[BrotherLarry]

Having just enrolled in Dr. White's "Flat Earth Science" course that begins in January, I can vouch for his knowledge of this topic. When I called Landover University to get the downloads that are required for the course I was reminded to start downloading them early in December because they take several days to transfer from a JesOS format to my inferior Windows format. The librarian said there is so much detail that if it was purchased as a textbook, the cost would be in the thousands of dollars.


Doubters - that should tell you something.


Brother Dr. Elmer, I am just on pins and needles to begin my doctoral studies in one of your courses. I am also in Brother Whittendorfer's Overview of Baraminology class. Do I have to sign up for the lab for that class or is it optional? The catalog wasn't clear.


PRAISE JESUS ALWAYS!
BrotherLarry

[Average Joe]

[Mary Etheldreda]

^^^ Wow, what a remarkably articulate and well thought out argument. I'm changing my mind right away thanks to the power of your logical persuasion!

[Boringmoon]

You, i, just, i just cant every true person on this site needs to fall of the face of the round earth

Originally Posted by Brother Alex

I have noticed several debates on this particular subject here. To all you godless atheists out there, let's settle this once and for all...

In the modern world it has become a widely spread lie that the earth is round. Of course, this is impossible. If the earth is round, then why don't people just fall off at the bottom?

The answer is simple: The Earth is not round!

Now, if we take a look at some scripture, it clearly tells us the earth is not round but flat:

Jeremiah 16:19:
O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ends of the earth, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit.

According to Jeremiah 16:19, the earth has ends. There is no way a spherical earth could have ends, and therefore the earth must be flat. The Book of Revelation tells a similar story:

Revelation 7:1:
And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.

A spherical earth cannot have corners, it is scientifically impossible. The only logical explanation is that the earth is flat. Checkmate atheists!

Isaiah 40:22:
It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

What Isaiah actually describes here is as follows (note: this is a link to a video where a True Christian Scientist™ debunks a false Christian interpretation of this passage):



The following image is taken from a creation science book. According to real scientists, this is how the universe really looks like:



Here we see how the planets, the sun and the moon revolve around the flat earth:



Now, if you still don't believe these scientific facts, here are some real photographs taken at the ends of the earth:









As you can see, this is a solid proof the Earth is flat. Why else would it have edges like these? ...because the earth is flat! That's why.

YIC,
Alex

[Mistral]

Originally Posted by Brother Alex

I have no idea what you're talking about. Gravity has never been scientifically proved and hence still remains a theory. If you want to learn more about gravity then click here.

Nothing can be proven to 100% but there is a substantial amount of evidence to support the theory of gravity which also stays with all known laws of physics and supports them

[Dr Laurence Niles]

Originally Posted by Mistral

Nothing can be proven to 100% but there is a substantial amount of evidence to support the theory of gravity which also stays with all known laws of physics and supports them

Incorrect.

The Bible(KIV1611) is 100% proof of God.

Psalm 12:6-7 "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever

Jesus wins again!

YIC

[MitzaLizalor]

Originally Posted by Mistral

the theory of gravity which also stays with all known laws of physics and supports them

Then could you explain how the theory of gravity supports quantum indeterminacy. I was reading about that yesterday and it seemed rather fuzzy. However I should point out here that the theory of gravity would cause the world to roll up like an autumn leaf in which case how could Jesus see all the kingdoms of the world from a mountaintop?

He could not.

Or perhaps you're suggesting that we ourselves inhabit the amazing shrinking dimensions where everything is getting smaller but remaining the same distances apart so that the numbers of footsteps betwixt appear as increasing? When really it's the feet diminishing? Once these scientists get going anything's possible!

[Harambe Christ]

Mistral: Nothing can be proven to 100% but there is a substantial amount of evidence to support the theory of gravity which also stays with all known laws of physics and supports them

Originally Posted by Dr Laurence Niles

Incorrect.
The Bible(KIV1611) is 100% proof of God.
Psalm 12:6-7 "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever
Jesus wins again!
YIC

The Bible is not "100% proof" of God.
Alternative hypothetis to God's existence: the Bible started as a lawbook that used God as a pretext to it's laws, but then it evolved into a religious book due to it's massive popularity.
Hence, whether you are Christian, a Muslim, etc. or an agnostic atheist, you have to accept the fact that the Bible isn't a proof that God exists. That is why we talk of "faith" not "acceptance".


P.S. In case you are so uneducated that you don't understand the word "hypothesis" and what it implies in this context: hypotheses are "propositions" they aren't affirmations. The smallest probability this hypothesis must have for being true is infinitesimally small, but it's already enough to say that the Bible isn't 100% proof of God's exitence.
Also English is not my native language so "Your a hipocrite becos your also uneduceted becos yoo dont know haw to spoken english." will not be taken as an argument in any shape or form.

