with evolution, biology, etc.
Viceroy63 wrote: Because the theory of evolution has no foundation to go against established facts. You and I for example, are compose of carbon based molecules. That is to say dirt of the earth. Who established this fact before scientist ever figured it out? The Bible did of course.


Yes, but how is that 'against established facts"? It isn't.
Viceroy63 wrote: If the Bible was so full of shit as some would presume it is, then how would it get so many things right, and right of the bat as it does? If it is merely some fable then why did this imaginary god not make man from fire or star light? The facts are the facts and they are recorded for us to see in the bible first, before any so called scientist actually figured them out.

The debate here is about evolution, not the Bible.

The arguments for and about evolution ignore God, not because they disprove God (they don't), but because God's presence is utterly irrelevant to the theory. It doesn't matter if "God did it" or if it "just happened", per science, the evidence would look the same.

God is not provable, thus is ignored except in specific contexts where some may occasionally attempt to prove God. They fail, as the Bible says they will. God is about faith.
BUT... God is not about ignoring evidence and truth.
When you persist in saying that "no evidence exists" for evolution, don't even bother to follow up on the many pictures, postings of evidence we have given you...then you are not acting as a Christian, you are acting as a believer of lies.

Viceroy63 wrote:But here also is my point. If all of those, so called God of the Bible, and that is what I am talking about, "God of the Bible" believing scientist; If those so called scientist who believe in the theory of evolution are actually God fearing, God believing Christians, then how can they also go against the very words of God and say that Man evolved from a common ancestor of lower form of animals on the planet? When the Bible specifically states that the only evolution that actually took place was that of Dirt evolving into Man in a mere matter of moments?

Becuase the Bible says no such thing.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby Pseudonymity on Fri Feb 22, 2013 9:41 am

Viceroy63 wrote:I do not believe that the earth is flat because three thousand years ago, before modern science came to be, True scientist had already wrote in the Holy Bible that the earth was in fact round like a circle.

"[It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth,..."
-Isaiah 40:22

[Note] Circle does not mean "Rings."

Thick clouds [are] a covering to him, that he seeth not; and he walketh in the circuit of heaven.
-Job 22:14


Don't know if anyone pointed this out yet, but a circle is flat. As far as I'm aware "sphere of the Earth" doesn't appear anywhere in the Bible, and if it does, it's in direct contradiction with Isaiah 40:22.

(lol creationists)
Colonel Pseudonymity
 
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2013 9:00 am

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby Viceroy63 on Fri Feb 22, 2013 3:52 pm

Caution:
The principles of the word "Circle" discuss in this comment may be too simplistic for some adults to follow. If you have a small child in grade school it is recommended that the child read this comment along with you. Remember that if the child nods their head up and down, it means,"Yes!"

A Circle is not Flat sir. That is a contradiction in terms. You can draw a circle on a flat piece of paper but that only means that the paper is flat and not the full intended meaning of the word "Circle" or Circular. I have a very circular "Ass" for example. Does that also mean that my ass is also flat like a pancake???

It is true that the word "Sphere" does not appear in the Bible (at least not in the King James version of the Bible) because the Bible was written in a simple time for a simple people using a simple language. We are the ones who interpret the word "Circle" as a flat dimensional drawing concept. But the Word Circle does encompass the connotation (idea) of a Sphere with it.

In Isaiah 40:22, the "Circle of the earth" is more of a reference to the "Equator" of the earth (The Circular Center-line of the planet) and not that the earth is a flat Pancake! For if the image of a flat "Pancake" shape earth was their intended meaning then they had other words to describe Flat such as the word "Naphal."

"So the people shouted when [the priests] blew with the trumpets: and it came to pass, when the people heard the sound of the trumpet, and the people shouted with a great shout, that the wall fell down flat,..." [That word Flat carries with it a lot of meanings as well but the idea is simple to understand. The wall was no longer standing but was laid "FLAT" on the ground.]
-Joshua 6:12

One thing about the Bible verses that is common knowledge is that the Bible is very descriptive when telling it's tales. No other Book or hieroglyphics or any writing what so ever is as telling in details as are the stories of the Bible. This is in fact part of the reason why the Bible is so popular in comparison to other ancient writings that do not fair too well and for the most part now exist only in oblivion. The accuracy and description is just a part of why this book, these writings are still with us today.

