9 replies to this topic

[ikester7579]

When I went to high-school, I was taught that the idea the earth was flat was thought up by a bunch of crazy Christians trying to stop Columbus from making his voyage. That he might fall off the edge and disappear. There are many sites that point to any Bible literalist as believing this. That's because those who claim this also like to imply they are Biblical experts even though they have no degrees in that area.

But let's take a look at how these people use the flat earth idea. And see if they are really trying to prove it wrong, or if the idea is being used to mock a certain group of people they despise. Here are some video examples:

Warning: This video has some cuss words in it. Not many though.


Did you notice whom the video was directed at? Then we have the flat earth society: http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/ I went on their forums about 4 years ago, and the people I saw promoting this were not Christians. They were cussing one another out. They would cuss out anyone who disagreed. I left there thinking: Many put this idea on the Christians, but I get the impression that this is all a lie thought up to discredit Christians.

Even most recent events people use the flat earth lie to stereotype those who disagree with them on Global warming: http://www.guardian....ange-copenhagen Which basically means that the same people who push the flat earth lie to discredit Christians, are also the same people who push Global warming. But there is another group yet to mention that does the samething.

http://ncse.com/crea...ution-continuum

And here is one of many videos pointed at stereotyping YECs as flat earthers.

112_USkJspQ

The problem I see with all of this, is that it shows that in order to disprove one part of what society believes, the other part must use childish tactics. Kinda like when one goes to elementary school and a bunch of kids find one kid they can make fun of. Then become relentless in doing it. What did they prove? Not a thing except that being prejudice makes you cool. While somone else suffers for it. I would even call it immaturity.

So does the Bible actually say the earth is flat? Here are some of the verses that those whom push flat earth like to use:
1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”

Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...”

Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...”

Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”

Isaiah 45:18: “...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...”

We often forget that the earth has 2 meanings.

Earth: the 3rd planet from the sun; the planet we live on; "the Earth moves around the sun"; "he sailed around the world"
earth: the loose soft material that makes up a large part of the land surface; "they dug into the earth outside the church"

The word Earth is only capitalized once in the Bible, when God named the planet:

Genesis 1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

Notice the naming of everything as if one could view the whole planet.

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.

How does a sphere have four corners? The angels, in this verse, are also holding the four winds. Four winds is a reference to the four directions in which wind is determined to be coming from (North, South, East, and West). So the four corners are the four directions. If you take a straight line and draw it from North to east, East to south, then south to west, then west back to north. You get four corners.

job 28:24 For he looketh to the ends of the earth, and seeth under the whole heaven;

The phrase "ends of the earth" is used several times in the Bible. How does a sphere have and end?

 ball_hand.jpg   15.45K   34 downloads

If you grab a ball, where do you grab it? On it's ends, right? So the reference is unto a "visual" end.

And I could go on and on explaining these things but I think I made my point. People see what they want to see when they are bias and prejudice against what they disagree with. And they will refuse to see it any other way and will continue to see it the way they want because there is something they want to justify by doing this. And will refuse correction as much as to even imply that they would stick their head in the sand and go la la la, I cannot hear you.

A case and point, which happens to be the reason I brought this subject up. At work last week, an atheist-evolutionist cracked a joke to me about flat earth. But the problem was, I knew he was serious about what he said and was not joking. And we were not even discussing science or anything else. He just loves to insult people he disagrees with. So upon trying to correct him, and give him a reference he can look up on the web. He proceeded to stick his head in the sand, as he said very loudly: You are a liar, and shut the hell up.

And because he actually hates Christians, I knew better than to keep going because he would have wanted to fight. I have had simular conversations with him and had already witnessed how far he will go. As he got up in my face once totally out of control with hatred only because I believe what he does not. And it would be a stupid thing to lose my job over. But his attitude did shock several by-standers whom were speechless.