[Thomas Taylor]

Originally Posted by Harambe Christ

Also English is not my native language so "Your a hipocrite becos your also uneduceted becos yoo dont know haw to spoken english." will not be taken as an argument in any shape or form.

Anyway Abdul, your opinion is not appreciated. The Holy Bible (KJV 1611) is in actual fact 100% TRUE. This is a fact and not as you, in your misguided Jihadist way believe, a fallacy:


Proverbs 8:7


“For my mouth shall speake truth, and wickednesse is an abomination to my lippes.”



These are God's Actual Words. Not the ramblings of some moon worshipping drug addict.


So. If God says the earth is flat it is in fact, yes you guessed it, FLAT.
This is based on the proof obtained in the Holy Bible (KJV 1611) that God does not Lie.


God wins again.

[Mary Etheldreda]

Originally Posted by Harambe Christ

Alternative hypothetis to God's existence: the Bible started as a lawbook that used God as a pretext to it's laws, but then it evolved into a religious book due to it's massive popularity.

Nonsense. No law would include poison to determine if the unborn baby in a woman's womb is the result of a lawful marriage or a skanky, sleazy, whore-a-thon unless they know the LORD is watchful of all and has His Divine Hand on the outcome of the case (Numbers 5:11-31). These solutions are simply not logical, or reasonable outside the reality of a Divine Judge who will reveal the Truth in an Apprentice® worthy showdown in front of a live audience. Adulteress, you're FIRED!

[Didymus Much]

Originally Posted by Harambe Christ

...the Bible started as a lawbook that used God as a pretext to it's laws, but then it evolved into a religious book...

Why don't you go learn where the Bible actually came from, and why it has its present form? It's a fascinating story.

[Brother Gonzalez]

Originally Posted by Mary Etheldreda

These solutions are simply not logical, or reasonable outside the reality of a Divine Judge who will reveal the Truth in an Apprentice® worthy showdown in front of a live audience. Adulteress, you're FIRED!

Apprentice® with the old host. Not the new one, really?

[Harambe Christ]

Originally Posted by Didymus Much

Why don't you go learn where the Bible actually came from, and why it has its present form? It's a fascinating story.

.

Yeah, thanks, sane person.
Though it was not needed to justify the "fact" that the Bible isn't 100% of God's existence.
This "fact" only turns out to be false if this universe is still in the making, everywhere, and all we perceive is being controlled by God.

[Harambe Christ]

Originally Posted by Didymus Much

Why don't you go learn where the Bible actually came from, and why it has its present form? It's a fascinating story.

Though, when you quote something, could you please quote it in it's entirety? Like, to the point were the context is right.
I, precisely, said:
Alternative hypothetis to God's existence: the Bible started as a lawbook that used God as a pretext to it's laws, but then it evolved into a religious book due to it's massive popularity.


I just suggested a hypothesis. That does not imlply that I agree with it.

[Harambe Christ]

Originally Posted by Thomas Taylor

Anyway Abdul, your opinion is not appreciated. The Holy Bible (KJV 1611) is in actual fact 100% TRUE. This is a fact and not as you, in your misguided Jihadist way believe, a fallacy:


Proverbs 8:7


“For my mouth shall speake truth, and wickednesse is an abomination to my lippes.”



These are God's Actual Words. Not the ramblings of some moon worshipping drug addict.


So. If God says the earth is flat it is in fact, yes you guessed it, FLAT.
This is based on the proof obtained in the Holy Bible (KJV 1611) that God does not Lie.


God wins again.

.

What proves that the proof obtained in the Holy Bible is right?
By this I mean, on what basis do you say that the Bible is absolutely right and interprets what God said, well?

[Didymus Much]

Originally Posted by Harambe Christ

...Though it was not needed to justify the "fact" that the Bible isn't 100% of God's existence...

Assuming you left out the word "proof"; if you had proof, you'd have knowledge, and no need for faith (which is what Jesus/God asks for in the Bible). If you have faith, then the Bible is 100% proof of God's existence (to you).

How are you showing their religious beliefs any respect by denying that those beliefs are real?

Originally Posted by Harambe Christ

Though, when you quote something, could you please quote it in it's entirety?...

I prefer to trim down to what I'm responding to. As for the rest of your comment: if you want to play "what if" while ignoring the freely available historical reality, this ain't the place.

You really should read the Bible. Do you have one?

[Harambe Christ]

Originally Posted by Didymus Much

Assuming you left out the word "proof"; if you had proof, you'd have knowledge, and no need for faith (which is what Jesus/God asks for in the Bible). If you have faith, then the Bible is 100% proof of God's existence (to you).

How are you showing their religious beliefs any respect by denying that those beliefs are real?



I prefer to trim down to what I'm responding to. As for the rest of your comment: if you want to play "what if" while ignoring the freely available historical reality, this ain't the place.

You really should read the Bible. Do you have one?

