-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
Where does the Bible teach that the earth is billions of years old?
- Thread starter 7djengo7
- Start date
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
I like some of Delius, but that's not the point. It's not about musical taste. It's about the absolute in depth nature of one article and the other that's absolutely bereft of it.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
I've read neither. Maybe I will read them later. Would you say that the Conservapedia one is handing out falsehood? That it contradicted the Wikipedia one?
Should the Conservapedia article have said one or more things that it did not say? Why?
Maybe your point is merely about your taste in *-pedias.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Well, I wouldn't have expected you to to be fair. One is stellar in it's description of one of the biggest bombshells in musical history ever written that is venerated to this day, and the other...isn't. The latter uses such silly terms as "inharmonic notes" in it's description so...yeah, not real great, but a much shorter read if that's more your attention span?
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Tell ya what, which of these articles go into depth in regards to Delius? You've probably already guessed as to which...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Delius
https://www.conservapedia.com/Frederick_Delius
Conservapedia is a joke as a source of information...
I have no clue what the inhabitants of the ancient middle east believed about the shape of the earth. I suspect most people had no idea nor did they care. But you claimed the statement they thought it flat was a myth, I asked for what evidence you had. No appropriate response.
Is there no idea of when Genesis was written other than "a long time ago..."?
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Moses, Hebrew Moshe, (flourished 14th–13th century bce), Hebrew prophet, teacher, and leader who, in the 13th century bce (before the Common Era, or bc), delivered his people from Egyptian slavery.
Right Divider
Body part
Exactly... this was as DISTRACTION from the start meant to dismiss the Biblical account of creation.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
those who lived on the seacoast or ventured out far enough to lose sight of land would have known
Probably correct, either that or there was an edge out there. But my simple question got Mr. Divider's undies in a twist. He would not even give me a straight answer re when Genesis was written.
Right Divider
Body part
thousands of years... troll :troll:
Last edited:
Is one you have asked thousands of times and had answered about as many.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Are you saying that Genesis was written to people who believed the earth was flat? If not, then what (if anything) are you actually saying? If so, then whence do you imagine you've received that idea?
Why, Jonahdog, have you not asked the same of RobertBoyce, your fellow Bible-despiser?
RobertBoyce, Jonahdog wants you to tell him, in this thread, when you think Genesis was written, and when the people lived, to whom it was written, whom you say "believed the earth was flat".
Now, RobertBoyce, in witless reaction to Right Divider's rightly pointing out the fact that you are handing out a myth in saying that "these verses were written to people who still believed that the earth was flat", you posted the following:
The myth of the flat Earth is a modern misconception that European scholars and educated people during the Middle Ages believed the Earth to be flat rather than spherical.
The earliest documentation of a spherical Earth comes from the ancient Greeks (5th century BC). Since the 600s AD, .,,,,,.,and by the Early Middle Ages (700–1500 AD), virtually all scholars maintained the spherical viewpoint.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth
-
Where, RobertBoyce, in the document to which you've linked (let alone, in the portion of text you have excerpted therefrom) is anything, whatsoever, said about the Bible--let alone about the book of Genesis in particular, and those to whom Genesis was written?
The article is not even primarily about the idea that the earth is flat, nor about people believing that the earth is flat; rather, it's about the myth that "European scholars and educated people during the Middle Ages believed the Earth to be flat rather than spherical." You even quoted as much, directly from the article. You didn't even read what you quoted! You didn't even read the little "disambiguation" notice near the top of the article:
| This article is about the misconception that medieval scholars believed in a flat Earth. For actual flat Earth cosmologies, see Flat Earth. |
Last edited:
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
A better source for what?
Did you even read RobertBoyce's excerpt from the Wikipedia article to which he linked--let alone, the article, itself? Of course you didn't. His link has not a shred of relevance to what he had claimed in his earlier post.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
"go [sic] into depth"
(Did Wikipedia teach you that you should write "which of these articles go into depth" rather than "which of these articles goes into depth"?)
Unfortunately, I cannot but regard your use of this phrase as cognitively meaningless, and wholly emotive, inasmuch as I'm well aware that you would eagerly use the same, or similar, in regard to the Darwin cheerleading dungheap dished out by those of your fellow TOL Darwin cheerleaders on whom you regularly dote as though they are your intellectual superiors--namely, The Barbarian and Alate_One.
By "go [sic] into depth", do you mean "uses more words and takes up more paper space"?
My guess is that the one to which you would emotively, extollingly apply your meaningless phrase, "go [sic] into depth", would be the one that is not the Conservapedia one, inasmuch as you just, once again, showed your Nazi leftard bias by saying, "Conservapedia is a joke as a source of information...."
When you say that "Conservapedia is a joke as a source of information [about Frederick Delius]", do you mean to tell me that (for instance) the following is false?
| Frederick Delius (1862 -1934), English composer of German extraction, was set up by his father, a Yorkshire fruit importer, to manage a citrus plantation in Florida. |
What do you imagine you find to be bad about that statement?
Maybe you're a joke as a source of information about sources of information.
Here are some fun questions for you:
- Is everything stated by Wikipedia true?
- Is everything stated by Conservapedia false?
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Ah, admittedly suspecting with no clue, eh.
Did you also ask RobertBoyce what "evidence" he had for the statement they thought it flat? Of course you did not. Why did you not?
In the late 15th century, B.C. When Moses, who wrote it, was alive.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Wow, your writing is tortured...:freak:
Conservapedia is a joke, it really is. Nobody, apart from far right nuts would even entertain it as a source of viable information. It is a complete farce.
So, you have fun with the usual.
Strange. It read perfectly clearly to me. He's plainly asking you to justify your assertions about Conservapedia (and mocking your useless attempts at correcting grammar. We have data that are clear. You have no foundation from which to criticize other people's use of the English language :chuckle: ).
But, as is typical among Darwin cheerleaders, all you do is reassert your lame ideas.
No evidence. No reasoning. No logic. Just insults.
Do you like being nothing but noise?
You seem to be forgetting A) that how popular an idea, concept, or statement is, has no bearing on it's validity, and B) the source of information has no bearing on it's validity.
In other words...
You're getting to be so good at using logical fallacies that you've started combining them.
I don't know whether to be impressed or saddened.
He also used the fallacy of poisoning the well.
Brain offers nothing but a net drain to these threads.