And what really makes this ironic is that he wears a ring on his finger that has a fish sign. Knowing his stance against Christians, I asked him why one time. He said it was because his wife gave it to him. Well that makes him also a hypocrite to lay the impression of being one thing, but not acting like it. But actually voicing against it. He even goes to church, only because his wife does. I wonder how long it will take for an outburst of hatred in the middle of the church? Would that not be really embarassing as silence falls upon everyone and every eye is upon him?

Anyway, here are some of the correction references I would have gave him if his head would not had been in the sand.

http://www.google.co...flat earth myth

http://www.google.co...g&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

I was going to tell him to google: "flat earth washington irving" and read for himself.

4_nV-UrmYdM

So why do evolutionists still use this lie to discredit Christians? My guess, they are not interested in the truth or this would have been corrected a long time ago. The Ecyclopedia Britanica corrected this in 1985. More than 20 years ago. I guess it works out like how long it took to get Piltdown man out of the books. If it works towards the agenda, who cares?

Now evolutionists don't get mad reading this. I vented because I get tired of having this lie bashed over my head all the time. If reported correct information was what evolution is all about, this should have been dead and buried a long time ago. Or at least list 2 sides of the story and allow people to make up their own minds. But that is not what we see, is it? So what's the agenda on pushing a known lie to discredit something you disagree with?

So was Columbus held up by flat earthers from taking his voyage? Nope. The Queen had a problem with how much money this was going to take. And that there was really no garuntee that Columbus would find a shorter trade route. The rest about the flat earth was added fiction that was mistaken as being factual history. And as with most lies, the truth came out. And as with most people who used the lie to justify something, they won't give it up and refuse to be corrected.

[ikester7579]

Here is Dawkins using a known lie. It's the only way he can win a debate.

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.c...></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.c...olor2=0x54abd6" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

[ModusTollens]

When I went to high-school, I was taught that the idea the earth was flat was thought up by a bunch of crazy Christians trying to stop Columbus from making his voyage. That he might fall off the edge and disappear. There are many sites that point to any Bible literalist as believing this. That's because those who claim this also like to imply they are Biblical experts even though they have no degrees in that area.

But let's take a look at how these people use the flat earth idea. And see if they are really trying to prove it wrong, or if the idea is being used to mock a certain group of people they despise. Here are some video examples:

Warning: This video has some cuss words in it. Not many though.


Did you notice whom the video was directed at? Then we have the flat earth society: http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/ I went on their forums about 4 years ago, and the people I saw promoting this were not Christians. They were cussing one another out. They would cuss out anyone who disagreed. I left there thinking: Many put this idea on the Christians, but I get the impression that this is all a lie thought up to discredit Christians.

Even most recent events people use the flat earth lie to stereotype those who disagree with them on Global warming: http://www.guardian....ange-copenhagen Which basically means that the same people who push the flat earth lie to discredit Christians, are also the same people who push Global warming. But there is another group yet to mention that does the samething.

http://ncse.com/crea...ution-continuum

And here is one of many videos pointed at stereotyping YECs as flat earthers.

112_USkJspQ

The problem I see with all of this, is that it shows that in order to disprove one part of what society believes, the other part must use childish tactics. Kinda like when one goes to elementary school and a bunch of kids find one kid they can make fun of. Then become relentless in doing it. What did they prove? Not a thing except that being prejudice makes you cool. While somone else suffers for it. I would even call it immaturity.

So does the Bible actually say the earth is flat? Here are some of the verses that those whom push flat earth like to use:
1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”

Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...”

Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...”

Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”

Isaiah 45:18: “...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...”

We often forget that the earth has 2 meanings.

Earth: the 3rd planet from the sun; the planet we live on; "the Earth moves around the sun"; "he sailed around the world"
earth: the loose soft material that makes up a large part of the land surface; "they dug into the earth outside the church"

The word Earth is only capitalized once in the Bible, when God named the planet:

Genesis 1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

Notice the naming of everything as if one could view the whole planet.

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.

