Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I wondered about that (his use of the term 'Flat', but it could have been metaphorical..as most of the rest of his post. In any casse, flat or donut -shaped, the point was leaving it rather than what shape it was, so I dodn't digress. but thanks for the information.
Is it the second flat earthist we have or was it the same one as before?
He's the only one that I can recall on the forum who claims that the Earth is flat. There may be others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof
I wonder if that is for real, or do we have another troll? I have a hard time believing that anyone with enough intelligence to type coherent sentences could be a genuine flat-earther today. But, then again, I feel that way about young-earthers who attempt to use science to justify their beliefs, and I know that some of them exist. I don't care if people want to claim that God created the world in such a way that things look old, evolved, etc., but it never ceases to amaze me that people who obviously don't have a science education beyond grade school feel qualified to attack science as if they understand science better than the scientists.
He seems to truly believe that the Earth is flat, and denies that he's trolling about it.
''Hell Mike, the whole damn thing might be a massive triangular ponzi scheme. I'm not trolling and messing with you good folks on the forum...I really do believe the earth is flat...no kidding. Please accept that none of you will convince me otherwise. Have a blessed day in Christ with understanding...or have a blessed day hurling through the vacuum of imaginary space with underwear for a helmet. Either way...have a blessed Memorial day.'' - Post #1082
He seems to truly believe that the Earth is flat, and denies that he's trolling about it.
''Hell Mike, the whole damn thing might be a massive triangular ponzi scheme. I'm not trolling and messing with you good folks on the forum...I really do believe the earth is flat...no kidding. Please accept that none of you will convince me otherwise. Have a blessed day in Christ with understanding...or have a blessed day hurling through the vacuum of imaginary space with underwear for a helmet. Either way...have a blessed Memorial day.'' - Post #1082
I wonder if that is for real, or do we have another troll? I have a hard time believing that anyone with enough intelligence to type coherent sentences could be a genuine flat-earther today. But, then again, I feel that way about young-earthers who attempt to use science to justify their beliefs, and I know that some of them exist. I don't care if people want to claim that God created the world in such a way that things look old, evolved, etc., but it never ceases to amaze me that people who obviously don't have a science education beyond grade school feel qualified to attack science as if they understand science better than the scientists.
But back to the "29 evidences": If the mods are going to allow this thread to survive, we should probably use this as an opportunity address each of the evidences in turn. I've already responded to evidence #1 (see post #16 in this thread), so now I'll take a crack at the second one.
Ashby Camp claims: "Common descent can explain or accommodate nested hierarchy (though not without difficulty in the specific case of Neo-Darwinism), but it does not predict it. There are mechanisms of descent from a common ancestor that would yield a different pattern."
( https://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1b.php#pred2 )
But he gives no examples or arguments to defend this assertion. This is a common problem that I see in these threads (which is not surprising since it is such a casual forum for casual discussion), but Camp should know better: It is simply pointless to make bland assertions that seemingly make no sense, without offering any evidence or further explanation. And why on earth would nested hierarchies be difficult for Neo-Darwinism to accommodate? Are there any creationists in this thread who would like to explain that? Cuz Camp doesn't bother to elaborate. At this point it appears to me that creationists, once again, plain and simply don't understand the science involved and, furthermore, they don't seem to comprehend the most basic cornerstones of scholarship and debate, namely, the need to support controversial or counterintuitive assertions with evidence, arguments, and examples.
The question was mooted when the previous Flat earthist posted and maintained his position, despite his 'evidences' being refuted and reference to the space photos, which I recall was simply ignored. We were assured that said poster was dead serious.
Folks like that really shouldn't be allowed to vote.
The idea has crossed my mind old Nephrite, but the fact is that people can make perfectly good fighter pilots while believing the dinosaurs were on the Ark.
I wonder if that is for real, or do we have another troll? I have a hard time believing that anyone with enough intelligence to type coherent sentences could be a genuine flat-earther today. But, then again, I feel that way about young-earthers who attempt to use science to justify their beliefs, and I know that some of them exist. I don't care if people want to claim that God created the world in such a way that things look old, evolved, etc., but it never ceases to amaze me that people who obviously don't have a science education beyond grade school feel qualified to attack science as if they understand science better than the scientists.
But back to the "29 evidences": If the mods are going to allow this thread to survive, we should probably use this as an opportunity address each of the evidences in turn. I've already responded to evidence #1 (see post #16 in this thread), so now I'll take a crack at the second one.
Ashby Camp claims: "Common descent can explain or accommodate nested hierarchy (though not without difficulty in the specific case of Neo-Darwinism), but it does not predict it. There are mechanisms of descent from a common ancestor that would yield a different pattern."
( https://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1b.php#pred2 )
But he gives no examples or arguments to defend this assertion. This is a common problem that I see in these threads (which is not surprising since it is such a casual forum for casual discussion), but Camp should know better: It is simply pointless to make bland assertions that seemingly make no sense, without offering any evidence or further explanation. And why on earth would nested hierarchies be difficult for Neo-Darwinism to accommodate? Are there any creationists in this thread who would like to explain that? Cuz Camp doesn't bother to elaborate. At this point it appears to me that creationists, once again, plain and simply don't understand the science involved and, furthermore, they don't seem to comprehend the most basic cornerstones of scholarship and debate, namely, the need to support controversial or counterintuitive assertions with evidence, arguments, and examples.
The idea has crossed my mind old Nephrite, but the fact is that people can make perfectly good fighter pilots while believing the dinosaurs were on the Ark.
Good point my dear old scroat.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
