[Tribune7]

ping

[don'tbedenied]

Gee, I thought the Scopes trial was old news.

[Batrachian]

I don't see that children who can barely read or add 2 plus 2 should be taught evolutionary theory, sex education, how to cope with death, or any of the other crap that is used in place of education these days.

However, I do think that the theory of evolution adequately explains the origins of species. The questions posed in the piece are irrelevent to the discussion because no alternative answer is given other than that "God did it", which is not a scientifically defensible answer.

[templar]

I saw a show on one of the Public stations last night (missed the first part so I don't know the name of it). It pretty much tore up the evolution idea and proposed intellegent design as the up and coming theory. It was a fascinating scientifically based show and, after watching it, the whole idea of evolution to explain life and the diversity of species seems laughable.

[_Jim]

Dismantling Darwinism

'Creationists' attempt to put God back in a box; denying the that *the order* we find in THE UNIVERSE and the INTERACTION of MATTER was intelliegntly designed.

'Creationists': Denying (apparently) the existance of electrons, protrons, neutrons et al, and how that reflects 'up the chain' on *all* life-forms.

[_Jim]

Frequently asked questions about the Flat Earth paradigm and related phenomena.

1. What is the Earth's shape?

The Earth is flat. It is shaped in the form of a pentagon, and thus has five corners.

2. What is the "middle corner"?

If one was to draw a line from each corner to the centre of the opposing side of the Earth, the line would intersect in the middle of the Flat Earth. This place is known as the Middle Corner.

3. Hey, wait a minute, that is not a real corner...

So? The equator of the spherical earthers is an imaginary line as well. Does this mean that their model does not have a northern and a southern hemisphere? You cannot count in imaginary numbers, but does that mean that they do not exist?

4. What about the northern and southern hemisphere?

Globularist rot. This implies the Earth being a SPHERE, which it is not. The Earth has, however, an Inner and Outer Ring.

5. What is Platygæanism?

Platygæanism is the scientific hypothesis which holds that the Earth is flat or planar in topology.

5. Does the "middle corner" prove that 5=6?

Yes.

6. How are continents located on the Flat Earth.

Generally, the "southernmost" continents are on the outside, whereas the "northern" ones are on the inside.

7. Does this mean that the Middle Corner is at the North Pole?

Not necessarily. It may be anywhere in the northern part of the Earth.

8. What is, then, at the south pole?

The Edge of the World. It is surrounded, at least in places, by a huge mountain range.

9. Where are the corners of the Earth?

Opinion is still divided on this issue. Conventional wisdom places the five corners at the following locations:

• Corner 1: the northernmost extent of Lake Mikhayl in Tunguska, Siberia
• Corner 2: Greenland or Iceland (Ultima Thule); though some researchers place it at Brimstone Head, on Fogo Island, Newfoundland, Canada.
• Corner 3: Easter Island.
• Corner 4: Uncertain; possibly Hokkaido (Japan), Lhasa (Nepal), or a desolate location in Outer Mongolia.
• Corner 5: Somewhere near the south of Tasmania or New Zealand, though some researchers have suggested somewhere in the vicinity of the South Pacific island of Ponape.

9. How long is the edge of the Earth?

The edge of the Earth is infinitely long.

10. Does this mean that the Earth has infinite area?

No, no more than England does. See Benoit Mandelbrot for more information.

11. Does this fit in with the Hollow Earth theory?

Yes. Beneath the Earth, or hanging off the edges, is a land populated by either green-skinned women or Nazis. All those claiming to have seen this have misinterpreted it to fit in with the spurious and false Spherical Earth theory.

12. Did H. P. Lovecraft know about the Flat Earth?

Yes. Read At the Mountains of Madness. The choice of the South Pole by the Old Ones makes more sense with the Flat Earth Theory.

13. What about gravity?

Gravity is a lie invented by the purveyors of the inherently false spherical Earth theory. The theory of gravity has never been proven. There is no gravity, only inertia. The Earth moves through space like a giant elevator. We do not fall off because we are kept down by inertia. The Earth has inertia.
There is a school of thought which states, however, that the Earth does not move through space, but rather that it rests on the back of a giant turtle, and that what we call gravity is, in fact, the turtle's animal magnetism.

14. What about photographs of the Earth from the moon?

Most of these are fake. It is well known that the "moon landing" was faked. The film of what is claimed to be the moon was taken in the desert in the US state of Arizona.
There exist some genuine photographs from high altitudes, which appear to the untrained eye to show a spherical Earth. The reason for this effect is that the Earth's atmosphere becomes denser the further one ascends, after thinning out at about 5 miles. This causes light to be refracted more at high altitudes, giving the appearance of a spherical Earth.
The reason the atmosphere becomes denser is the increased pressure. If not for this extreme pressure, the sun, and all stars, would not be able to hold together but would gradually dissipate in accordance with the gas laws, and Brownian motion (see any basic school physics text). Further proof that there is atmosphere all the way between the earth and the sun, moon, etc, is that heat from the sun warms the earth. Heat cannot travel through a vacuum, as anyone who has ever used a vacuum flask knows. Real astronauts would need pressure suits to protect them from the incredibly high pressures they would encounter.

15. How does the Earth move through space?

There are two schools of thought: one which states that the Earth is constantly moving in a straight line, and the other which states that the Earth is moving in a toroidal shape. There is a popular opinion which states that the Earth does not move as such, but rather that space moves around the Earth.

