Creationism, Darwinism, and "appearance."

[Hollie]

I am starting to feel sorry about you lacking understanding about religion or science.

So, yes, the paper cut into a circle. Now you are speaking of dimensions instead of shape. 2 specifically, as opposed to 3 or 4 or 5. Put you hand up in front of you and draw a circle in the air? What shape did you just make? Was it round?
Let's help you out with the Biblical description of the wind as it blows around the earth. It should give you an indication of the shape of what it was encircling:

Ecclesiastes 1:6
The wind blows to the south and turns to the north, round and round it goes ever returning on it's course.
^ It goes around the earth. Cause the earth is round...

As for the "four corners" thingy you don't comprehend:
View attachment 616867
There ya go...

The clock is not spherical., a globe.

 

[abu afak]

..And He knows His shit.
He created you and placed you in your mother's womb. Thank God she didn't have you ripped out, like so many are now. He even knows how many hairs you have on your head. That is how well He knows you. You should get to know Him. He'd love to hear from you...

Did 'he' get me caught at (all) 3 big - intersection stop lights on the way home tonight?
Kill near a million Americans from COVID, and get 85 Million sick from it?
`

 

[The Irish Ram]

Did 'he' get me caught at (all) 3 big - intersection stop lights on the way home tonight?
Kill near a million Americans from COVID, and get 85 Million sick from it?
`

Satan's plan, not Gods. God doesn't do gain of function. That would be us...

 

[The Irish Ram]

The clock is not spherical., a globe.

It's a compass, Hol.

 

[Hollie]

It's a compass, Hol.

Still not a sphere. Four points like four corners.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Still not a sphere. Four points like four corners.

You have the two confused. Spheres don't have corners.

And there you are, girl! That four-corner thing that eluded you earlier? You got it. 4 points, like 4 corners. Proud of you!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You have the two confused. Spheres don't have corners.

And there you are, girl! That four-corner thing that eluded you earlier? You got it. 4 points, like 4 corners. Proud of you!

How cryptic and clever of God. So clever, we had to wait a couple hundred thousands of years until humans proved the Earth is a spheroid themselves with no help from the god handbooks.

Yes, very sneaky.

 

[Hollie]

You have the two confused. Spheres don't have corners.

And there you are, girl! That four-corner thing that eluded you earlier? You got it. 4 points, like 4 corners. Proud of you!

Correct. The flat earth has four corners, as described in the Bible.

 

[The Irish Ram]

He is clever. We still haven't found all of His dimensions...

 

[Hollie]

He is clever. We still haven't found all of His dimensions...

The triune gods may be a quad?

 

[The Irish Ram]

You're just grasping for retorts. It's time to agree to disagree...

 

[The Irish Ram]

Correct. The flat earth has four corners, as described in the Bible.

Silly, because even you can't be that dumb.

 

[Seymour Flops]

A single celled creature, same as you.

That answer, commonly offered by Darwinists, reminds me of an old Steve Martin Routine:

You can be a millionaire and never pay taxes. Yes, you can have one million dollars and never pay taxes.

You say, 'Steve . . . how can I be a millionaire and never pay taxes?' Simple.

First, (up tempo) get a million dollars. Now . . .

Darwinists always insist on starting in the middle of the process of speciation on Earth. You can't explain life on Earth by starting with a fully formed cell with self-replicating DNA. Way, way, too large a leap from a lifeless planet to one teeming with unicellular life that could proceede to mutate and evolve into the complexity of life on on Earth. Scientifically, there is no known way that it could have happened.

The Darwinists evidence for that seemingly impossible event happening? "Well . . . it must've." Why must it have? Because the alternative is for Darwinists to allow their ideas to be derailed by facts. Facts are an anathema to the Darwinian mindset.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That answer, commonly offered by Darwinists, reminds me of an old Steve Martin Routine:



Darwinists always insist on starting in the middle of the process of speciation on Earth. You can't explain life on Earth by starting with a fully formed cell with self-replicating DNA. Way, way, too large a leap from a lifeless planet to one teeming with unicellular life that could proceede to mutate and evolve into the complexity of life on on Earth. Scientifically, there is no known way that it could have happened.