How does a sphere have four corners? The angels, in this verse, are also holding the four winds. Four winds is a reference to the four directions in which wind is determined to be coming from (North, South, East, and West). So the four corners are the four directions. If you take a straight line and draw it from North to east, East to south, then south to west, then west back to north. You get four corners.

job 28:24 For he looketh to the ends of the earth, and seeth under the whole heaven;

The phrase "ends of the earth" is used several times in the Bible. How does a sphere have and end?

 ball_hand.jpg   15.45K   34 downloads

If you grab a ball, where do you grab it? On it's ends, right? So the reference is unto a "visual" end.

And I could go on and on explaining these things but I think I made my point. People see what they want to see when they are bias and prejudice against what they disagree with. And they will refuse to see it any other way and will continue to see it the way they want because there is something they want to justify by doing this. And will refuse correction as much as to even imply that they would stick their head in the sand and go la la la, I cannot hear you.

A case and point, which happens to be the reason I brought this subject up. At work last week, an atheist-evolutionist cracked a joke to me about flat earth. But the problem was, I knew he was serious about what he said and was not joking. And we were not even discussing science or anything else. He just loves to insult people he disagrees with. So upon trying to correct him, and give him a reference he can look up on the web. He proceeded to stick his head in the sand, as he said very loudly: You are a liar, and shut the hell up.

And because he actually hates Christians, I knew better than to keep going because he would have wanted to fight. I have had simular conversations with him and had already witnessed how far he will go. As he got up in my face once totally out of control with hatred only because I believe what he does not. And it would be a stupid thing to lose my job over. But his attitude did shock several by-standers whom were speechless.

And what really makes this ironic is that he wears a ring on his finger that has a fish sign. Knowing his stance against Christians, I asked him why one time. He said it was because his wife gave it to him. Well that makes him also a hypocrite to lay the impression of being one thing, but not acting like it. But actually voicing against it. He even goes to church, only because his wife does. I wonder how long it will take for an outburst of hatred in the middle of the church? Would that not be really embarassing as silence falls upon everyone and every eye is upon him?

Anyway, here are some of the correction references I would have gave him if his head would not had been in the sand.

http://www.google.co...flat earth myth

http://www.google.co...g&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

I was going to tell him to google: "flat earth washington irving" and read for himself.

4_nV-UrmYdM

So why do evolutionists still use this lie to discredit Christians? My guess, they are not interested in the truth or this would have been corrected a long time ago. The Ecyclopedia Britanica corrected this in 1985. More than 20 years ago. I guess it works out like how long it took to get Piltdown man out of the books. If it works towards the agenda, who cares?

Now evolutionists don't get mad reading this. I vented because I get tired of having this lie bashed over my head all the time. If reported correct information was what evolution is all about, this should have been dead and buried a long time ago. Or at least list 2 sides of the story and allow people to make up their own minds. But that is not what we see, is it? So what's the agenda on pushing a known lie to discredit something you disagree with?

So was Columbus held up by flat earthers from taking his voyage? Nope. The Queen had a problem with how much money this was going to take. And that there was really no garuntee that Columbus would find a shorter trade route. The rest about the flat earth was added fiction that was mistaken as being factual history. And as with most lies, the truth came out. And as with most people who used the lie to justify something, they won't give it up and refuse to be corrected.

Now, I must preface this by saying that I am an evolutionist, an atheist, and an anthropologist. I am, however, somewhat sympathetic to this post. It is, quite clearly, folly to assume that someone is a flat-earther simply because they do not believe in evolution. This constitutes an ad hominem logical fallacy, or at the very least reducto ad absurdum.

However, I would like to chime in and point out that stupidity exists everywhere. No intelligent or serious person (evolutionist or otherwise) argues that young earth creationists are by necessity flat-earthers or that Christians made up the flat-earth idea. Anyone with a molecule of intellectual integrity, honesty, and ability will tell you that flat-earth ideas are at least five or six times as old as Christ (likely stretching back as far as the history of humanity goes, however long you believe that to be).