No other King in ancient History is as well documented as King David and other kings as well from the Bible. The stories of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and even Joseph are without equal in any writings of their times. You would think that we would know more about the Great and powerful Pharaoh's of ancient Egypt than we do about a shepherd boy chosen by God to be King, but we don't. And it is this explicit attention to detail that really sets the Bible apart from all other writings of the time.

If Isaiah wanted to convey the idea that the world is flat, there is a whole assortment of words to describe different kinds of "Flat" all throughout the Bible. But in the case of Isaiah (and other bible verses that describe the earth as circular) and the "Circle of the Earth" there is no such "Flatness" indicated. That would be really bizarre to say that the Bible is really, REALLY, descriptive everywhere else,except for this one tiny place where they forget to mention that the earth is flat???

They did not mention it because it was common revealed knowledge at the time to an enlightened people who had revealed knowledge by a Creator who guided their destiny from the very beginning, even from the time of Abram. But rest assured that if the revealed knowledge had been that the earth was a flat round pancake shaped world, that they would not have used the Words, "Circle of the Earth" Meaning an Equatorial Circle of the world and connotation of the idea of a SPHERE!
Last edited by Viceroy63 on Fri Feb 22, 2013 4:21 pm, edited 7 times in total.
Image
An Unproven Hypothesis; The Rise of Ignorance.
Ultimate Proof of Creation. Click the show tab below.
show
User avatar
Major Viceroy63
 
Posts: 1117
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 8:34 pm
Location: A little back water, hill billy hick place called Earth.

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby PLAYER57832 on Fri Feb 22, 2013 3:54 pm

Pseudonymity wrote:
Viceroy63 wrote:I do not believe that the earth is flat because three thousand years ago, before modern science came to be, True scientist had already wrote in the Holy Bible that the earth was in fact round like a circle.

"[It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth,..."
-Isaiah 40:22

[Note] Circle does not mean "Rings."

Thick clouds [are] a covering to him, that he seeth not; and he walketh in the circuit of heaven.
-Job 22:14


Don't know if anyone pointed this out yet, but a circle is flat. As far as I'm aware "sphere of the Earth" doesn't appear anywhere in the Bible, and if it does, it's in direct contradiction with Isaiah 40:22.

No, its not a contradiction, but Viceroy is indeed, incorrect. What you have is an unscientific and therefor scientifically inexact explanation. Some ancient people did know the world was round, but its not clear if the ancient Jews did. Whether they had such an esoteric idea or not is irrelevant, because the Bible is not intended as a scientific explanation of the Earth. It is a text of faith, the history of God and mankind's interactions, not the exact history of Earth.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby PLAYER57832 on Fri Feb 22, 2013 4:13 pm

Viceroy63 wrote: Caution:
The principles of the word "Circle" discuss in this comment may be too simplistic for some adults to follow. If you have a child in grade school it is recommended that the child read this comment along with you. Remember that if the child nods their head up and down, it means,"Yes!"

A Circle is not Flat sir. That is a contradiction in terms. You can draw a circle on a flat piece of paper but that only means that the paper is flat and not the full intended meaning of the word "Circle" or Circular. I have a very circular "Ass" for example. Does that also mean that my ass is also flat like a pancake???

I answered some of this in the post I just submitted.

You need to review your Geometry, because a circle, in math is indeed a 2 dimensional figure. A sphere, or "ball' is the term you seek for an object round all about.

This is part of why young Earthers such as yourself meet with disdain. You decide its perfectly OK to twist definitions when you wish, but claim that no one else can even take verified alternate definitions. For example, the whole bit of Genesis referring to a day in God's time, not humanities' pretty much does leave open a very long time period, enough for evolution to have occured... further, the fact that Genesis omits a good many species we know existed pretty much proves it was not intended as a full and complete catalogue of ALL creatures ever to have been on Earth, rather an explanation of how the creatures the ancient Jews knew about came to be.


