Author Topic: Flat-Earthers Please Explain (Read 1468 times)

Gray2023 · « **Reply #30 on:** May 22, 2025, 05:03:11 PM »

Quote from: Predestination2 on May 22, 2025, 05:00:33 PM

You seem to have confused fittingness with necessity.

Please explain. Your message makes no sense to me.

Predestination2 · « **Reply #31 on:** May 22, 2025, 05:18:46 PM »

Quote from: Gray2023 on May 22, 2025, 05:03:11 PM

Please explain. Your message makes no sense to me.

While it may be fitting that since God is infinite the universe be expansive. It is not a necessity, if you wish for me to further clarify what I mean I can.

Gray2023 · « **Reply #32 on:** May 22, 2025, 05:43:21 PM »

Quote from: Predestination2 on May 22, 2025, 05:18:46 PM

While it may be fitting that since God is infinite the universe be expansive. It is not a necessity, if you wish for me to further clarify what I mean I can.

That made it more clear. Thanks.

IndultCat · « **Reply #33 on:** May 23, 2025, 08:13:52 AM »

Quote from: Matthew on May 22, 2025, 05:24:25 AM

That sounds like something a science-worshiper would say. Science is the pursuit of knowledge. It isn't a religion or an identity. When you wear a T-shirt that says, "I f*cking love science!" that is not a love of exploring and gaining knowledge of the natural world -- that is an emotional "team mentality" adherence to Scientism, the religion of science.

I thank you for your detailed responses to my post. I agree wholeheartedly that there are too many "science worshippers" who adhere to "Scienism" - the religion of science instead of just "doing science" because "Science" itself is just an activity/process.

I am neither a "science-worshipper" of Scientism or a "nature/environment/earth worshipper" of Environmentalism - which, I believe, is also a religion.

I also believe that we should always "question" Science instead of merely "trusting" or "accepting" science since it is an on-going process. That's why I was vehemently against the "death jab" when most people became either brainless sheep or gutless cowards 5 years ago.

IndultCat · « **Reply #34 on:** May 23, 2025, 08:19:50 AM »

Quote from: Matthew on May 22, 2025, 05:24:25 AM

So you admit that the Bible teaches, or at least leans, Flat Earth? And yet you aren't giving Flat Earth more serious consideration?

It seems to lean toward a Flat Earth, yes. And I have listened to several debates involving proponents of a Flat Earth like Eric Dubay and Dave Weiss. They seemed to raise a few interesting pointsat first, however, I then watched videos of those who either attempted to debunk or claimed to have debunked the FE position and their points seemed valid also.

IndultCat · « **Reply #35 on:** May 23, 2025, 08:24:09 AM »

Quote from: Gray2023 on May 22, 2025, 07:57:48 AM

I can see Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn with my own eyes. If I use a telescope I can see each of these planets are distinct and different. I want to know "what flat earthers think about these planets?" The Bible doesn't talk about them at all, yet man has discovered them.

I want to know too and I am trying to find someone who believes in a flat earth to explain these common observances.

IndultCat · « **Reply #36 on:** May 23, 2025, 08:30:43 AM »

Quote from: Matthew on May 22, 2025, 05:07:27 AM

A lot of what people believe comes from NASA deception, including thousands of CGI-generated images.
Ever notice that "artist's renditions" of exoplanets they claim to discover -- which are too far away for any real observation -- look suspiciously like the "photos" of the "real planets" of our own solar system

I stopped believing NASA lies when I visited their Space Center in Houston years ago and attended a Space Talk there when one person asked why the American Flag on the moon seemed to be blowing and a NASA employee said that famous image actually shows the "wrinkles" in the flag because the flag had to be tightly folded to take with them. Then a few years later I heard a different explanation from a different NASA employee somewhere else. That was it for me.

IndultCat · « **Reply #37 on:** May 23, 2025, 08:48:37 AM »

Quote from: Matthew on May 22, 2025, 05:07:27 AM

Don't tell me you believe in Theistic evolution! (Basically that evolution is true, but that God created the Big Bang, and later stepped in...)

I watched several debates between Evolutionists and Creationists and during one debate, there was one prominent Catholic Scientist (a NO Catholic apparently) named Kenneth R. Miller who subscribed to Theistic Evolution and wrote a book on it called "Finding Darwin's God" which I purchased and carefully read.

During his debate among several creationists, Michael Behe in particular, it was obvious to me that Miller won the debate and Miller's arguments in his book appeared much more convincing than those found in Behe's book "Darwin's Black Box."