Debates occur for a reason. There is no simple, easy answer to them. There's a real, difficult question at the center of most. No one challenges the statement, "I probably should not stick my hand in a fire." People challenge the statement, "I know how old the Earth is despite having only been on it for thirty years." It's a hard question. This is a point that seems obvious once stated, but really is a bit subtle. It does, however, explain the fact that the loudest, angriest people on either side of a debate are usually the most foolhardy to have chosen that side.

So, ultimately, there are stupid people everywhere, and they exist on both sides of every debate. So on behalf of evolutionists, I apologize to you for our loud idiots. I think that science is a powerful tool, but human brains are not powerful data-gathering devices. The first lessons that the sciences teach are humility and compassion. Unfortunately, the first thing many students actually learn from science is arrogance, and science gives them command of enough facts to back up this arrogance (if only in their own minds). This is why they so often (and so quickly) dismiss other human ways of knowing, which I find rather odd.

I myself do not endorse creationism, the existence of any deity, or the idea of a young earth. I think the odds against them are astronomical. However, I find them to be very understandable and very...human lenses through which to view the world. And I promise you, many evolutionists see the world (and people who take your position is this debate) as I do...it's just that it's those evolutionists who are both without compassion and without a real sense of intellectualism are much louder than we are.

[AFJ]

Now, I must preface this by saying that I am an evolutionist, an atheist, and an anthropologist.  I am, however, somewhat sympathetic to this post.  It is, quite clearly, folly to assume that someone is a flat-earther simply because they do not believe in evolution.  This constitutes an ad hominem logical fallacy, or at the very least reducto ad absurdum. 

However, I would like to chime in and point out that stupidity exists everywhere.  No intelligent or serious person (evolutionist or otherwise) argues that young earth creationists are by necessity flat-earthers or that Christians made up the flat-earth idea.  Anyone with a molecule of intellectual integrity, honesty, and ability will tell you that flat-earth ideas are at least five or six times as old as Christ (likely stretching back as far as the history of humanity goes, however long you believe that to be). 

Debates occur for a reason.  There is no simple, easy answer to them.  There's a real, difficult question at the center of most.  No one challenges the statement, "I probably should not stick my hand in a fire."  People challenge the statement, "I know how old the Earth is despite having only been on it for thirty years."  It's a hard question.  This is a point that seems obvious once stated, but really is a bit subtle.  It does, however, explain the fact that the loudest, angriest people on either side of a debate are usually the most foolhardy to have chosen that side. 

So, ultimately, there are stupid people everywhere, and they exist on both sides of every debate.  So on behalf of evolutionists, I apologize to you for our loud idiots.  I think that science is a powerful tool, but human brains are not powerful data-gathering devices.  The first lessons that the sciences teach are humility and compassion.  Unfortunately, the first thing many students actually learn from science is arrogance, and science gives them command of enough facts to back up this arrogance (if only in their own minds).  This is why they so often (and so quickly) dismiss other human ways of knowing, which I find rather odd. 

I myself do not endorse creationism, the existence of any deity, or the idea of a young earth.  I think the odds against them are astronomical.  However, I find them to be very understandable and very...human lenses through which to view the world.  And I promise you, many evolutionists see the world (and people who take your position is this debate) as I do...it's just that it's those evolutionists who are both without compassion and without a real sense of intellectualism are much louder than we are.

Dear Modus,

Thanks for the post. I am a creationist, but I have learned from evolutionists. Mainly because some of them are scientists, personal beliefs and interpretations on the past aside. Or they may be laymen, but have knowledge of a different discipline I don't have. Like physics .

My degree is theological, but I have done alot of personal study in some of the disciplines, mostly in biochemistry and molecular biology. I have not gone in depth in anthropology. But the one thing I have seen it is a foot on Lucy renderings, though no foot exists in the remains. Am I wrong in this? The problem I have is that this would be in the realm of scientists (i.e. museum displays), not the blogger idiots.

