Answers In Genesis is a Christian organization that has defended the literal interpretation of the creation account in Genesis and is headed up by Ken Ham. They have written wonderful articles defending the creation account of Genesis and pointing out the diametrically opposed positions of evolution. Even recently Ken Ham debated Bill Nye (The Science Guy) on national television over creationism vs. evolution. Answers In Genesis also vehemently supports a young earth creation according to Scripture, however. There have been a couple articles written vehemently against the Flat Earth position. I wish to respond to both articles here.
The first article I wish to address is entitled "They Think The Earth Is Flat?" In this article, the first objection goes as follows:
"Whether the earth is flat or spherical is entirely within the domain of operations science, where repeatable experimentation can disprove hypotheses. Flat-earthers make falsifiable claims that scientific investigation can verify or falsify. This is considerably different from the origins science of the creation/evolution controversy, which covers interpretations of data and models of unrepeatable historical events."
My response:
I would like to point out that first and foremost, the Bible is to be the standard and authority regarding these issues. One of the reasons society has strayed so far from the teaching of Scripture is because Christian ministries, like Answers In Genesis at this point, BEGIN with arguing from an accepted helio-centric presupposition and appeal to "science" in its support of this. I find it fascinating that this same ministry that passionately debunks what they call "pseudo-science" regarding evolution, treats the spinning ball helio-centric model as fact because "science" supports it. Obviously, the problem here is their definition of "science" vs. "pseudo-science." If we can agree that "science" is testing and experiments regarding that which is observable then we are on the same team. If, however, science is based upon "pictures" and "videos" from NASA, then no, we would not agree.
Also, Flat Earthers most certainly make "falsifiable claims" which is different from arguing over interpretations of data or making wide sweeping assertions based upon pictures from NASA. This is one of the hallmarks of the legitimate movement. I say "legitimate" because there are certainly many farcical sites out there that are designed to ridicule and mock the movement through misinformation (such as theflatearthsociety.org). To-date there has not been one demonstrable or observable test that has revealed any notion of the curvature of the earth (let alone that the earth is spinning). There has been, on the other hand, many tests and experiments which have demonstrated the opposite. Airy's Failure, the Michelson-Morely, Michelson-Gale, Sagnac effect, Allias effect, lasers tests across Lake Michigan, and various other experiments have been conducted and have proven a flat stationary earth. In addition, NASA has even released a report which acknowledges that linear motion of aircraft occur over a "flat non-rotating earth."
The second objection goes as follows:
"Flat-earthism is forced to rely on conspiracy theories, such as dismissing photographs from space and other satellite data as “hoaxes,” along with stories of circumnavigation. In other words, unless you’ve personally been into outer space to see the roundness of the earth, flat-earthers will claim you’ve been duped by NASA, et al. And if you claim to have been to space, they will label you as part of the conspiracy!"
My response:
Wrong. The Flat Earth position is first based upon Scripture and that, secondly, it is verified through observable and verifiable experiments and tests. Regarding the pictures of NASA, they have even admitted to photo-shopping them.
In addition, try comparing the images of NASA with others they have released over the years.
Here you can clearly see a "cut and paste" images of clouds.
Of course what we never see are the images of satellites and space debris that NASA claims exists by the thousands like this:
What NASA will show us are pictures that hardly look authentic. The most recent one comes from the supposed Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter and its orbit around the moon here (which looks nothing more than a CGI composite):
NASA also admits that they are still working on building a suitable rocket to withstand the Van-Allen belts. Pardon me if I point out the obvious here: Wasn't NASA already in possession of the technology by getting to the moon in 1969?
So please excuse the Flat Earther for being a skeptic to whatever NASA has to say at this point but it should hardly be considered an unreasonable skepticism.
The third objection goes on to say:
"Unlike the origins controversy, the issue of whether the earth is flat does not undermine the rest of scientific inquiry. Whether we were created in the image of God or evolved through millions of years of accidental mutations, vicious natural selection, and so forth gives us very different starting points when we consider whether man can be logical, moral, and so forth."
My response:
That couldn't be further from the truth. In fact, the entire notion of the flat earth under the dome completely undermines the evolutionary cosmological models while Answers In Genesis accepts these models rather than refutes them. The entire problem here is that the helio-centric model is the very basis and foundation of evolution here on earth. While Ken Ham and others wish to expose evolution as a lie, which it certainly is, they start with the same helio-centric models which evolutionists start with. That is a big problem. There is nothing "special" and "unique" even about earth and God's exclusive creation which is highlighted throughout Scripture. Earth is merely a speck in the infinite universe which is shooting through space going nowhere exactly. While some would see the vastness and infinite nature of space, according to NASA, as something tremendously revealing about God the creator, please consider that the flat earth under the dome also reveals God as the creator but that man and earth are uniquely designed by God and are placed in the center and are the focus of creation rather than being a very small participant in an expanding universe crowed with other galaxies and planets.
