Difference between "atheistic evolution" and "christian evolution?"

[Montalban]

-Montalban

I told you. It’s not that we don’t know its function, We know that it has no positive function for us.

Any of these will do…
So what?
Does it have a negative function?
We know it has not function does’t equat to saying it has no function.

And why are you now Vmaalouf and not Hubris? Do you channel Hubris?

Vmaalouf:

-Montalban
Okay, that just brings up another question. How do you or anyone know that the bible was inspired by god? Because the people who wrote and/or put the book together said so?

No, that’s circular logic

Montalban:

Secondly, cite the verses that says that the earth is at the centre of the universe.

Vmaalouf:

-Montalban

I did not say it specifically said the Earth was the center, but it seems like its intention.

You, or Hubris said…

-Montalban

Well, in order to think that, you’d have to believe the Bible is wrong and was just written by humans. The genesis story paints the Earth being at the center of the universe

Which is to say that it does. Not only can you not stick to a position, you can’t stick to which ID it is you want to debate with. Whom am I speaking to now? Will the real debater please step forward.

Vmaalouf:

It states Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth.” It starts off with the Earth coming first.

No it doesn’t. It has the heavens mentioned before the earth. How does this equate to the earth being at the centre of the universe, which you both want to say (as Hubris) and not as Vmaalouf

Vmaalouf:

Wouldn’t you think that if the bible was really inspired, it could at least get some little things like that right? I mean if it was truly inspired?

That’s assuming that it hasn’t got it right

Vmaalouf:

Here’s the important part. When he talks about the creation of a dome, its purpose is to separate the water on the earth, from the water in the sky, above the dome. The water in the sky above the dome was meant to explain rain.

More assumptions?

Vmaalouf:

Now, it then says, Gen 1:14 “Let there be lights in the dome of the sky, to separate day from night.” It says in the dome, Meaning that the sun would have to be much smaller than the earth to fit,

Depends about the size of ‘the dome’

Vmaalouf:

and would have to revolve around the earth.

So now you’re back to the position that it is at the centre!

When you sort out your position, get back to me. Either of you.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Hubriss

Yes, wishful thinking, but hey, most of what we don’t understand is.

But why do you wish there to be a cyclic universe? Because you hope there is no God? Why would you hope for that?

This is the fundamental dilemma of atheism. It carps about Christian wishful thinking, then seems to fight for all its worth to prove that God does not exist? Why would atheism do that unless it hopes God does not exist? And why would the atheist hope that God does not exist?

Good question! Only the atheist can answer it by looking into his own dark matter.

The Big Bang was not discovered by Einstein. It was discovered in seminal form by George LeMaitre, a Catholic priest who had no reason to oppose the idea of a universe with a start in time. Einstein **did **oppose the idea of such a universe and believed the universe was infinite and eternal. He later conceded that this was the biggest mistake of his career … not seeing that his own math should have led him to the point that it led LeMaitre when he studied Einstein’s relativity math … to see that there was indeed a moment far back in time when the universe began.

That discovery of a Catholic mathematician (echoing the account of creation in Genesis) is by far more stunning than your counter-assertion than the Bible mistakenly calculates the age of the universe. Likewise, “Let there be light” in Genesis is far more stunning a revelation, considering how old it is, than the very recent discovery by astronomers that the early universe was flooded with light.

Just a shot in the dark? Or God’s own truth told to remind scientists that they are playing catch-up with the theologians?

 

[ribozyme]

Gilbert Keith:

A single creation event is consistent with what Christians have always believed, even though the scientific evidence didn’t arrive until the 20th century. The author of Genesis was 30 centuries ahead of the astronomers.

There is now no evidence whatever that the universe is infinite and eternal, as some atheist scientists used to believe before the Big Bang was discovered. Almost all of the resistance to the Big Bang theory came from atheists. Want to guess why?

Well, the author(s) didn’t get the details about biological evolution correct.

Regarding the atheistic opposition of the Big Bang, I would say that it is mostly young-Earth creationists who are opposed to it now. Do a quick look on answersingenesis.org or creationontheweb.com if you do not believe me.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

ribozyme

Well, the author(s) [of Genesis] didn’t get the details about biological evolution correct.