Have I been misled, or is this deviation from intellectual sincerity?

---------------------------

And as far as your comment about creative fiat (God) having great odds against them: I find that molecular motors transporting "supplies" through cellular microtubules, powered by ATP processes quite an impossibility to have originated by unguided mutational processes, even if selective principles are not random.

Or the hydrogen ion gradient pump in the membrane of the mitochondrion, which is procuced by the enzyme complexes in the electron transport chain, and powers ATP synthase (which synthesizes ATP), to have been created by some kind of step by step process. Especially in light of the fact that the mitochondrion, or the chloroplast, is found in most of life "above" bacteria. At least in most of what is classified as eukaryotes.

I understand the arguement that selection "found" something that worked. The problem I have is the initial means of "finding" it. According to evolution, endosymbiosis was resposible for the mitochondia and chloroplasts in plants. But the fact that nuclear DNA encodes many proteins and enzymes in the mitochondrion seems to falsify this hypothesis. Also it divides, along with the other organelles, in cell division. It would have had to do this from the time it intitially entered the cell, or it would have never been incorporated into it. It is hard for me to believe that intelligent people would believe such a story.

[ikester7579]

Now, I must preface this by saying that I am an evolutionist, an atheist, and an anthropologist.  I am, however, somewhat sympathetic to this post.  It is, quite clearly, folly to assume that someone is a flat-earther simply because they do not believe in evolution.  This constitutes an ad hominem logical fallacy, or at the very least reducto ad absurdum.

Glad you can see what we see about this.

However, I would like to chime in and point out that stupidity exists everywhere.  No intelligent or serious person (evolutionist or otherwise) argues that young earth creationists are by necessity flat-earthers or that Christians made up the flat-earth idea.  Anyone with a molecule of intellectual integrity, honesty, and ability will tell you that flat-earth ideas are at least five or six times as old as Christ (likely stretching back as far as the history of humanity goes, however long you believe that to be). 

Actually I believe the earth to be "aged" 4.6 billion. But actual time passage to be around 6,000.

Debates occur for a reason.  There is no simple, easy answer to them.  There's a real, difficult question at the center of most.  No one challenges the statement, "I probably should not stick my hand in a fire."  People challenge the statement, "I know how old the Earth is despite having only been on it for thirty years."  It's a hard question.  This is a point that seems obvious once stated, but really is a bit subtle.  It does, however, explain the fact that the loudest, angriest people on either side of a debate are usually the most foolhardy to have chosen that side. 

And some don't join here to debate. The flat earth tactic was used to discredit a person whom believes in creation before they can open their mouths. This in effect only debunks the evidence by mere opinion and not fact. And makes others want to more conform to the idea that does not sound so silly. Conformism is not science. The evidence is supposed to convince, but if it cannot, the other tactics such are used.

So, ultimately, there are stupid people everywhere, and they exist on both sides of every debate.  So on behalf of evolutionists, I apologize to you for our loud idiots.  I think that science is a powerful tool, but human brains are not powerful data-gathering devices.  The first lessons that the sciences teach are humility and compassion.  Unfortunately, the first thing many students actually learn from science is arrogance, and science gives them command of enough facts to back up this arrogance (if only in their own minds).  This is why they so often (and so quickly) dismiss other human ways of knowing, which I find rather odd. 

Thanks for the apology. But it's not so much the loud idiots than it is those who truly hate a God whom they claim does not exist. And therefore also hate all those who believe in God as well. Their hatred controls their actions, reactions, and their hateful words. Even to the point to where even the subject makes them spew words they normally would not even say in a regular conversation.