First of all, I compeletely respect those who have religious beliefs, as long as they aren't denying objective facts. "The Bible is not 100% proof of God" is an objective fact. When somebody believes in God, it is implied that God may or may not exist. Otherwise it is not faith we're talking about: it'd be hypocrite nonsense.

Hypotheses aren't "what-ifs".
They are ways to interpret reality, when proof aren't given by absolute science. One of many are the theist hypotheses, including the Christian one.
You see, what I hate when people put up quasi-absolute science against christianity, is that it simply is hypocritical to do so: if you work by the logic of quasi-absolute science, which you most likely do if you're a functional human being, it is fairly obvious that quasi-absolute science is uncontestable (in practise, but also by definition). Hence you would have two paths: either abandon logic completely, and yet somehow "logically" believe in nonsense(like we are but we aren't) so God can exist anyway(still hypothetically), OR adapt your way of interpreting reality so the fundamentals of Christianity are still hypothetically correct.
NOTE: I say quasi-absolute because there is the "nothing makes sense" hypothesis.

P.S. Yes, some "scientific papers" may not be correct, but most of them are "quasi-absolutely" correct.
Absolute sciencerefers to the science sector that does not treat any hypotheses, thereby making it's facts objectively right.

[Mary Etheldreda]

Originally Posted by Harambe Christ

First of all, I compeletely respect those who have religious beliefs, as long as they aren't denying objective facts.

Nonsense. We can't trust objective anything because that leave the subject out, and the only subject we need to consider is Jesus.

[Didymus Much]

Originally Posted by Harambe Christ

First of all, I compeletely respect those who have religious beliefs, as long as they aren't denying objective facts...

But as religious beliefs determine "objective facts"*, you respect only those who agree with you.

*Go ahead, ask any of the True Christians™ if they agree with your precept that "belief contains the allowance that it may not be true".

...Hypotheses aren't "what-ifs"...

Ok, Pooh. Lime ninjas prong skillfully Thursday. So there, I've just annihilated your whole argument. Of course, if you're too stupid to follow my argument there's nothing I can do about it.

[Dolores de Barriga]

Originally Posted by Harambe Christ

First of all, I compeletely respect those who have religious beliefs, as long as they aren't denying objective facts. "The Bible is not 100% proof of God" is an objective fact. When somebody believes in God, it is implied that God may or may not exist. Otherwise it is not faith we're talking about: it'd be hypocrite nonsense.

Hello, Mr. or Mrs. Harambe!


Following the logic of your argument, are all believers agnostics in disguise?


That certainly is an interesting hypothesis, but very easy to disprove by actually talking to actual believers. The point of having faith is being absolutely certain that something exists without having evidence for it. Implying that it may or may not exist is called doubting and is generally frowned upon in religions.

Hypotheses aren't "what-ifs".
They are ways to interpret reality, when proof aren't given by absolute science. One of many are the theist hypotheses, including the Christian one.

You seem to follow some interesting definition of the word "hypothesis." In science, a hypothesis is an initial statement which needs to be tested before it is considered to be valid. Also, "absolute science" is an oxymoron.


How would you test the hypothesis of the existence of God?

You see, what I hate when people put up quasi-absolute science against christianity, is that it simply is hypocritical to do so: if you work by the logic of quasi-absolute science, which you most likely do if you're a functional human being, it is fairly obvious that quasi-absolute science is uncontestable (in practise, but also by definition). Hence you would have two paths: either abandon logic completely, and yet somehow "logically" believe in nonsense(like we are but we aren't) so God can exist anyway(still hypothetically), OR adapt your way of interpreting reality so the fundamentals of Christianity are still hypothetically correct.
NOTE: I say quasi-absolute because there is the "nothing makes sense" hypothesis.

P.S. Yes, some "scientific papers" may not be correct, but most of them are "quasi-absolutely" correct.

Wait, wait, what?


Did you actually put the words "science" and "absolute" - albeit softened with the "quasi-" prefix - in a single sentence, several times in a row?!


Why?


Don't you know that the fundamental difference between religion and science is that while the former professes to know the absolute truth, the latter does not seek any absolute truth on any subject at all?


That's because they operate on different principles. Religion operates on blind faith: "this is the truth because X....* says so." Science, on the other hand, operates purely on evidence, and there's new evidence all the time, and old ideas get debunked, and then dusted off and revised again, and then new explanation comes in, ad infinitum.

Absolute sciencerefers to the science sector that does not treat any hypotheses, thereby making it's facts objectively right.

All science is based on hypotheses. If someone you think told you that there's a branch of science which does not deal with hypotheses, that person is not a scientist. With that attitude, he or she will never be able to publish in any respectable peer review journal.


I truly hope that long rant was helpful. Please pay more attention in your science classes when you start learning about the scientific method.












____________
* Pope, Bible, Quran, guru, Enuma Elish, Kalevala, Popol Vuh, Amazonian shaman, etc, etc, whichever religious tradition rocks your boat.