They got it close enough. They got life starting in the sea. They got it moving to the land and the air. They got man saved for last. They even got the Big Bang thrown in. Pretty good for three thousand years ago … long before modern science was able to say as much.

But did Darwin also get it entirely correct about evolution? I don’t hear you repudiating Darwin because his theory needed some fine tuning.

Or do you swallow Darwin hook, line, and sinker?

 

[Nullasalus]

But did Darwin also get it entirely correct about evolution? I don’t hear you repudiating Darwin because his theory needed some fine tuning.

Or do you swallow Darwin hook, line, and sinker?

One thing about Darwin - I’ve heard this recently, but I’m not sure it’s certain.

Didn’t he believe that the world (earth) was infinitely old? He realized that the amount of time needed to grow the tree of life was considerable, and apparently the concept of an eternal earth/universe was popular at the time.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

nullasalus

*Didn’t he believe that the world (earth) was infinitely old? *

Most likely. Among so-called intellectual types, especially in France, Germany, and England, Atheism had pretty well set in throughout the late 18th and 19th centuries. We know that Einstein inherited this tradition of an “eternal universe” and defended it when the Jesuit mathematician LeMaitre calculated that the universe had to have a start. Fred Hoyle also was a static universe advocate and held out for that much longer than Einstein did. Scientific prejudices that favor atheism die hard. The “cyclic universe” theory was another last gasp for scientific atheism … but that too has been discredited. The scientific facts point to a Creation moment consistent more or less with Genesis.

 

[ribozyme]

ribozyme

Well, the author(s) [of Genesis] didn’t get the details about biological evolution correct.

They got it close enough. They got life starting in the sea. They got it moving to the land and the air. They got man saved for last. They even got the Big Bang thrown in. Pretty good for three thousand years ago … long before modern science was able to say as much.

But did Darwin also get it entirely correct about evolution? I don’t hear you repudiating Darwin because his theory needed some fine tuning.

Or do you swallow Darwin hook, line, and sinker?

Nope, unlike the Bible, Darwin is not omniscient, nor does he claim he is infallible, or divinely inspired. So Darwin did not get it correct about evolution; he based his theory on his observations. Well, we have a much lower standard for proclaimations that are not divinely inspired; we do not expect them to be perfect.

 

[Hubriss]

I accidently posted in Vmaalouf because that’s my dad’s account and it was automatically logged on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vmaalouf

-Montalban
Okay, that just brings up another question. How do you or anyone know that the bible was inspired by god? Because the people who wrote and/or put the book together said so?

No, that’s circular logic

You know, you just made my day!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hubris
-Montalban

Well, in order to think that, you’d have to believe the Bible is wrong and was just written by humans. The genesis story paints the Earth being at the center of the universe

-Me

Which is to say that it does. Not only can you not stick to a position, you can’t stick to which ID it is you want to debate with. Whom am I speaking to now? Will the real debater please step forward.

-Montalban

There is a difference between the bible saying flat out, “the Earth is at the center of the universe,” and it vaguely and confusingly describing the universe. And don’t act stupid. I said Vmaalouf was me, Hubriss, it was just an accident I posted under another name.

No it doesn’t. It has the heavens mentioned before the earth. How does this equate to the earth being at the centre of the universe, which you both want to say (as Hubris) and not as Vmaalouf

Okay, but don’t confuse heavens with stars and other entities in space. Heavens does not refer to the sun, stars, or planets, as they are mentioned to be created later. And if you read the first chapter, it never after that first sentence, in any step mentions when the physical ground of the Earth was made. It says, “when God created the heavens and the Earth,” in the first sentence, and that’s it. When it says heavens there, it could be referring to space, but it most likely refers to Heaven, the place people can go after they die.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vmaalouf
Wouldn’t you think that if the bible was really inspired, it could at least get some little things like that right? I mean if it was truly inspired?

That’s assuming that it hasn’t got it right

Not an assumption. We know it hadn’t gotten many things right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vmaalouf
Here’s the important part. When he talks about the creation of a dome, its purpose is to separate the water on the earth, from the water in the sky, above the dome. The water in the sky above the dome was meant to explain rain.

More assumptions?

