Add Chris Jones to the list of pro athletes that think the earth is flat

[TrapGame]

I love conspiracy theories. This is a good one. The CIA classified a book in 1965. It has been released via FOIA and it's heavily redacted. Interesting stuff.

[Dawg2003]

That?s not true. There are scientific theories that are still debated because there is a point of suspending what you consider logic or rational thought to make the theory believable. There are many scientists, top Noble Prize winning scientists, top academic scientist that believe in God, a higher power, intelligent design and/or creation as well. You will find that your thinking is what is more prevalent to pressure young students into a Weinberg totalitarian view of doing ANYTHING (which does not have to be based in truth or science) to weaken the hold of religion. It?s a false and dangerous viewpoint and proven wrong by many many scientists over the centuries who are pure scientists and also believe in God or a higher power and/or creation.

I actually am not against religion and think that secular humanism has failed. I don't think that science has all the answers, but I also know that rational thought must be suspended to believe many religious tenets.

[smootness]

I hear what you're saying, but I don't think that believing in science is lazy or morally bankrupt. Science actually differs from religion because science doesn't claim to know it all. It's always open to discovery.

We make fun of the flat earthers, but how is that different than believing a virgin gave birth to God? It's not. It's just as silly sounding.

I'm not going to tell you that some of my beliefs don't sound crazy. I get that, and I'm ok with it. Someone who doesn't believe in the supernatural will always look at the virgin birth or the resurrection or miracles and say it's silly and stupid. And I'm fine with that because I do believe in a supernatural God who can do all things. Frankly, it is silly-sounding to me to say that we are all simply here because once there was a cell and it started to mutate. A person is free to believe that, and I can't disprove it, but it sounds silly to me.

I'm not saying it's lazy or morally bankrupt to 'believe' in science. My point is that it isn't science vs. religion. I believe in a supernatural God who created all things...so I believe that the things that science observes and tries to figure out were all created by that God. I don't think that if science answers something, it means God doesn't. My belief is that God exists outside our plane of existence (on the account of the fact that he created it), and that all that we can see, touch, and observe is inside that plane of existence. It is akin to being part of a Rube Goldberg machine; you can look back and observe that the final ball was hit by some mechanism, then look further back and see that the mechanism was hit by another ball, etc. What you can't ever see by observation is how the Rube Goldberg machine came to be in the first place. So science provides us very valuable things, and I am all for it. What I don't think it can answer is how we came to be, and it certainly can't answer why. Which is why those with a materialistic worldview say, 'It just is.' Because science can't say more than that. But science isn't what is saying, 'It just is.' The worldview a person has will always inform their assumptions taken from those observations.

So when I say it is lazy and morally bankrupt, I'm not talking about those with a materialistic worldview. They have at least taken observations and formed a belief. What I think is lazy and morally bankrupt is the lack of attempt at all to develop a worldview. That is agnosticism, saying, 'I don't know and I don't care to look any further or come to a belief.' That is not belief in science, that is a lack of caring for any of it at all.

So I don't believe there is such a thing as 'belief in science.' I think what people mean when they say that is either a materialistic worldview or the belief that science (which is really just observation) can lead to an answer on all things. The first is fine, the second is simply untrue.

[Really Clark?]

I actually am not against religion and think that secular humanism has failed. I don't think that science has all the answers, but I also know that rational thought must be suspended to believe many religious tenets.

I know but the same is true for leaps in science as well. We still can’t find evidence of evolution into the extremely complex cells that is being explored and new discoveries made even today. From a simple cell to one that is so complex that it makes supercomputers seem like an Abacus calculator. That’s a suspension in rational thought. Now I’m not talking about natural selection, mutations, small changes in a species, etc. But the process in which a simple cell organism evolved into a very complex cell with history written into the DNA, that is difficult belief without suspension of rational thought.

[smootness]

I think the DNA similarities among species and the fossil record are fascinating, and I don't have a succinct, easy answer on them. But I do think the science behind common descent presents at least as many tough questions as it claims to answer.

[fccee1]

In order to believe creationism, you have to completely reject science.