Next, I was concerned whether or not believing in Theistic Evolution would put me at odds with Catholicism. Then I saw Bishop Sheen saying on his program that he believed in evolution (he wrote about it as well and I also read the Church's neutral stand point on it using pre V2 sources) and then I figured it was okay for a simple Catholic layman to do so.

So, yes, I am a believer in Theistic Evolution especially since it is not prohibited by the Church.

Matthew · « **Reply #38 on:** May 23, 2025, 11:15:35 AM »

Quote from: IndultCat on May 23, 2025, 08:48:37 AM

So, yes, I am a believer in Theistic Evolution especially since it is not prohibited by the Church.

Sometimes I wish I wasn't right about everything all the time.

All I can say to you is, that "Theistic Evolution" was a fad of the 1950's that was understandable at the time. You have to understand that Evolution hit the scene like a ton of bricks, and scientists promoting it were gutsy and bold (as they are today) only people back then were more decent and humble as a whole. So they had respect for the scientists and deferred to their learning. People were more naive and trusting back then.

So when faced with the "apparent evidence" for Evolution, all Christians (including Catholics) could do was say, "Well, if things did evolve over millions of years, all I can tell you is that God must have sparked the Big Bang, and He also intervened to create Man, since the doctrine of Original Sin says that we all came from one first couple."

But talk to the Protestants at Answers in Genesis (Youtube channel) -- they will tell you the problems with Theistic Evolution. For one, DEATH IS DUE TO SIN. But in Evolution, you had eons of death, cancer, dog-eat-dog, law of the jungle BEFORE Man was even created. Death was a fact of life LONG before the first Man was created, nevermind when he ate the apple. So that goes directly against Scripture and Catholic teaching.

Plus Genesis teaches that God made everything in 6 days. There are various "theories" how to do mental somersaults and resolve the obvious conflict -- but they don't work. The Hebrew word used (yom), with the surrounding context/sentence, can ONLY MEAN A 24-HOUR DAY. The protties behind Answers in Genesis are 100% correct on this particular point.

Today there is no excuse for Theistic Evolution. Evolution is garbage. They haven't found ANY transitional fossils, there is NO evidence that it's even possible, much less that it happened. We now know about DNA and the inside of the cell -- no way that could have developed over millions of years by blind chance. And that is what evolution teaches, that blind chance + time can achieve anything. Saying God started the ball rolling with the Big Bang isn't enough. It simply isn't possible. New features or information -- designs -- never get created by chance and blind luck.

It would be like finding a fully functional CAR in the middle of the woods, and thinking that a man or men weren't involved in its creation. Or having a factory explosion that accidentally assembled a fully functional 747 jumbo jet.

Evolution is absolute madness.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #39 on:** May 23, 2025, 01:09:28 PM »

Quote from: Matthew on May 23, 2025, 11:15:35 AM

Today there is no excuse for Theistic Evolution. Evolution is garbage. They haven't found ANY transitional fossils, there is NO evidence that it's even possible, much less that it happened. We now know about DNA and the inside of the cell -- no way that could have developed over millions of years by blind chance. And that is what evolution teaches, that blind chance + time can achieve anything. Saying God started the ball rolling with the Big Bang isn't enough. It simply isn't possible. New features or information -- designs -- never get created by chance and blind luck.

Exactly. The pope only allowed an exploration of theistic evolution IN CASE science had proved certain facts on evolution in general. The pope didn't want the Church to look anti-scientific.

But we're still waiting for modern science (i.e. anti-catholic masons) to prove evolution. It hasn't (and won't) happen.

The good news which has come out of the pope's allowance, is that good-will, God-fearing catholic and protestant scientists have studied the matter of evolution and the facts concerning Biblical Creation are stronger than ever before. The Truth has won out, again.

The bad news is that "headline browsing" lukewarm catholics have come to believe that evolution in general is "allowed by the Church". But these types of people were going to be swayed by the atheist scientists anyways, regardless of if the Church spoke on the matter or not. Because their Faith is weak and they don't put in the effort to learn or study.

So, in the end, the pope's choice was a good one, in the face of an attack on the Church by atheistic science. Those who lost their faith due to "theistic evolution" were destined to lose it by the various other modernist heresies anyways. Their collateral damage was unavoidable.

cassini · « **Reply #40 on:** May 23, 2025, 01:14:34 PM »

Quote from: IndultCat on May 23, 2025, 08:48:37 AM

I watched several debates between Evolutionists and Creationists and during one debate, there was one prominent Catholic Scientist (a NO Catholic apparently) named Kenneth R. Miller who subscribed to Theistic Evolution and wrote a book on it called "Finding Darwin's God" which I purchased and carefully read.

During his debate among several creationists, Michael Behe in particular, it was obvious to me that Miller won the debate and Miller's arguments in his book appeared much more convincing than those found in Behe's book "Darwin's Black Box."