No, that’s what I learned at St. Augustine High School in religion class.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vmaalouf
Now, it then says, Gen 1:14 “Let there be lights in the dome of the sky, to separate day from night.” It says in the dome, Meaning that the sun would have to be much smaller than the earth to fit,

-Me

Depends about the size of ‘the dome’

-Montalban

Well, since they thought the Earth was flat back then, the dome would have to encompass the ground or the atmosphere would escape, and would not be big enough to hold the sun in it. But if you assume the writer was ‘inspired’ to know the Earth is round, the dome could be larger, but the sun would still have to revolve around the earth since the earth would be at the center of the dome, and the sun inside the edges. Just picture it in your head.

But having explain this stuff to you is rediculous.

So now you’re back to the position that it is at the centre!

When you sort out your position, get back to me. Either of you.

-Montalban

I don’t think the sun revolves around the earth, and I don’t think the bible is right.

 

[Hubriss]

But why do you wish there to be a cyclic universe? Because you hope there is no God? Why would you hope for that?

-Gilbert Keith

I just don’t think we should be basing our lives on fairy tales just because we are afraid. I just wish people were smarter, religious and non-religious alike.

[qoute]That discovery of a Catholic mathematician (echoing the account of creation in Genesis) is by far more stunning than your counter-assertion than the Bible mistakenly calculates the age of the universe. Likewise, “Let there be light” in Genesis is far more stunning a revelation, considering how old it is, than the very recent discovery by astronomers that the early universe was flooded with light.

Just a shot in the dark? Or God’s own truth told to remind scientists that they are playing catch-up with the theologians?-Gilbert

Wow. Sometimes you guys are just flippin unbelievable.

They got it close enough. They got life starting in the sea.

-Gilbert

They sure as hell didn’t. The first life that was described was the vegitation on the earth. Guess God didn’t know plants were living things. And also, it said, “let there be light” after the earth already existed.

But did Darwin also get it entirely correct about evolution? I don’t hear you repudiating Darwin because his theory needed some fine tuning.

Or do you swallow Darwin hook, line, and sinker?

-Gilbert Keith

He got it a lot closer than your bible man did. And if you say the bible is close enough, then Darwin must have been nearly perfect. And besides, Darwin didn’t claim his theories to be absolute truth.

Didn’t he believe that the world (earth) was infinitely old? He realized that the amount of time needed to grow the tree of life was considerable, and apparently the concept of an eternal earth/universe was popular at the time.

-Nullasalus

No. At the time, most scientists thought the Earth (or universe can’t remember which) was about 100 million years old. Darwin realized that this was definitely not long enough time for evolution to produce such complex beings as us, so he thought the Earth was much older, but not infinitely old. And, it turned out he was right, as we now thing the Earth is about 4.5 Billion years old.

Nope, unlike the Bible, Darwin is not omniscient, nor does he claim he is infallible, or divinely inspired. So Darwin did not get it correct about evolution; he based his theory on his observations. Well, we have a much lower standard for proclaimations that are not divinely inspired; we do not expect them to be perfect.

-Ribozyme

Exaclty. Why would a perfect god give us such crappy information?

 

[Whiggamore]

Theistic evolution is a farce; it is neither theism nor evolution. It is classic Protestantism. Yeah, it’s that ridiculous.

Evolution is an secular interpretation of science; creation is a Biblical interpretation of science. Both are valid at this time because they can account for all the scientific evidence we have available. Neither can be proven wrong through science at this time, therefore the debate must become that of other fields and arts. It is here where my faith is present and it is here where my faith says that evolution is invalid, that it is inadequate, that it is incompatible with the Truth.

Theistic evolution on the other hand, is all of that, and more. It is a poor attempt at be accepted by the ‘world’ while pretending to live for the Kingdom; it is a poor attempt at reconciling two irreconcilable ideas.

Next person to mention it gets it from this somewhat well-read kid. Got it?

 

[Whiggamore]

And I’d like to add: Darwin did make a valid contribution to science. The concept of natural selection has been observed and is an essential part of the creation theory of our beginnings.

 

[Montalban]

Hubris:

-Montalban
Okay, that just brings up another question. How do you or anyone know that the bible was inspired by god? Because the people who wrote and/or put the book together said so?

Montalban:

No, that’s circular logic

Hubris:

You know, you just made my day!