What exactly is so unique about God's creation when NASA has said they have found water on Mars (which was released around the time the new movie "The Martian" hit theaters) and have discovered another "earth like" planet?
The fourth objection says:
"From the scant information offered by flat-earther websites, there is no indication that any flat-earthers have specific training in the fields of geology, physics, or planetary science. On the other hand, young-earth creationist groups like Answers in Genesis employ scientists with extensive training in fields related to the origins controversy. For example, AiG employs geologist Andrew Snelling, astrophysicist Jason Lisle, molecular geneticist Georgia Purdom, anatomist and biologist David Menton, and historian of geology Terry Mortenson, all of whom hold PhD’s in their fields from major universities."
My response:
Wrong. Although I wish to again point out that we are to start with Scripture regarding these matters rather than appeal to the very thing being disputed, namely NASA and its assertions and its so-called experts; career land surveyors, a German engineer and pilot, corporate travel agents, U.S. Army master gunner, engineers with degrees in physics, industrial wave experts, international shipping experts, U.S. Navy submarine chief, U.S. Navy missile instructor, U.S. Navy artillery radar operator, retired U.S. Air Force navigator, and an Australian Intelligence officer have all confirmed the flat earth.
The fifth objection states:
"Unlike young-earth creationism, flat-earthism is not scriptural and has no profound theological implications. There are (mostly poetic) passages that could be cited by flat-earthers, such as Revelation 7:1, which refers to the “four corners of the earth”—but these are most clearly interpreted as figurative."
My response:
I am quite happy to disagree with this statement entirely. In fact, this is precisely what the Scriptures teach. What the Scriptures disagree with is the helio-centric model and other Christian ministries which have abandoned these truths in order to not be considered "entirely" foolish to the modern world. Everywhere from Isaiah 40:22, which uses the Hebrew "chug" (circle) rather than the word "dur" (ball), to the creation account in Genesis which teaches a firmament which separates the waters, all plainly teach a flat stationary earth. Even Peter confirms this firmament (which Answers In Genesis dismisses as existing today after the flood) here:
"For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God." - 2 Peter 3:5
"And God said, 'Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.'" - Genesis 1:6
Has Answers In Genesis "deliberately overlooked this fact?"
The tree that grows so high that it was visible to the "end of the earth" makes sense ONLY if the earth were flat. If the earth were a ball it wouldn't matter how high the tree grew because anyone on the opposite side of the ball wouldn't be able to see it.
"The tree grew and became strong, and its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the end of the whole earth." - Daniel 4:11
That the scriptures teach that the earth is stationary and that it is the sun which moves (and stopped in Joshua 10:13) is without question a consistent theme throughout. I have compiled a list of those Scriptures here. In addition, I address the dome of the earth from the teaching of Scripture here.
Finally, there was one additional article, entitled "Getting To Be as Flat as the 'Flat Earth' Argument" that made three points which I will address here briefly.
First objection reads:
"The earth's roundness can be seen as a shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse."
My response:
So when there is a "half moon" then the earth is half round? Furthermore, I would like to remind people that the Bible specifically refers to the sun and moon as TWO LIGHTS, not one great light.
"And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars." - Genesis 1:16
The Hebrew word for "two" is from shenayim or shettayim and literally means two. It is the same word that is used in these verses:
"Can two walk together, except they be agreed?" - Amos 3:3
The third objection goes on to say:
"Unlike the origins controversy, the issue of whether the earth is flat does not undermine the rest of scientific inquiry. Whether we were created in the image of God or evolved through millions of years of accidental mutations, vicious natural selection, and so forth gives us very different starting points when we consider whether man can be logical, moral, and so forth."
My response:
That couldn't be further from the truth. In fact, the entire notion of the flat earth under the dome completely undermines the evolutionary cosmological models while Answers In Genesis accepts these models rather than refutes them. The entire problem here is that the helio-centric model is the very basis and foundation of evolution here on earth. While Ken Ham and others wish to expose evolution as a lie, which it certainly is, they start with the same helio-centric models which evolutionists start with. That is a big problem. There is nothing "special" and "unique" even about earth and God's exclusive creation which is highlighted throughout Scripture. Earth is merely a speck in the infinite universe which is shooting through space going nowhere exactly. While some would see the vastness and infinite nature of space, according to NASA, as something tremendously revealing about God the creator, please consider that the flat earth under the dome also reveals God as the creator but that man and earth are uniquely designed by God and are placed in the center and are the focus of creation rather than being a very small participant in an expanding universe crowed with other galaxies and planets.
What exactly is so unique about God's creation when NASA has said they have found water on Mars (which was released around the time the new movie "The Martian" hit theaters) and have discovered another "earth like" planet?
