There you go (lowercase) johnsmith, as requested.

Go.

Why are you raising this topic? What's your motive? Are you genuinely interested in this - or are you just aiming to make fun? What information do you want? Why do you want that information? If your answers could be answered to your satisfaction, what that cause you to change? In summary, are you seeking truth, or just picking a debate?

I am genuinely interested in how people can believe such things. Flat Earthers and Young Earth Creationists are generally, though not always, bible literalists and justify both beliefs through bible verse. It seems to me they have 'hitched their wagons' to these beliefs because to not do so would conflict with the Bible which is something they cannot abide by.

I am genuinely interested in how they can conveniently ignore whole swathes of science from multiple fields of research and multiple countries. Conveniently also ignoring many faiths, such as the catholic church, who accept evolution as fact.

It also goes towards YOUR credibility. If you believe either or both of these it gives me a further insight into what sort of person you are and how your brain works.

I understand you'd be reluctant. 

You shouldn't answer a question with a question. 

tsf, Why not?


Muz, I'll prepare a serious response for you. Give me some time.

If your response is in defence of it don't go to too much trouble. I certainly won't read vast swathes of evangelical ravings and dismissals of actual science based on bible verses.

I'm not interested in your 'evidence' or justifications. It's more than enough for you to say yes or no.

Can you forewarn me of the prejudices that you'll be bring into this discussion?

For instance, are there any issues where you will refuse to hear any reasoning, and the instant you hear it mentioned, you will shut your ears?

Just yes or no is pretty good I'd reckon. 

Yep.

Nope.

When persuading someone, there must be a proper sequence. First step first, second step second.

There is no point rushing straight to the end point.

For example, if I demanded that you vote YES on a referendum -- but I miss the in-between steps of telling you what the referendum is about, how it affects you, how it benefits you, how it will not harm you -- if I miss out the in-between steps, it faces certain FAILURE.

Therefore, there are important in-between steps.

The most important in-between step is demonstrating to you that God exists, that Jesus Christ is his Son - and that this Father God wants you to come back into relationship with him -- to love and be loved by this God -- but to come back on God's terms, not on your terms. That's the in-between steps.

After establishing that with you, then it'd just be the logical next step to talk about how this God created the world.

Hence, how does one convince two Aussie skeptics of the above?

Well this is going nowhere.

I'll just assume you are a YES to both.

case closed lol

In a court trial, you do not get to demand that the defendant's barrister say what you want them to say.

That is because -- if you have biases -- nothing the other side's barrister can say will work -- because you will just shut your ears.

For instance, if I present 100 pieces of evidence from Ph.D. scientists -- but your mind is made up already --- do you think it would work?

Or you so unfair in your heart, that you want this to be a "kangaroo court" where you already made up your mind, and just want to mock me.

Or are you actually truth seekers?

I am offering to present the information to you, in the sequence that Jesus Christ presented the information.

To use the court analogy, Muz and tsf are like a judge that has made up their mind before any evidence is presented. Mus and tsf are wanting a show-trial to humiliate the other side.

Whereas, I am offering to present evidence, in sequence, to address your in-built prejudices as a first step.

If you do not believe in the existence of a God in the first place -- then you won't be open to any argument of what that God is capable of doing. Even scientific evidence. That is why, the argument has to be presented in sequence ... not in the order that you demand. And the sequence I would use is the sequence used by Jesus Christ.

Muz and tsf, you are demanding a kangaroo court, and I am not a sucker for that.

um, hate to interrupt your sermon on the mount there johnsmith (lowercase) however a person of your divine intellect would be, Im sure, aware that in order for a case to go to trial council for the defence DOES indeed have to answer one very fundamental question before your biblical sequence of events can take place... "Does the defence plead guilty or not guilty to the charges of the case" You will have your chance to present your arguments for or against the title statement of this thread (Muz may not be interested to hear you out but I personally am fascinated to hear what your take on this is) and you can present them in any sequence you so choose as is your right in a fair and free argument.
Attributing rubbish like "kangaroo trial" and "mass media influence" to Muz and tsf's take on the issue and then (without a trace of hypocrisy might I ad) claiming to use a sequence used by Jesus Christ, based on your interpretation (or whichever branch or sub branch's interpretation you take as being the "truth") of the most mass produced literature in the history of mankind makes it seem as though you are a sucker for something.

Good point, MSC.

My stance is, I affirm this statement to be true: Exodus 20:11 - "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."

When Jesus and his apostles made these statements about Noah and the Flood, I affirm those statements to be true about a literal person named Noah and the Flood.



I have qualifications in a science-related field, more towards the industrial manufacturing side. And also have another qualification in a more commercially-related field. I affirm the importance of science, and scientific method. And the God who made the world does not contradict science, since science is a description of the physical world made by God.

In a court trial the very first thing they ask is 'How do you plead?'

Then you move on to the arguments.