Example: At work, before I become disabled. there was this atheist I worked with that is an evo fundamentalist. And basically a hypocrite because he wore a ring on his finger with a fish sign just because his wife gave it to him, and went to church and acted like a good Christian even though he believes there is no God. Me and him have butted heads a few times and I basically tried to avoid him because he would overreact to the subject. And he knew I was YEC. One day for no reason, he makes a belittling comment just out of the blue. I started to respond and he cut me off and called me several very hateful names in a very loud voice. It basically shocked everyone that was in ear shot of what he said. He made sure that it was very insulting.

I decided not to respond and allow what he said to make him look like the hateful fool that he was. And just to tell you how it was, other atheists in there had apologetic looks on their faces for what he did even though they said nothing to me. And I got along just fine with every other atheist in there except him. Whom hated me just for what I believed.

I myself do not endorse creationism, the existence of any deity, or the idea of a young earth.  I think the odds against them are astronomical.  However, I find them to be very understandable and very...human lenses through which to view the world.  And I promise you, many evolutionists see the world (and people who take your position is this debate) as I do...it's just that it's those evolutionists who are both without compassion and without a real sense of intellectualism are much louder than we are.

That is because you do not understand the concept of how in-depth creation actually goes. Even most creationists do not understand it. But if you are willing to learn what is believed to the point that it answers question that even science cannot. I will explain it to you.

[ModusTollens]

Dear Modus,

Thanks for the post.  I am a creationist, but I have learned from evolutionists. Mainly because some of them are scientists, personal beliefs and interpretations on the past aside. Or they may be laymen, but have knowledge of a different discipline I don't have.  Like physics    .

My degree is theological, but I have done alot of personal study in some of the disciplines, mostly in biochemistry and molecular biology.  I have not gone in depth in anthropology.  But the one thing I have seen it is a foot on Lucy renderings, though no foot exists in the remains.  Am I wrong in this?  The problem I have is that this would be in the realm of scientists (i.e. museum displays), not the blogger idiots.

Have I been misled, or is this deviation from intellectual sincerity?

---------------------------

And as far as your comment about creative fiat (God) having great odds against them:  I find that molecular motors transporting "supplies" through cellular microtubules, powered by ATP processes quite an impossibility to have originated by unguided mutational processes, even if selective principles are not random.

Or the hydrogen ion gradient pump in the membrane of the mitochondrion, which is procuced by the enzyme complexes in the electron transport chain, and powers ATP synthase (which synthesizes ATP), to have been created by some kind of step by step process.  Especially in light of the fact that the mitochondrion, or the chloroplast, is found in most of life "above"  bacteria.  At least in most of what is classified as eukaryotes.

I understand the arguement that selection "found" something that worked. The problem I have is the initial means of "finding" it. According to evolution, endosymbiosis was resposible for the mitochondia and chloroplasts in plants.  But the fact that nuclear DNA encodes many proteins and enzymes in the mitochondrion seems to falsify this hypothesis.  Also it divides, along with the other organelles, in cell division.  It would have had to do this from the time it intitially entered the cell, or it would have never been incorporated into it.  It is hard for me to believe that intelligent people would believe such a story.

1) As far as "Lucy's" feet go, there were no foot bones discovered with that particular afarensis skeleton. However, we have hundreds of bones from many members of the species, and many of them had at least partial feet with them. The real beautiful evidence for the proper articulation of the foot bones comes from a truly astonishing find. Anthropologists found a pair of footprints from afarensis (the link says "probably afarensis," but I've studied casts up close, and they are pretty undeniably from a pair of A. afarensis:

http://www.britannic...sis-individuals

From these footprints (and a few other fossils), which were not from the specific individual known as "Lucy," we have a very good idea of how afarensis feet looked and worked.


2) I'm an anthropologist, not a microbiologist, and the level of sophistication that you're talking about here is at least at the Ph.D. level of microbiology. I've had microbiologists walk me through the nuts and bolts of the pickup of chloroplasts and mitochondria, and it made sense, but I honestly can't do it justice. I do know, however, that these organelles do have bacterial origins written all over their DNA, as they copy quite differently and sometimes at a separate rate from the rest of DNA. Additionally, mitochondrial DNA does not change from generation to generation, because it is almost all "switched off" (in a complicated process that I really don't remember any more). Ultimately, the indications are that even if mitochondria and chloroplasts were not bacteria per se, they just do not share enough in common with the rest of the cell to really have originated within said cells.