16. Can ships be 'lost' at the edge of the Earth?

Yes, at least in places where there are no mountains preventing this from occurring. The edge of the Earth is, in places a tremendous waterfall, and anything going over the edge will disappear into the aether. This can also happen to aircraft which fly off the edge.

17. If large amounts of water disappear off the edge, where does all the water come from?

This is an argument for the theory that the Earth has a toroidal orbit. In a toroidal orbit, all the water which disappears off the edges falls back to Earth as rain when the Earth revolves about its orbit. This also means that the inhabitants of ships and aircraft lost in space will, in some occasions, return to Earth.

18. Does this explain Fortean phenomena, such as frog-falls?

Perhaps. One is tempted to believe that the frogs, fish and other beings are somehow expelled into space off the edge of the Earth. However, this conflicts with the long-established Mad Fishmonger theory, which states that showers of fish are the work of a deranged fishmonger and his cohorts. (See The Schrodinger's Cat Trilogy by Robert Anton Wilson for more details.)

19. What is the "Springfield Effect"?

The Springfield Effect is the name given to the phenomenon by which every place named Springfield is hard-linked in hyperspace to every other place of this name. In other words, there is only one place named Springfield, but it is "linked" to various locations in the world.

20. Does Idaho exist

No. The existence of Idaho is a lie, fabricated by a conspiracy of cartographers, as is England (see question 10).

21. What about North Dakota?

That doesn't exist either.

22. Any other places which are believed to exist but really don't?

Yes, Australia. And then there are the cryptogeographica, places such as Kadath, Carcosa, Hobbiton, Narnia, Hy-Brasil, Hell and such whose existence has not been satisfactorily proven.

This FAQ was compiled by Lee Harvey Oswald Smith, KSC EMF, Chairperson dei gratia, Flat Earth Society, with the assistance of members of the Society and independent researchers; last updated: 43 Cfn 3163

[_Jim]

Q: Through your books and lectures, you've become known as someone who has worked hard to bring together different factions of the creationist movement.

"I know it's been hard, denying the apparent reality of chemical reactions in the body; in cellular and digestive processes, denying that man and animals both apparently *seem* to possess parallel if not identical biological and reproductive processes, but, deny it I must..."

So the "man's *not* a monkey" crowd continues to 'box' God in and deny that reality which is before their very faces every day; the remarkable and diverse world that almighty God actually created ...

[Natural Law]

Why is it so hard to believe that God would have created a mechanism to permit his creations to adapt to the highly dynamic environment he placed them in? Just because we can explain a part of the process doesn't make it any less miraculous.

Furthermore, just because a rewrite of a rewrite of a rewrite of an oral tradition says it took seven "days" doesn't make it so.

[goodseedhomeschool (returned)]

save to read later

[Salman]

Two issues need to be adressed here, one is "Darwinism" as such, and the other is what goes on in the public schools.

Darwinism -- That is to say natural selection. I aver that there is no question that this takes place. Even if one posits a miraculous creation in 3760 BCE, it has been taking place ever since.

My own position is what has been called "old earth creationism" or I would say more precisely "old universe creationism". Taking as a reasonable plausible inference modern theories of geology and cosmology, there is definitely a beginning in time of the universe and later of the earth. I believe that a uniquely self-existent God willed the universe into existence with laws of physics that permitted evolution.

This is "intellegent design" if you like, but not that which has been touted as such.

Darwin himself admitted that he had no theory or hypothesis of the ultimate origin of life. His theory of natural selection (somewhat modified by more recent work) only makes sense once life already exists.

The public schools -- The public schools keep being dumbed down. Even forty years ago (when I went to elementary school) the public schools in New York City were not really teaching evolution. I really learned about the theory of evolution from my father. The public schools are teaching Flintstonism, which is not the same thing.

I believe that the theory of evolution should be taught, even if it turns out not to be true, because it is a part of our cultural heritage, like it or not. I am of the same opinion about the Bible. If you are American of whatever ancestry, the Bible is part of your cultural heritage, whether you believe in it or not. So you should learn it.

So I get to p*ss off everybody.

[Fester Chugabrew]

For some reason darwinism has a latent association with idiocy. You know, like people who kill themselves via stupid behavior. This kind of idiocy will not be easily dismantled, if ever, but it is fitting to see such connotations bestowed upon the "enlightened" elitists of science. There is more wisdom in an infant's first flatulation, yea, more wisdom in a single beer fart, than in the combined decades of pompous, self-satisfied darwinist teaching.

[HalfFull]

bump...

[HalfFull]

Neither of these things (speaking of irreducible complexity of living organisms and that living organisms is that they contain complex specific information) can be explained by the Darwinian theory. They don't even try to explain them; all they do is huff and puff and bluff and say, "You're not allowed to challenge our scientific fact."

And it you don't believe this point, just wait a few seconds for Aric's next post.

This dogma is not science at all. None of it has been demonstrated by experiment, which is what would have to happen for it to be truly scientific.

A fact lost on the "evolution is sciece" folks.

[MEGoody]

This is going to get the evolutionists' panties in a wad. LOL

[ZULU]

The "Creationists" and the anti-gunners have a lot in common.

They both ignore logic and they never give up.

[biblewonk]

Berkeley, yet with a humility that can only come from knowing the Creator one-on-one.

Humility is a rare thing among Darwinists.

[bert]

The fallacy in this post is the use in the word Darwinism. It doesn't exist. It is a religionist fanatic's attempt to lump scientists with politcal groups.

[bert]

The fallacy in this post is the use in the word Darwinism. It doesn't exist. It is a religionist fanatic's attempt to lump scientists with politcal groups.