The Darwinists evidence for that seemingly impossible event happening? "Well . . . it must've." Why must it have? Because the alternative is for Darwinists to allow their ideas to be derailed by facts. Facts are an anathema to the Darwinian mindset.

Nice pile of vapid whining.

Your whining and embarrassingly ignorant misrepresentations of evolution are not only not good arguent or evidence against the fact of evolution, they also destroy your credibility.

You literally made negative progress, there.

 

[Hollie]

Silly, because even you can't be that dumb.

I wasn’t playing games with definitions.

 

[Hollie]

That answer, commonly offered by Darwinists, reminds me of an old Steve Martin Routine:



Darwinists always insist on starting in the middle of the process of speciation on Earth. You can't explain life on Earth by starting with a fully formed cell with self-replicating DNA. Way, way, too large a leap from a lifeless planet to one teeming with unicellular life that could proceede to mutate and evolve into the complexity of life on on Earth. Scientifically, there is no known way that it could have happened.

The Darwinists evidence for that seemingly impossible event happening? "Well . . . it must've." Why must it have? Because the alternative is for Darwinists to allow their ideas to be derailed by facts. Facts are an anathema to the Darwinian mindset.

Darwin’s theory does not address the beginning of life.

You literally understand nothing of what you try to argue against.

 

[Stann]

Both Creationism and Darwinism have one major flaw: Their theories appear to be false, and their proponents admit it.

Here is how "Creation Science" proponents explain it:

Simply stated, the idea of "creation with appearance of age" means that when God created, those things which He created might superficially have looked as if they had a history. When Adam was created, he no doubt looked like a mature adult, fully able to walk, talk, care for the garden, etc. When God created fruit trees, they were already bearing fruit. In each case, what He created was functionally complete right from the start—able to fulfill the purpose for which it was created. Stars, created on Day Four, had to be seen to perform their purpose of usefulness in telling time; therefore, their light had to be visible on Earth right from the start. God's evaluation that the completed creation was "very good" (Genesis 1:31) necessitated that it be functionally complete, operating in harmony, with each part fulfilling the purpose for which it was created.

Did God Create with Appearance of Age?

Simply stated, the idea of "creation with appearance of age" means that when God created, those things which He created might superficially have looked as if they had a history. When Adam was created, he no doubt looked like a mature adult, fully able to walk, talk, care for the garden, etc...

www.icr.org

If that is true then the question "Did Adam and Eve have navels" (which are caused by the detachment of the umbilical cord) is yes. They appeared to have come from biological parents. The problem is that by admitting that the world appears to be old, the creationists implicitly concede that the logical conclusion is that the world is old. Then they go on to posit an alternative explanation to this apparent age, that fits with their religious beliefs.

Here is how "Darwin Science" proponents explain it:

“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” {Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1}

“Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the illusion of design and planning.” {Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 21.}

The Darwinists on here seem to have a hard time coming to grips with the randomness that their theory requires. They seem to believe that "natural selection," is a force that gives impetus to the process of speciation. Dawkins concedes that the logical conclusion is that life on Earth is designed. Then he proceeds to posit an alternative explanation that fits with his religious beliefs.

Of course, everyone has the right to whatever religious beliefs they hold. But they do not have the right to use tax dollars to propagate their religions in public schools.

Creation did occur, but not in the way religious people think it did. Creation is the outcome of an encounter,... Genesis is a product of interaction. We are not even who we think we are.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

He is clever. We still haven't found all of His dimensions...

Clever? Now 4 year Olds know the world is round. That's not clever.

 

[Stann]

Correct. The flat earth has four corners, as described in the Bible.

 

[Stann]

I've flown all over the world and never encountered one of the corners on this flat Earth. Can you please tell me where they are I'd like to see one of the corners.