Talk:Flat Earth

Wait.... now you're insisting that the Bible _isn't_ to be taken literally at all times? Who are you, and what have you done with Rschlafly? And do you need any help disposing of the evidence? --BDobbs 17:41, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

While the bible is literally true the passages which seem to refer to a "flat earth" have generally be the subject of "quote mining" and taken out of context.--bill m 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 17:53, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Man, those evolutionists seriously shouldn't be trusted. *putting it on watch for potential article improvement drive later next week (if it stays this way for a few days)* --Sid 3050 17:55, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

I dunno about that. Satan taking Jesus up where he can see ALL the countries of the world seems pretty straightforward to me. --BDobbs 17:57, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

The article would certainly benefit from being structured in a more Christian format Sid. I trust that you will sincerely try to improve it in this manner. --bill m 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 17:59, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, we need equal treatment for the Scientific Geo-terrapinism theory and the so-called "Round Earth Theory" that the Secular Humanists are trying to foist upon us and shout down any dissenters about. --BDobbs 18:01, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Terrapinism is an excellent idea. I'm surprised it doesn't have an article yet. --Sid 3050 18:10, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

I can't imagine why we should want a frivolous article on something like "Terrapinism". Perhaps a mention under "discworld" might be appropriate, but a full article would be nothing other than a grotesque parody of sincerely held Christian beliefs. I have doubts about whether some contributors are taking this issue with the necessary seriousness.--bill m 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 03:30, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree, Bill. People are parroting skeptical arguments, which do have good answers from Christian apologists, just to make Christians look stupid. Just look at which articles some of these people are editing and what they're saying. MountainDew 03:31, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, the door was pretty much opened when the Loch Ness Monster was cited as a possible proof that dinosaurs may still exist today. Conservative opened the door, we just walked through it. Myk 03:34, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm an old earth creationist. Can you see me banging my head against my keyboard? MountainDew 03:43, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

I thought I heard something but I figured it was a tree banging against my window. Storm outside. Wow, OECs are really kinda caught in the middle on this site. How do you handle it? Myk 03:46, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

My support of the site's goals and reverting vandalism allows for some cognitive dissonance. I cringe at a lot of the stuff here, like the Kangaroo, Unicorn, and Nessie. I tend to avoid science-based articles, as I admittedly do not have a strong science background, and I came here more to write about history. Truth be told, I haven't completely made up my mind between OEC and theistic evolution. MountainDew 03:48, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, do yourself a favor and don't read anything about evolution on this site. You'll just give yourself a headache. I'm not even Christian and I still believe in Theistic Evolution. Unless and until science can come up with definitive answers for abiogenesis and what initiated the big bang, "God did it" is a perfectly good reason for me. Myk 03:53, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Myk, you need to let your faith lead you little further. If you can accept that "God did it" is a good explanation for the creation of the universe, why should a global flood cause Him problems?--bill m 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 04:42, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Flagrant propaganda

This article is flagrantly anti-evolutionist: "The Flat Earth theory was mostly invented and promoted by evolutionists for the purpose of slandering Christians". 1) Very very few people actually thought the Earth was flat, especially not christians OR evolutionists. About 30 seconds of background reading will tell you that much. 2)The sources for this information are ALL from christian websites. 3) Evolutionists need not promote fake theory to slander christians, YEC's do that quite admirably themselves.

This page is a joke, and I made my edits to it in that light. Perhaps you would care to discuss the reversion RSchlafly. MatteeNeutra 11:22, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, glad to discuss it. It is an evolutionist myth that medieval Europeans thought that the Earth was flat. It is disproved in the references provided. Please don't insert disproved myths. Your version has no sources at all, and is certainly not "encyclopedic".

I never hear anyone except evolutionists talk about the Flat Earth. The evolutionist don't believe that the Earth itself is flat, but they propagate myths about the Flat Earth. Read the references. RSchlafly 11:37, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, I've never heard anybody at all talk about Flat Earth theory that doesn't make me right and you wrong the same way your dismissal does not make you right.

It wasn't even a popular belief. It was brought to light in a fictitious novel based loosely around Columbus's journey and thereafter blown out of all proportion with regards historical significance. The article as it stands does not portray these facts and what is more, it appears to slander evolutionists. MatteeNeutra 11:48, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Two quotes from MatteeNeutra:

• Evolutionists need not promote fake theory to slander christians, YEC's do that quite admirably themselves.
• The article ... appears to slander evolutionists.

Ever heard, "if the cap fits..."? You accuse YECs of being self-slandering, but seem to overlook that perhaps this is a case where the evolutionists are self-slandering, with the article simply documenting that.

• The sources for this information are ALL from christian websites

True, but does that automatically make them wrong? Of course not, unless you have an anti-Christian bias. Note that the link I added was to an article written by a "Professor of History, Emeritus, at the University of California, Santa Barbara"[1] Does that count for nothing simply because the article was republished on a Christian web-site?

Philip J. Rayment 12:02, 4 April 2007 (EDT)