Why by denying that I believe the Bible because the Bible tells me to believe the Bible? I think that’s the problem with a lot of your argument; you’ve already made assumptions about what I believe, or should believe and are debating that, rather than what I believe. It’s in fact a mass straw-man you’ve created.

-Montalban
Well, in order to think that, you’d have to believe the Bible is wrong and was just written by humans. The genesis story paints the Earth being at the centre of the universe

-Me

Montalban:

Which is to say that it does. Not only can you not stick to a position, you can’t stick to which ID it is you want to debate with. Whom am I speaking to now? Will the real debater please step forward.

-Montalban

There is a difference between the bible saying flat out, “the Earth is at the centre of the universe,” and it vaguely and confusingly describing the universe.

I agree that there’s a difference. Problem for you though is you’ve claimed the Bible does both. You said it does, then it doesn’t, then it does, then there’s a difference between the two!
Wow! Things only get weirder…
Hubris:

And don’t act stupid. I said Vmaalouf was me, Hubriss, it was just an accident I posted under another name.

Are you even aware of what you’re angry about? You ‘just said it’ now, not before I made those comments. I can’t see into the future see you make a claim you’re both posted under Hubris and Vmaalouf.

Montalban:

No it doesn’t. It has the heavens mentioned before the earth. How does this equate to the earth being at the centre of the universe, which you both want to say (as Hubris) and not as Vmaalouf

Hubris:

Okay, but don’t confuse heavens with stars and other entities in space. Heavens does not refer to the sun, stars, or planets, as they are mentioned to be created later.

The stars aren’t the only things that make up ‘the heavens’. There’s that big empty space that they exist in called ‘space’.
Hubris:

And if you read the first chapter, it never after that first sentence, in any step mentions when the physical ground of the Earth was made. It says, “when God created the heavens and the Earth,” in the first sentence, and that’s it. When it says heavens there, it could be referring to space, but it most likely refers to Heaven, the place people can go after they die.

So what? I’ve already refuted your claim about the earth being the centre.
Hubris:

Originally Posted by Vmaalouf
Wouldn’t you think that if the bible was really inspired, it could at least get some little things like that right? I mean if it was truly inspired?

Montalban:

That’s assuming that it hasn’t got it right

Hubris:

Not an assumption. We know it hadn’t gotten many things right.

You’ve yet to show one. You’ve claimed something about the earth being the centre, then saying it doesn’t say that, then it does, then it … who knows what your claim is now.
Hubris:

Originally Posted by Vmaalouf
Here’s the important part. When he talks about the creation of a dome, its purpose is to separate the water on the earth, from the water in the sky, above the dome. The water in the sky above the dome was meant to explain rain.

Montalban:

More assumptions?

Hubris:

No, that’s what I learned at St. Augustine High School in religion class.

Great for you, you’re asking me to defend against your account of what someone else may have said; which you’ve been rather vague about anyway.

 

[Montalban]

Hubris:

Originally Posted by Vmaalouf
Now, it then says, Gen 1:14 “Let there be lights in the dome of the sky, to separate day from night.” It says in the dome, Meaning that the sun would have to be much smaller than the earth to fit,

-Me

Montalban:

Depends about the size of ‘the dome’

-Montalban

Well, since they thought the Earth was flat back then,

You’ve decided again to insert what you think ‘they’ believed again, and argue against that.
Hubris:

the dome would have to encompass the ground or the atmosphere would escape, and would not be big enough to hold the sun in it. But if you assume the writer was ‘inspired’ to know the Earth is round, the dome could be larger, but the sun would still have to revolve around the earth since the earth would be at the centre of the dome, and the sun inside the edges. Just picture it in your head.

There’s so many faults with your argument.
KJV doesn’t say dome.
Even if it did as you look up into the sky that’s what you see. The language is still used today ‘sunset’, ‘sunrise’. Even though we know what the sun does we describe it as ‘sunset’. Are we ‘wrong’ for describing it falsely - does that mean we think the world is flat? Obvious to you, we must. We must know nothing about the world and the sun because we use these words to describe it
Let’s follow “Hubris logic” (needing a very liberal interpretation of ‘logic’)
NASA says…
“This perspective provides a unique view of the earth from sunrise to sunset,”
earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/MediaAlerts/2000/200003081676.html

They use the term ‘sunset’. We know the sun doesn’t actually set. Therefore NASA must think that the earth is flat. Because they use terminology to describe something that we just know is false, they must be against the earth being round.
Hubris:

But having explain this stuff to you is rediculous.(sic)

Try a spell checker to make sure your criticisms don’t become examples of ironic humour. And, if you can cease with the straw-man, that would really be spiffy.