Viceroy63 wrote:It is true that the word "Sphere" does not appear in the Bible (at least not in the King James version of the Bible) because the Bible was written in a simple time for a simple people using a simple language. We are the ones who interpret the word "Circle" as a flat dimensional drawing concept. But the Word Circle does encompass the connotation (idea) of a Sphere with it.

Uh.. no YOU feel that you have the right to "interpret" the Bible to fit your narrow vision of what you have been taught.. never mind that your vision ignores a good deal of reality and Biblical study.

The rest of us who are Christian merely read and then take science as something that inherently won't dispute the Bible, but will absolutely fill in or provide explanations for it.. when we let it and don't insist on holding the truth to some narrow pre-concieved notion.

See, that is the error of Dr Morris. He decided when he was young what "the Bible must be saying" and then decided to ignore any evidence to the contrary. He thus ignored, shut himself off from the real truth that is given in those words, he was too concerned with keeping his own private vision to see the real truth. That is arrogance, not God, or Christ and persisting in presenting it as "truth" to and by folks such as yourself is the highest form of blasphemy.

God does not require lies. God does not require twisting of his words. Denying truths that I have seen, that many here have seen for ourselves, is a lie. Conveniently claiming that there "is no evidence" because some idiot who managed to get a couple of letters to his or her name told you it was so is the hieight of not just idiocy, but arrogant heresy.

Viceroy63 wrote:In Isaiah 40:22, the Circle of the earth is more of a reference to the "Equator" of the earth (The Circular Center-line of the planet) and not that the earth is a flat Pancake! For if the image of a flat "Pancake" shape earth was their intended meaning then they had other words to describe Flat such as the word "Naphal."

"So the people shouted when [the priests] blew with the trumpets: and it came to pass, when the people heard the sound of the trumpet, and the people shouted with a great shout, that the wall fell down flat,..." [That word Flat carries with it a lot of meanings as well but the idea is simple to understand. The wall was no longer standing but was laid "FLAT" on the ground.]
-Joshua 6:12

And yet, you decide that this matches your view of the world and not ours? Funny, that.
Viceroy63 wrote:One thing about the Bible verses that is common knowledge is that the Bible is very descriptive when telling it's tales. No other Book or hieroglyphics or any writing what so ever is as telling in details as are the stories of the Bible. This is in fact part of the reason why the Bible is so popular in comparison to other ancient writings that do not fair to well and for the most part now exist only in oblivion. The accuracy and description is just a part of why this book, these writings are still with us today.
Actually, the Bible is a mixture of very clear explanations of the world the Jews knew well and much looser explanations of things not yet known by them or known perhaps only through loose influence of other cultures. Descriptions of certain landforms meet the first, descriptions of the origin of Earth, the wide Earth beyond the Middle East fall into the second category.

Viceroy63 wrote:No other King in ancient History is as well documented as King David and other kings as well from the Bible. The stories of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and even Joseph are without equal in any writings of their times. You would think that we would know more about the Great and powerful Pharaoh's of ancient Egypt then we do about a shepherd boy chosen by God to be King, but we don't. And it is this explicit attention to detail that really sets the Bible apart from all other writings of the time.

Actually, the Chinese were very, very good at recording details, as were some other groups.. but in some cases, such as the Maya, we have only recently been able to understand the writing. Our failure to accurately understand writing doesn' t mean it did not exist, though.

Again, when you make such statements, you really just show your lack of knowledge... not a good place when you are trying to convince people to think as you do.
Viceroy63 wrote:If Isaiah wanted to convey the idea that the world is flat, there is a whole assortment of words to describe different kinds of "Flat" all throughout the Bible. But in the case of Isaiah (and other bible verses that describe the earth as circular) and the "Circle of the Earth" there is no such "Flatness" indicated. That would be really bizarre to say that the Bible is really, REALLY, descriptive everywhere else,except for this one tiny place where they forget to mention that the earth is flat???

