Flat Earthism is more Right than Young Earth Creationism

Well, I will go with Jesus on this one. I believe Him to be good company :slight_smile:

You might want to be careful about him! He can take you to some unexpected places.

1 Like

So will I. That’s my whole point. Jesus said this:

For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

about the Law, which says this:

13Do not have two differing weights in your bag — one heavy, one light. 14Do not have two differing measures in your house — one large, one small. 15You must have accurate and honest weights and measures, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you. 16For the Lord your God detests anyone who does these things, anyone who deals dishonestly.

If cooking with a truck scale isn’t a violation of that particular law, then what on earth is?

1 Like

(Mark 10:6-12) "6 But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’7 ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh.9 What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

In reference to (Genesis 1:1) and Jesus is citing (Genesis 1:26)

If Christ believed and reiterates Genesis as literal historical fact, then so do I

Genesis 2:24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.

So if this is a literal historical fact, who was Adam’s father and mother?


Wookin, I wasn’t talking about how old the earth actually is. I was talking about what gets cited as evidence for it. Rejecting the scientific consensus and insisting on a young Earth may be faith, but claiming that evidence supports a young Earth when it does not is lying.

In any case, please stay on topic. This thread is about science, so your contributions need to discuss scientific evidence and the scientific method. There are things I could say about your eisegesis and quote mining of Mark 10:6, but that would have to go on a separate thread.

infinite regress

There is a HUGE difference between flat earther’s science and young earther’s science. One side observes the world now; whereas young earther’s observe the world then.

Flat earth science is based on observational science; whereas no one was around (except God) to see how it all started. Therefore the science on both sides is driven by presuppositions.

Wookin, we’ve done this discussion to death on more than two separate threads now. I’ve not only explained to you that the whole “historical science” / “were you there?” / “presuppositions” lines of argument are complete nonsense, I’ve carefully explained to you why they are nonsense. Yet you just keep repeating them as if they were magic shibboleths without paying the slightest bit of attention to the “why.” If you have something new and constructive to bring to the table that you haven’t already said before, then that’s fine, but please don’t derail another thread taking that nonsense round and round in circles again, or I’ll start flagging your posts for moderator attention.

1 Like

It’s amazing how people could have zero awareness. Anyway, I chalk it up to your blind spot. Have a good day :slight_smile:

Suppose Genesis was written, not as literal history but as a theological interpretation of history. Jesus would still have cited it to make his theological point. That he quoted Genesis does not mean that it was literally true or that Jesus believed it was literally true. It only means he regarded it as divine revelation which determined the will of God for marriage.

Jesus, in keeping with the rest of Scripture, placed great authority on physical facts for authenticating and interpreting prophetic claims about the physical world. In John 10, he said, “If I do not do the works of my Father, do not believe me.” He submitted the veracity of even his own words and his claims of miraculous works, to the realities of the physical world. Not because the physical world is an authority above Jesus, but because the physical world is ordained by the Son of God to test and interpret the physical claims of prophets, including himself.

A good example of physical reality setting limits to biblical interpretation is Psalm 16. David says, “You will not abandon MY soul to Sheol, or let your holy see corruption.” The simplest interpretation is that David will not die, or that he will rise from the dead before his body decays. God could easily have made this literally true, as he did many other statements in the psalms. But both Peter and Paul were certain it could not be literally true, for, “David both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day.” (Acts 2:29; 13:36) The physical facts available in the days of the apostles provided definite interpretive limits regarding the meaning of ancient biblical statements, which the apostles recognized and honored.

When someone tries to alter the obvious meaning of the physical world so it will conform to a certain interpretation of Scripture, literal or otherwise, they resist Scripture’s teaching about the authority, comprehensibility and reliability of physical revelation. To put it another way, Moses (Deuteronomy 18:21,22), the apostles and Jesus taught us to interpret the physical world with integrity and to let it guide us in testing prophets and in interpreting Scripture. It is unbiblical to reverse that order.


There is very little difference between flat earth dogma and young earth dogma. Both are a kind of myopia, seeing only a small sector of reality and equating it to the whole. One is simply in spacial extension and the other in time. Flat earth cosmology is basically just looking at a spherical chunk of the earth about 2000 miles in radius and projecting everything beyond that onto the surface of that sphere. Young earth thinking is the same, talking a tiny chunk of the time for which the universe has existed and projecting anything beyond that onto the endpoints. In a way both are quite a natural logical stage of intellectual thought from a limited awareness of the universe.


Just watching some of the PBS shows on Einstein last week, and contemplating how mass bends time and space such that a body moving in a straight line is captured in orbit by a massive object, and to the body, it seems to continue in a straight line, only space itself is distorted around the mass. You might say, the mass is flat, but it is space time itself that is curved.
So maybe flat earthers are right after all, in some sense.

1 Like

It is an odd sort of flatness that depends on the velocity of the object moving through it. The curvature of space-time due to surface gravity is not equal to the curvature of the surface of the earth. The only place that space is actually curved into a sphere is at the Schwarzschild radius of a black hole. That is why I restricted myself to the following in my first post.


I kinda find this argument to be a strawman. Saying the curvature of the earth is only 8 inches per mile is absolutely true, but curvature is nonlinear. Sadly people think linearly so that doesn’t sound like much curvature. And this argument depends upon that failing of most people. Might as well have calculated curvature in units of the cubit to make it sound smaller. Reality is that while curvature is 8 inches for 1 mile, it is 2.66 feet for 2 miles, 6 feet for 3 miles and 16.6 feet for 5 miles.

I always use the velocity of satellites to remind me of the earth’s gravitational acceleration. Satellites go ~5 miles per second and fall 16 feet each second. The reason they stay aloft is that the earth curves away from them the same amount they fall. Asimov is to blame for this horrid argument that is little more than sleight of hand.

PS, The earth is round, but the argument is awful…

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.