Montalban:

So now you’re back to the position that it is at the centre!

When you sort out your position, get back to me. Either of you.

Hubris:

-Montalban

I don’t think the sun revolves around the earth, and I don’t think the bible is right.

I can accept you don’t, but that’s different from saying “The Bible is wrong” which was your argument before, so your statement here is unrelated to your argument, but I guess just a piece of “FYI”?

 

[Montalban]

Evolution is an secular interpretation of science; creation is a Biblical interpretation of science.

No. Darwinistic evolution is driven by the philosophy (world-view) of materialism. Other than that I agree, except this small explosion of ego…

Next person to mention it gets it from this somewhat well-read kid. Got it?

Ever so humble

 

[Orogeny]

Theistic evolution is a farce; it is neither theism nor evolution. It is classic Protestantism. Yeah, it’s that ridiculous.

I consider myself a theistic evolutionist. I believe God created everything and evolution is one of the mechanism He uses. And I am in no way a protestant.

Evolution is an secular interpretation of science; creation is a Biblical interpretation of science.

Nope. Creation is an interpretation of scripture, not science. There is no science to support that viewpoint.

Both are valid at this time because they can account for all the scientific evidence we have available. Neither can be proven wrong through science at this time, therefore the debate must become that of other fields and arts.

Where, in your well-read education, did you read that evolution cannot be proven false?

It is here where my faith is present and it is here where my faith says that evolution is invalid, that it is inadequate, that it is incompatible with the Truth.

If evolution is valid as you say, then how can you say it is invalid in the same paragraph?

Peace

Tim

 

[Montalban]

I consider myself a theistic evolutionist. I believe God created everything and evolution is one of the mechanism He uses.

You are of course welcome to believe whatever you wish but evolution, that theory that is taught in schools, is taught devoid of God’s (name removed by moderator)ut.

All aspects of it are accounted for in naturalistic ways.

There’s not one process that involves God - according to them.

 

[Orogeny]

You are of course welcome to believe whatever you wish but evolution, that theory that is taught in schools, is taught devoid of God’s (name removed by moderator)ut.

So is gravity.

All aspects of it are accounted for in naturalistic ways.

There’s not one process that involves God - according to them.

What part of gravity (or any other scientific theory) is not accounted for in naturalistic ways? Is the problem here with evolution or all science?

Peace

Tim

 

[ribozyme]

ribozyme

Well, the author(s) [of Genesis] didn’t get the details about biological evolution correct.

They got it close enough. They got life starting in the sea. They got it moving to the land and the air. They got man saved for last. They even got the Big Bang thrown in. Pretty good for three thousand years ago … long before modern science was able to say as much.

But did Darwin also get it entirely correct about evolution? I don’t hear you repudiating Darwin because his theory needed some fine tuning.

Or do you swallow Darwin hook, line, and sinker?

I forgot to read my Bible . So I initially took your word for it.

10And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

** 11And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

12And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.**

13And the evening and the morning were the third day.

14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

19And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

**20And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. **
22And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth

biblegateway.com/passage/?search=GEN%201;&version=9;

Nope, you are wrong, the Bible states that life on the land occured first, but I always thought flora is life. Oh well, angiosperms (flowering plants that bear a fruit) came to existence about 130 million years ago, but life started about 3.8-3.5 billion years in the ocean. So plants came first, and then the animals of the sea.

Or do I have some egregious difficulity with my reading comprehension?

 

[Hubriss]

Theistic evolution is a farce; it is neither theism nor evolution. It is classic Protestantism. Yeah, it’s that ridiculous.

Evolution is an secular interpretation of science; creation is a Biblical interpretation of science. Both are valid at this time because they can account for all the scientific evidence we have available. Neither can be proven wrong through science at this time, therefore the debate must become that of other fields and arts. It is here where my faith is present and it is here where my faith says that evolution is invalid, that it is inadequate, that it is incompatible with the Truth.