Next, I was concerned whether or not believing in Theistic Evolution would put me at odds with Catholicism. Then I saw Bishop Sheen saying on his program that he believed in evolution (he wrote about it as well and I also read the Church's neutral stand point on it using pre V2 sources) and then I figured it was okay for a simple Catholic layman to do so.

So, yes, I am a believer in Theistic Evolution especially since it is not prohibited by the Church.

Before we even begin to lay out the origin of the evolution heresy, there is a thing call human intelligence given to us by God.
Evolution states that cells came to life and evolved into living creatures. Now, how in God's name did a cell evolve and grow all it parts when a living creature needs all its parts to survive in the first place? Not one such evolving fossil has ever been found, only billions of complete creatures.

Evolution has been condemned by the early Church. Around 260AD Pope Dionysius of Alexandria wrote a tract against the Epicureans mainly to criticize their theory of natural evolution, that all things evolved atoms without divine Providence. Pope Dionysus (259-268AD) wrote a booklet directed against the theory that atoms clash and combine by chance ‘and thus gradually form this world and all objects in it.

Now remember in 1835 churchmen submitted the Bible to the heresy of heliocentrism. 24 years later, In 1859, Charles Darwin (1809-1882) finally had his book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, published, his theory of evolution, whereby living flora and fauna, including humans, evolved naturally over ages from inorganic matter, that is from single cells to elephants. Churchmen, compromised by their belief that the Church got its faith and science all wrong in 1616, and again in fear of another such ‘mistake’ if they officially condemned any other ‘scientific’ theory or book, made no such ruling against Darwin’s evolution theory as regards animals or the body of humans, only that the eternal souls of mankind are created directly by God. Consequently, Darwin’s book on evolution never ended up on the Index. Pope Pius IX, in a letter of commendation for a book dismissing Darwinism, wrote that evolution was so unscientific that it would ‘need no refutation,’ hoping common sense would see it off as the absurd nonsense that it is. Cardinal Henry Newman (1801-1890) however, asserted that his Catholicism had no problem with heliocentrism, evolution, hominoids, aliens or anything else.

Now because churchmen were conned into accepting so many old heresies, the absurdity of Evolution could be solved by getting God to create things that could creating themselves, as Teilhard de Chardin wrote for the Modernists. This makes an absurdity of God's Creation as held by the post 18th century Church.

What is the first most important Catholic doctrine to be eliminated by Satan’s deceit, ‘Who made the world?’ By supporting atheists with their theistic evolution, churchmen from 1859 actually assisted atheism in their belief that all evolved and is still evolving.

The supernatural answer, ‘God made the world,’ an act of faith both dogmatised by Councils and inserted in prayer:

‘God…Creator of all visible and invisible things, of the spiritual and of the corporal; who by His own omnipotent power at once from the beginning of time created each creature from nothing, spiritual and corporal, namely, angelic and mundane, and finally the human, both of the spirit and the body.’ (Lateran Council IV, 1215).

‘All that exists outside God was, in its whole substance, produced out of nothing by God. (De fide.) (Vatican Council I, 1870)

Day 7: So the heavens and the Earth were finished, and all the furniture of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made: and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had done.--- The Book of Genesis.

Sure its no wonder the Lord asked if there would be faith on Earth when He returns to judge all.

cassini · « **Reply #41 on:** May 23, 2025, 01:24:01 PM »

Quote from: Matthew on May 23, 2025, 11:15:35 AM

Saying God started the ball rolling with the Big Bang isn't enough. It simply isn't possible. New features or information -- designs -- never get created by chance and blind luck.

The Big Bang fraud is such nonsense it deserves to be exposed. That I will do on another post

Ladislaus · « **Reply #42 on:** May 23, 2025, 01:24:06 PM »

Evolution is utterly absurd and is based on nothing other than a similarity between different species.

Therefore they conclude that one must have derived from the other because, well, why? ... because even they ironically (though implicitly) admit that the odds of these species developing at all is so infinitesimally small that they can't even convince themselves that more than one could have evolved independently from another. Therefore, one must have come from the other. That's the underlying assumption which ironically undercuts theri own rationale for the entire thing in the first place.

Well, the similarity in design could just mean, duh, that they had the same Designer. But that's their other premise ... there is no God, and no Designer.

So if you combine the two unproven (and unprovable) assumptions that there is no Designer and the chances are basically zero ... that's why they are able to confused peole's brains into accepting it (without of course explicitly articulating these premises).

It's like this. If I walk around on a beach and find a wristwatch. I'd pick it up and realize. Well, this was designed. It was made to tell time, etc. It did not just evolve here over millions of years. Odds are basically zero. But they tried to hide this from people when duping them regarding evolution.