Edit: Just noticed you said the same thing Mono.

Flat or not?

I don't have to believe in God to ask you whether you think the earth is flat. I'm not asking for your evidence as to how you came to this conclusion. I'm just asking what you believe.

It's a given you believe in God. I don't need to be convinced of WHY you believe in God to ask you your opinion on what you think. You're just obfuscating to get away from providing an answer. 

I mean you could believe in something that had nothing to do with god such as stem-cell treatments or CRISPR technology. Things never mentioned by desert dwelling arabs 3000 years ago.  

Of course you are entitled to say I don't have to tell you what I think. That's your prerogative.

So flat or not? On flat earth forums they dismiss these photos out of hand as CGI or composites.

6 days in biblical terms equates to what? 6000 years?

I've heard each day was a 1000 years. I've heard others say literal days, I've heard other say millions.

Yes, even among Christians there is that debate. The assertion is that the opening chapter of Genesis is merely story allegory. That is specifically why I quoted from Exodus 20:11, where God was stating who he is, and gave them the 10 Commandments.

I'm aware of the arguments either side. On balance of the totality of evidence I have seen, I go with the literal 6 days of creation.

Regarding the earth, round or flat ... I said I have a qualification in a science-related field, and I form my conclusions based on thinking through things based on scientific method and principles of law. Can you think of anything, based on scientific method, that would suggest that the earth is flat?

When I drop of liquid is in the vacuum of space, it forms itself into a rounded mass. That is physics. Nothing in the science of physics would indicate that a liquid or molten mass would form into a flat object in the vacuum of space.

To me, it is not just blindly following ideas. Uppermost and most important is the reasoning and logic.

So to put you out of your agony, of not knowing whether johnsmith (lowercase) believes whether the earth is round or flat ... Isaiah 40:22 refers to "the circle of the earth".

Interesting because flat earthers use these bible verses to support a flat earth.

https://www.worldslastchance.com/biblical-christian-beliefs/flat-earth-bible-verses-more-than-200.html

How is it that these bible verses are trumped by yours?

Among people who call themselves Christians -- not to mention cults and sects who reference the Bible -- there are innumerable divergent views on everything. And all those Christians who assert theirs is the truth, they all back theirs up by quoting Bible verses.

Hence, the starting question is: Is there a way to find the truth, given so many Christians and different religions all claim theirs is the truth?

I believe there is: if God, who loves us, wants us to come back to him, it is impossible that he did not provide a way to sift through the jungle of different assertions of truth, by Christians, other religions and atheists.

Sometimes I think life would be so much easier if I just lived in a complete fantasy land as well. In many ways you are lucky. 

Yes, tsf, it is easier to live in fantasy. All of us, to an extent, seeks to dull the pain by going into a fantasy, e.g. workaholic, mindless amusements, getting drunk, drugs, addictions etc.

When we see the evil happening around the world, it is easier to have the fantasy that there is no such thing as a universally understood good and evil. (Because of there is no universal definition of good and evil, you're in fantasy for calling those people evil - because you wouldn't have any basis for claiming that what the other people are doing is evil).

When we see the evil in the world, it is easier to have the fantasy that there will be no justice against those evils, that everyone gets away with it.

tsf, it is easier to live in the fantasy that the crowd which we're following is heading in the right direction.

Romans 14:10 - "For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God"

2 Corinthians 5:10 - "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil."

Doesn't really answer my question though does it.

You use bible scripture to support your position, they use bible scripture to support theirs.

The bible is supposedly the 'One true word of God'. So how do you reconcile polar opposite beliefs?

I did not answer your question.

The standard view among scholars and pastors is to agree on the core beliefs, and not insist in the peripherals. But even the core beliefs, there is so much difference of opinion. And anyone who claims theirs is the truth above others, is regarded as an arrogant fool.

And yet, if there actually is no way to know which Bible teacher is giving the true version -- then, at the end of time, we could say to God: "You have no right to sentence me, because there was no way for me to know which was true.".

Also, if there actually is no way to know which Bible teacher is giving the true version -- then there'd be no way to classify who are "false teachers" .... which the New Testament clearly does so.

Given that it's not feasible to write a book to answer you, I might have to answer by video, and that could take a few weeks.

I could readily give you a short, brief answer ... but it would not be detailed to the extent of being bullet-proof.

I would also draw up a chart showing a road-map of the issues I need to consider - otherwise the big picture would get lost in dialogue on any given small detail.

So if I understand you correctly you cherry pick the verses to suit whatever position you're taking?

So just to drill down on this a little. 

When scientists observe light that has shifted in wavelength to give the cosmic microwave background radiation that they use to date the age of the universe are they wrong to do so or has your God built that into his creation. IE Scientists are actually observing this CMBR or God made it to look like it is 13.8 billion years old?. 

Or was the earth created in 6 days 6000 years ago? IE How long ago was the earth created?