I know that at least part of my 2nd answer is a cop-out, but I can't give you a full answer while honestly staying within the bounds of my expertise.

[guillxer]

Earth looks flat locally, and the moon barely changes its facing hemisphere. They both look like flat disks from a ground perspective. This is an easy misunderstanding.


- Agnostic

[MarkForbes]

1) As far as "Lucy's" feet go, there were no foot bones discovered with that particular afarensis skeleton.  However, we have hundreds of bones from many members of the species, and many of them had at least partial feet with them.  The real beautiful evidence for the proper articulation of the foot bones comes from a truly astonishing find.  Anthropologists found a pair of footprints from afarensis (the link says "probably afarensis," but I've studied casts up close, and they are pretty undeniably from a pair of A. afarensis:
...

Excuse me, but how would anyone know, if they are from afarensis?


Introducing the "Creationists-are-flat-earthers" idea is basically creating a distraction to avoid debating the real issues at hand. Aparently they find this very difficult.

[gilbo12345]

There is a very simple way to end this debate once and for all...

Video tape one of those flights that go around the world.. The ones people do on new years so they have new years celebrations over and over as they enter the next time zone.

Just leave a video taping the view from the window...


Or for those without 30,000 spare, perhaps get a map and map out the flights taken from various cities.... If the flights do not fly over a stretch of the earth then you know that the earth is flat as that is where it is not joined....

If the flights connect to all around the world, then we know the earth is round... To verify this look at the flight times and the distance they need to travel to get to their destination.


I really can't see why someone would want to believe that the earth is flat? what does it achieve?

[Mountainboy19682]

People once thought the earth to be flat because it looks flat. Like many things first appearances can be deceiving and its only when you dig deeper that the true picture emerges.

Some of the many ways you can tell the earth is round are:
1 The shadow of the earth on the moon during a lunar eclipse is round

2 When you watch a ship travel out to see the lower part disappears first. This would not happen on a flat eath.

3 The constellations are diferent from different latitudes. Aristotle - who certainly predated the Christians noticed this and commented:
“there are stars seen in Egypt and [...] Cyprus which are not seen in the northerly regions.” This phenomenon can only be explained with a round surface, and Aristotle continued and claimed that the sphere of the Earth is “of no great size, for otherwise the effect of so slight a change of place would not be quickly apparent.” (De caelo, 298a2-10)

4 The minimum length of the shadow cast by a stick is different at different latitudes.

Similarly with creation. A man is such a complicated and apparently perfect creation that our first thoughts are that we must be created by some all powerful and perfect being.

However when you look deeper, you see that:

1) We contain many less than perfect design features - like the circuitous route taken by the recurrent laryngeal nerve, the equally circuitous route of the vas deferens, and most famously the appendix, whose surgical removal not only cures an immediate life threatening problem, but also results in extended life expectancy. All of these features make sense if we inherited them from earlier forms of life.

2) Our skeletons are built of the same bones as other tetrapods - including dinosaurs, dolphins, bats and horses. There is no reason I can see that a Designer would put exactly comparable bones in the hand of a man, the wing of a bat, and the fin of a dolphin, but it makes sense if we have a common evolutionary origin.

3) Our genetic make up - our DNA - has been perfectly designed for allowing small changes in each generation so that Natural Selection can gradually change he nature of each species and create new ones, and over many generatons result in large changes. Now I can believe in a Creator setting up such a system, but to tinker with it once set up would be ridiculous. Indeed it seems almost blasphemous to imagine that the Creator bother to design each species when He/She has set ip such a perfect system of self creation.