Now I walk around and I find another wrist watch. This one is very similar (though not exatly the same). But it's also clearly made to tell time. Inead of saying that, yeah, this watch too was designed (by someone), they say, well, this watch must have evolved from that first one we found because ... what are the odds that two fo them would have evolved independently in such close proximity. Well, the odds are the same as if even one of them could have evolved independently. Zero. But they confused you with their nonsense.

Relatively recently, geneticists have found that with genetic mutations and random changes, information is always LOST, not gained. So it's not possible that a mutation would bring about some new feature, but only the corruption of an existing feature. That was the death knell for evolution, and in fact many geneticists (even non-believers) have rejected at least Darwinian evolution.

Tradman · « **Reply #43 on:** May 23, 2025, 01:28:28 PM »

Cassini, you wrote:
Pope Pius IX, in a letter of commendation for a book dismissing Darwinism, wrote that evolution was so unscientific that it would ‘need no refutation,’ hoping common sense would see it off as the absurd nonsense that it is. Cardinal Henry Newman (1801-1890) however, asserted that his Catholicism had no problem with heliocentrism, evolution, hominoids, aliens or anything else.

Now because churchmen were conned into accepting so many old heresies, the absurdity of Evolution could be solved by getting God to create things that could creating themselves, as Teilhard de Chardin wrote for the Modernists. This makes an absurdity of God's Creation as held by the post 18th century Church.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If even Cardinal Henry Newman had no problem with heliocentrism and churchmen were conned into accepting old heresies like evolution and heliocentrism that absolutely depend on the earth being a globe, with all the proof the earth is not a globe discussed in these forums, why isn't it that they also abandoned the flat earth, the model that immediately negates even the possibility for evolution and heliocentrism?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #44 on:** May 23, 2025, 02:00:31 PM »

Quote from: Tradman on May 23, 2025, 01:28:28 PM

Cassini, you wrote:
Pope Pius IX, in a letter of commendation for a book dismissing Darwinism, wrote that evolution was so unscientific that it would ‘need no refutation,’ hoping common sense would see it off as the absurd nonsense that it is. Cardinal Henry Newman (1801-1890) however, asserted that his Catholicism had no problem with heliocentrism, evolution, hominoids, aliens or anything else.

Now because churchmen were conned into accepting so many old heresies, the absurdity of Evolution could be solved by getting God to create things that could creating themselves, as Teilhard de Chardin wrote for the Modernists. This makes an absurdity of God's Creation as held by the post 18th century Church.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If even Cardinal Henry Newman had no problem with heliocentrism and churchmen were conned into accepting old heresies like evolution and heliocentrism that absolutely depend on the earth being a globe, with all the proof the earth is not a globe discussed in these forums, why isn't it that they also abandoned the flat earth, the model that immediately negates even the possibility for evolution and heliocentrism?

Yeah, Newman was an unmitigated disaster. Not only about this matter, but he was in fact a if not THE proto-Modernist with his notions regarding the development of doctrine. While such COULD be understood in an orthodox sense (though the term should be avoided due to the fact that it's almost always understood in a heretical way), Newman clearly meant it in the heretical way. Cardinal Manning (rightly) considered Newman to be a heretic, and several bishops from Great Britain denounced him to Rome as such.

Now, this is in fact one of the areas that proves that even a great St. like Pius X isn't infallible, since the latter defended Newman ... though undoubtedly based on a small sample size of his work that was presented to him selectively by someone favorable to Newman's position.

Newman basically told the Old Catholics who opposed VI that they should go underground until such as time as the dogma had "developed" long enough for them to come back out of the woodwork and re-interpret it (away).

Author Topic: Flat-Earthers Please Explain (Read 1468 times)

Gray2023

Re: Flat-Earthers Please Explain

Predestination2

Re: Flat-Earthers Please Explain

Gray2023

Re: Flat-Earthers Please Explain

IndultCat

Re: Flat-Earthers Please Explain

IndultCat

Re: Flat-Earthers Please Explain

IndultCat

Re: Flat-Earthers Please Explain

IndultCat

Re: Flat-Earthers Please Explain

IndultCat

Re: Flat-Earthers Please Explain

Matthew

Re: Flat-Earthers Please Explain

Pax Vobis

Re: Flat-Earthers Please Explain

cassini

Re: Flat-Earthers Please Explain

cassini

Re: Flat-Earthers Please Explain

Ladislaus

Re: Flat-Earthers Please Explain

Tradman

Re: Flat-Earthers Please Explain

Ladislaus

Re: Flat-Earthers Please Explain