Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives Forums General Common Interests Creationism vs Evolution

Dave Andrews.. Your links are extremely interesting. Everyone, whether lay person or scientist in the modern creationist camp agrees that the earth is not flat. We have evidence (that is not in dispute by either creationist, or evolutionis) pointing to a round earth. thinking 2 dimensionally the arguement could be made that the earth need be flat in order for an up and down. But with the thrid dimension, up can still exist even with a round earth! This person you are linking to is one of the reasons creationists aren't taken seriously. Likewise there are people on "your" side that use silly arguements for evolution that have been discarded years ago, or never even beleived in the first place..

take vestigal organs.. over 100 at the beginning of the century.. now.. not a one...
ohwell... Both sides of this debate suffer seriously from bad publicity by folks such as this flat earther. We should all be able to agree to this!

The measure.. baseline if you will, for all of our thinking is the bible. Four corners.. ask anyone looking at a map.. NESW... four corners. not 90 degree, square, cast in stone corners. Nowhere in the test is that implied..
However, this is not to say that the text is not to be read in a straightforward manor... genesis starts with

bere'shi-th in the beginning
beginning of universe, and for humans that live inside a time frame, a general start to everything.

Another thing I wanted to add was to those that say millions of years fits with the bible, and that you can have long days... if you read an interlineary bible, it will help dispel those myths.. In hebrew, you can't have the word day, followed by a number,(and a saying) evening and morning, and have that mean an indefinate time. These ?adjectives? that modify the ?noun? time give it a specific meaning.
someone earlier said that day could mean a million things.. as in
in my fathers day, it took three days, travelling during the day, to get to florida from here.
however, when you apply the grammar laws, your idea falls apart.. you can't say that

in my father's day(vague time.. perhaps era), it took 3 days (twentyfour hour days) travelling during the day(light) portion of a day ...

If grammar rules and context applied, and the word day was to mean 24 hour literal, then the above sentence falls apart. It just doesn't make any sense.. you can't use the word day interchangably when it has a specific set of rules it needs to follow in context, and grammar. That is not to say that outside of a given context, and grammar law, you couldn't use the word differently.
Hope this is clear..