The fourth objection says:
"From the scant information offered by flat-earther websites, there is no indication that any flat-earthers have specific training in the fields of geology, physics, or planetary science. On the other hand, young-earth creationist groups like Answers in Genesis employ scientists with extensive training in fields related to the origins controversy. For example, AiG employs geologist Andrew Snelling, astrophysicist Jason Lisle, molecular geneticist Georgia Purdom, anatomist and biologist David Menton, and historian of geology Terry Mortenson, all of whom hold PhD’s in their fields from major universities."
My response:
Wrong. Although I wish to again point out that we are to start with Scripture regarding these matters rather than appeal to the very thing being disputed, namely NASA and its assertions and its so-called experts; career land surveyors, a German engineer and pilot, corporate travel agents, U.S. Army master gunner, engineers with degrees in physics, industrial wave experts, international shipping experts, U.S. Navy submarine chief, U.S. Navy missile instructor, U.S. Navy artillery radar operator, retired U.S. Air Force navigator, and an Australian Intelligence officer have all confirmed the flat earth.
The fifth objection states:
"Unlike young-earth creationism, flat-earthism is not scriptural and has no profound theological implications. There are (mostly poetic) passages that could be cited by flat-earthers, such as Revelation 7:1, which refers to the “four corners of the earth”—but these are most clearly interpreted as figurative."
My response:
I am quite happy to disagree with this statement entirely. In fact, this is precisely what the Scriptures teach. What the Scriptures disagree with is the helio-centric model and other Christian ministries which have abandoned these truths in order to not be considered "entirely" foolish to the modern world. Everywhere from Isaiah 40:22, which uses the Hebrew "chug" (circle) rather than the word "dur" (ball), to the creation account in Genesis which teaches a firmament which separates the waters, all plainly teach a flat stationary earth. Even Peter confirms this firmament (which Answers In Genesis dismisses as existing today after the flood) here:
"For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God." - 2 Peter 3:5
"And God said, 'Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.'" - Genesis 1:6
Has Answers In Genesis "deliberately overlooked this fact?"
The tree that grows so high that it was visible to the "end of the earth" makes sense ONLY if the earth were flat. If the earth were a ball it wouldn't matter how high the tree grew because anyone on the opposite side of the ball wouldn't be able to see it.
"The tree grew and became strong, and its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the end of the whole earth." - Daniel 4:11
That the scriptures teach that the earth is stationary and that it is the sun which moves (and stopped in Joshua 10:13) is without question a consistent theme throughout. I have compiled a list of those Scriptures here. In addition, I address the dome of the earth from the teaching of Scripture here.
Finally, there was one additional article, entitled "Getting To Be as Flat as the 'Flat Earth' Argument" that made three points which I will address here briefly.
First objection reads:
"The earth's roundness can be seen as a shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse."
My response:
So when there is a "half moon" then the earth is half round? Furthermore, I would like to remind people that the Bible specifically refers to the sun and moon as TWO LIGHTS, not one great light.
"And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars." - Genesis 1:16
The Hebrew word for "two" is from shenayim or shettayim and literally means two. It is the same word that is used in these verses:
"Can two walk together, except they be agreed?" - Amos 3:3
"And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons." Genesis 3:7
The second objection reads:
"We've all seen photos of a spherical earth taken by spacecraft circling the earth."
My response:
Sure. We've all seen them. We've also been fooled by many. There is a nice short article I would suggest that Answers In Genesis take a quick look at. It is entitled "Top 15 Photoshopped Photos That Fooled Us All."
The second objection reads:
"We've all seen photos of a spherical earth taken by spacecraft circling the earth."
My response:
Sure. We've all seen them. We've also been fooled by many. There is a nice short article I would suggest that Answers In Genesis take a quick look at. It is entitled "Top 15 Photoshopped Photos That Fooled Us All."
As I pointed out above, NASA admits that they photoshop their pictures. So how in the world is that some sort of reasonable argument of "proof?" There is an article here which discusses the blue marble picture of the earth and why he HAD TO FAKE IT.
The third objection reads:
"Even people in ancient times saw ships disappear over the horizon, and knew (centuries before Columbus) that the earth was round."
My response:
In all of my study regarding this subject, ancient cosmology, including the Hebrews (which is the most important to this subject) believe that the earth was stationary, flat, and under some type of dome.
Regarding ships "disappearing over the horizon," that is nothing more than demonstrating convergence regarding our line of sight. I would simply ask Answers In Genesis to conduct their own experiments, which many Flat Earthers have done, and pull out a pair of binoculars and see if the ship comes back into view from miles away?
Finally, I would simply ask that a respectful and honest dialogue occur between Christians over this matter with the Scriptures being the foundation and final authority.
"If one gives an answer before he hears, it is his folly and shame." - Proverbs 18:13
"Test everything. Hold on to the good." (1 Thess 5:21)
It is high time that we, as Christians, begin to display honesty and integrity to the rest of the world and to live as examples for others regarding such matters. I pray that we can do this going forward.
No comments:
Post a Comment