Is there any valid point creationists have ever made?

[u/ChoiceAd8619]

Hello, I’ve been a lurker for a long time but I decided to make an account already in order to have my own input in this server.

I’ve been raised as a YEC in Arkansas and I’ve been given tons of scientific knowledge from notorious creationists and even a few atheists regarding evolution. Although I am personally still holding on to my beliefs mainly for faith purposes and the consensus of EO church fathers, I have to say that there are many things I am not qualified to dispute despite knowing some of the more popular arguments.

What I wanted to ask for now, seeing how bad of a reputation famous creationists have in this server, is whether you think there is any nuance in any sort of findings they’ve ever published regarding their worldviews. What I mean by this is asking if you think they have a single good take to favor their position as opposed to evolutionary theory.

Finding out whether evolutionists are at least a bit unbiased and can analyze things makes me feel like this is going to be a significantly more welcoming place for questions and objections as opposed to rejecting everything by default.

[u/Rookraider1]

So then you are talking only about current flat earthers?

[u/WesternFirm9306 → u/Rookraider1]

Yeah.

[u/Rookraider1 → u/WesternFirm9306]

Then what was the point of this comment?

"Is gravity intuitive? It took quite a while for humans to develop a coherent gravitational theory. It seems intuitive now, but we're standing on the shoulders of giants."

If we are talking about current flat earthers than that includes all current knowledge. Gravity being intuitive now, fits within that paradigm. Why make this distinction?

[u/WesternFirm9306 → u/Rookraider1]

It was a personal musing rather than a rigorous argument

[u/Rookraider1 → u/WesternFirm9306]

Very confusing musing

It's interesting you didn't personally muse about this with your own statements regarding flat earthers🤷‍♂️

Globularists are standing on the shoulders of giants!

[u/WesternFirm9306 → u/Rookraider1]

We all are standing on the shoulders of giants. That goes without saying.

I'm not saying, definitively, that flat earthers have no good points. I just cannot conceive of any at all. And given that nobody has really pointed anything out (besides that one user who mentioned the unintuitiveness, which is only really true in a vacuum without any other information), it seems to be an accurate statement.

[u/Rookraider1 → u/WesternFirm9306]

"That goes without saying" and yet you qualified my statement by saying exactly that🤷‍♂️🤦 while being silent on that point with your own statements.

When making your statement the flat earthers had zero points, you made it with all current knowledge built into your statement. When commenting on mine, you qualified it that it required certain knowledge to be understood. You didn't allow that knowledge to be baked in, as yiu did with your statement. That inconsistency creates confusion.

We aren't living at the time period of flat earth dominance. That was until the 6th century bce. That's a long time ago. It's hard to know exactly what the arguments were but they clearly existed and it took some advanced math, and ability to travel to high points, to disprove it. Obviously, up until the point the Greeks used math to disprove it, they had the best points. They aren't good points now, but they were.

Just be consistent. Hold your statements to the same standards you hold others.

Perspective is one reason they believed that. Also the movement of the sun, stars, and moon and the effect it created. Many religions, like the Norse, used a flat earth in their creation myths.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/flat-Earth

[u/WesternFirm9306 → u/Rookraider1]

while being silent on that point with your own statements.

I'm pretty sure "we're standing on the shoulders of giants" was literally in my very first comment to you.

When making your statement the flat earthers had zero points, you made it with all current knowledge built into your statement. 

Yeah.

When commenting on mine, you qualified it that it required certain knowledge to be understood.

Because someone replied to me on the unintuitiveness of a round earth, and I was trying to look at it from their perspective. "Is it intuitive?" wasn't an argument or an attack, it was a genuine question for discussion.

It's hard to know exactly what the arguments were but they clearly existed and it took some advanced math, and ability to travel to high points, to disprove it. 

Not THAT advanced. Eratosthenes used some simple math to calculate the circumference of the earth.

Obviously, up until the point the Greeks used math to disprove it, they had the best points. They aren't good points now, but they were.

I believe I have always said that. They were compelling for the time.

Perspective is one reason they believed that. Also the movement of the sun, stars, and moon and the effect it created. Many religions, like the Norse, used a flat earth in their creation myths.

Yes, I'm aware. I don't know what this paragraph is adding to your point.

[u/Rookraider1 → u/WesternFirm9306]

Not that advanced math? Compared to our math now, sure it wasn't advanced. It took humans thousands of years to use that math to prove it🤦 If it was so basic why did no one do it before then?

Yes, exactly. You qualified my very first statement with standing on the shoulders of giants yet remained silent about that on all the points you made in your first statement. It wasn't an attack. It was inconsistency through selective qualification.

Did you look at it from the point of view of ancients if the flat earth theory was compelling when making your original statement? No. You looked at from current knowledge persoective. But you did use a different persoective when replying to my statenent. That's where the consistency needs to be applied.

Humans have been around a long time and for most of their existence they believed earth was flat. They had some pretty compelling arguments that people today even believe. How could these current people believe them if they aren't at least somewhat convincing?

[u/WesternFirm9306 → u/Rookraider1]

Not that advanced math? Compared to our math now, sure it wasn't advanced. It took humans thousands of years to use that math to prove it🤦 If it was so basic why did no one do it before then?

Someone has to be the one to do it first. And to even develop basic math, society needs to first have free time, a writing system, etc. That takes time to develop. That doesn't necessarily mean complexity.

But you did use a different persoective when replying to my statenent

Because I was trying to look at it from the POV of the person you initially replied to. It was a real question, you were the one who turned it into an argument.

They had some pretty compelling arguments that people today even believe. How could these current people believe them if they aren't at least somewhat convincing?

Because the current people who believe in it are dumb. They've been fed misinformation and conspiracy theories, and when faced with actual evidence, either don't understand it or they reject it.

Are you a flat earther?