They did not mention it because it was common revealed knowledge at the time to an enlightened people who had revealed knowledge by a Creator who guided their destiny from the very beginning, even from the time of Abram. But rest assured that if the revealed knowledge had been that the earth was a flat round pancake shaped world, that they would not have used the Words, "Circle of the Earth" Meaning an Equatorial Circle and connotation of the idea of a SPHERE!

Yep, knew you would try this... again. You add in your personal.. or the personal thoughts of someone who has taught you, and then pretend that this is some kind of "verified fact". In reality, the straightforward explanation is really best.. just that the idea of the Earth being a sphere was pretty much beyond the thinking of the average, even most scholarly Jews and not really something terribly pertinent to the interaction of God and mankind, so not delved into in that much detail.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby crispybits on Fri Feb 22, 2013 4:22 pm

Except for the small fact Viceroy, that the Hebrews had a word meaning flat circle (chuwg) and a word meaning sphere or ball (duwr). In Isaiah 40:22 the word used is the word for a flat circle. By contrast, (allegedly) the same author uses the word for sphere in Isaiah 22:18:

18 He will roll you up tightly like a ball and throw you into a large country. There you will die and there the chariots you were so proud of will become a disgrace to your master’s house.

If the authour had meant that the Earth was spherical or ball shaped, there is proof right there that he had the word to do so. He didn't. He specified a flat circle.

Calling ancient hebrew a "simple" language and implying it was without the conceptual word for a 3D sphere is stretching even your credibility. I'm starting to wonder if you've actually bothered to do any actual bible study at all?

Edit - actually "starting to wonder" might be an ever so slight exaggeration - I think it's been pretty obvious for some time now
User avatar
Major crispybits
 
Posts: 942
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby Frigidus on Fri Feb 22, 2013 5:50 pm

crispybits wrote:Except for the small fact Viceroy, that the Hebrews had a word meaning flat circle (chuwg) and a word meaning sphere or ball (duwr). In Isaiah 40:22 the word used is the word for a flat circle. By contrast, (allegedly) the same author uses the word for sphere in Isaiah 22:18:

18 He will roll you up tightly like a ball and throw you into a large country. There you will die and there the chariots you were so proud of will become a disgrace to your master’s house.

If the authour had meant that the Earth was spherical or ball shaped, there is proof right there that he had the word to do so. He didn't. He specified a flat circle.

Calling ancient hebrew a "simple" language and implying it was without the conceptual word for a 3D sphere is stretching even your credibility. I'm starting to wonder if you've actually bothered to do any actual bible study at all?

Edit - actually "starting to wonder" might be an ever so slight exaggeration - I think it's been pretty obvious for some time now


Don't worry, he has a feature length movie you can watch that will explain that one.
User avatar
Sergeant Frigidus
 
Posts: 1638
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 1:15 pm
Location: Illinois, USA

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Postby tzor on Fri Feb 22, 2013 10:20 pm

Viceroy63 wrote:The principles of the word "Circle" discuss in this comment may be too simplistic for some adults to follow. If you have a small child in grade school it is recommended that the child read this comment along with you. Remember that if the child nods their head up and down, it means,"Yes!"

A Circle is not Flat sir.


:shock: You fail at so many things; why am I not surprised that you fail in geometry? A "circle" is by definition a two dimensional object.

A circle is a simple shape of Euclidean geometry that is the set of all points in a plane that are a given distance from a given point, the centre. The distance between any of the points and the centre is called the radius. It can also be defined as the locus of a point equidistant from a fixed point.


And a plane is, also by definition, flat.

Of course that doesn't prove that they believed in a "flat" earth; they believed in a slightly domed earth with the dry land at the center being, naturally, higher.
Image
User avatar
Cadet tzor
 
Posts: 4076
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:43 pm
Location: Long Island, NY, USA

PreviousNext

Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users