Theistic evolution on the other hand, is all of that, and more. It is a poor attempt at be accepted by the ‘world’ while pretending to live for the Kingdom; it is a poor attempt at reconciling two irreconcilable ideas.

-Whiggamore

Yeah, I agree with your comments on theistic evolution. But when you say that biblical creation can account for all the scientific evidense? I don’t think so, very few do. It’s only a couple pages long. How does it account for the evidense that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old? How about how the earth really isn’t actually at the center of the solar system/universe? What about all the evidense for evolution and genetic mutations? Do you just ignore them because it doesn’t fit your “truth?”

And I’d like to add: Darwin did make a valid contribution to science. The concept of natural selection has been observed and is an essential part of the creation theory of our beginnings.

-whiggamore

Whoa whoa what? Natural selection doesn’t have anything to do with the creationism. Creationism does in no way point to all the other species of animals that have lived on the Earth but are now extinct. Do you mean that the human right of dominance over the Earth is justified by natural selection? That’s a stretch.

Why by denying that I believe the Bible because the Bible tells me to believe the Bible? I think that’s the problem with a lot of your argument; you’ve already made assumptions about what I believe, or should believe and are debating that, rather than what I believe. It’s in fact a mass straw-man you’ve created.

-Montalban

Okay. But you still havn’t told me why you believe the Bible. Do you not know? It’s not a straw man. Prove me otherwise. And if you say it just makes sense, then that’s just an opinion or emotion, not based on anything with substance. So tell me, why do you believe the bible?

I agree that there’s a difference. Problem for you though is you’ve claimed the Bible does both. You said it does, then it doesn’t, then it does, then there’s a difference between the two!
Wow! Things only get weirder…

-Montalban

I’d really like to call you a name right now. Stop trying to misunderstand. And damn, talk about straw man.

Great for you, you’re asking me to defend against your account of what someone else may have said; which you’ve been rather vague about anyway.

You’ve decided again to insert what you think ‘they’ believed again, and argue against that.

-Montalban

Well if you insist on saying that I am making assumptions, why the hell don’t you correct me?

Try a spell checker to make sure your criticisms don’t become examples of ironic humour. And, if you can cease with the straw-man, that would really be spiffy.

I’d think that right there is more ironic than my little spelling error. Talk about ironic. And straw men. What’s it called when you divert attention from the real issue? Diversion?

No. Darwinistic evolution is driven by the philosophy (world-view) of materialism. Other than that I agree, except this small explosion of ego…

Haha. More assumptions? At least mine have some fact behind them. Darwinism driven by materialism? Where’d you get that from?

 

[Hubriss]

There’s so many faults with your argument.
KJV doesn’t say dome.
Even if it did as you look up into the sky that’s what you see. The language is still used today ‘sunset’, ‘sunrise’. Even though we know what the sun does we describe it as ‘sunset’. Are we ‘wrong’ for describing it falsely - does that mean we think the world is flat? Obvious to you, we must. We must know nothing about the world and the sun because we use these words to describe it
Let’s follow “Hubris logic” (needing a very liberal interpretation of ‘logic’)
NASA says…
“This perspective provides a unique view of the earth from sunrise to sunset,”
earthobservatory.nasa.gov/New…003081676.html

They use the term ‘sunset’. We know the sun doesn’t actually set. Therefore NASA must think that the earth is flat. Because they use terminology to describe something that we just know is false, they must be against the earth being round.

-Montalban

1st. What’s KJV? The Bible says “dome.”

2nd. What faults within my argument? I’m describing the Bible’s account of creation. If im so faulty, why not correct me?

3rd. Everyone thought the world was flat back then, except for maybe some native americans. But the Jews didn’t believe it was round, nor did any christians until past the tenth century.

4th. Who cares what terminology we use? According to our view the sun can “set” or “rise” if the earth is flat or not. If the terminology in the creation story is just metaphorical or can be interpreted in different ways, then why take it seriously? It doesn’t take it seriously if it just leaves it open to interpretation.

We must know nothing about the world and the sun because we use these words to describe it

-Montalban

The purpose of the bible and religion is not to just describe our world. It is supposed to hold the “truth,” as it is supposedly given to us by an omniscient being.

And ribozyme. Way to bust it out and lay it on em.