You should read or listen to a book by Lee Strobel A Case for a Creator. It is kind of a dry read but I found it interesting. Have read a couple of is other books too.

[Lord McBuckethead]

I agree totally with you. Here is one way of looking at it. God created every thing but it developed after he created it. Then the question comes up about Adam and Eve how could it when they were here. Then the next question should how long were they in the Garden? They were not completely mortals yet. They could have been there billions of years. I am not saying I believe this I am just saying god is god and he can do what he want to how he wants to.

To me, almost all of the stories of the Bible are parables, designed to teach us something in a manner that people who couldn't read could understand.

1. To me, Adam and Eve just a story. Didn't happen. If it did, it was 200k years ago and no one would remember the story.

2. Noah.... the world didn't flood, but maybe a small part did. 2 animals? nope, didn't happen.

3. Mosses, probably did happen for the most part.

4. Virgin Birth, maybe but a young girl gets pregnant out of wedlock and her betrothed still decides to marry her..... seems like there is a convenience to this story.

5. Resurrection, sure why not.

Most of the stories are BS. Only there to teach the dumb and illiterate something.

What I do believe, God and Jesus are great. Men have too much faith in a book and stories written by men. The only things that matter are, Jesus is the way to the Lord and be your neighbors keeper. We should be doing everything we can for our neighbors. Not locking them in cages. Not turning them away. Hell there are poeple in our communities that we all treat as they are less than. I say skip Sunday church and help out your neighbor that needs it. Put that 10% to work in your own community, first.

[Lord McBuckethead]

Flat earthers are dumb as bricks. Take a little bit of time, buy a weather balloon and send up a go pro to the upper atmosphere. You can see the damn earth is a sphere.
If you cannot believe this, then well shame on you.
How does the sunset work? How does the sunrise work? How do seasons work? What about the GD moon and its shadow, the earths shadow looking back from the moon? I mean shit. The world is damn pretty much spherical in shape. There is no question.

[smootness]

Flat earthers are dumb as bricks. Take a little bit of time, buy a weather balloon and send up a go pro to the upper atmosphere. You can see the damn earth is a sphere.
If you cannot believe this, then well shame on you.
How does the sunset work? How does the sunrise work? How do seasons work? What about the GD moon and its shadow, the earths shadow looking back from the moon? I mean shit. The world is damn pretty much spherical in shape. There is no question.

I think we can all agree those who believe the earth is flat are 100% mistaken.

[Dawg2003]

You should read or listen to a book by Lee Strobel A Case for a Creator. It is kind of a dry read but I found it interesting. Have read a couple of is other books too.

I read that book and found it completely unconvincing. He never offered any counter arguments to his beliefs. He states a belief and then goes looking for someone/something to back it up. I've read all of his books and think most of them are bad. The only one that halfway convinced me was "The Case for Easter." He actually did bring up some legitimate arguments in that one. I bet he's made a fortune off of all those books though because people are desperate to believe in something. I don't blame them though because it's really depressing to think I won't see my parents again after they die. I'm willing to try to believe a lot of foolish stuff to avoid facing that reality.

[Ari Gold]

Who gives a shit.. it’s dumb to think the world is flat but who cares .
After C.J. signs his big deal and if he gives back a couple million back to the football program we can put a plaque up that says Chris “flat world” Jones for all I care.

[oompa]

Is there a succinct podcast or article that can explain these flat earthers' beliefs and explanations on why they actually think the earth is flat in the face of science and facts and stuff?

It's just over 90 minutes, but you should watch the documentary "Behind the Curve". It's on Netflix. It's hilarious. One thing you learn is that there is no reason to even argue with flat earthers. It's useless.

The best part of the film is when a group of them come up with a couple of experiments to scientifically prove that the earth is flat and end up proving the exact opposite.

[timotheus]

If the bible weren't true the palestine and Israel wouldn't be fighting. If it's all flat then where is the edge at? Just kidding.

[smootness]

I read that book and found it completely unconvincing. He never offered any counter arguments to his beliefs. He states a belief and then goes looking for someone/something to back it up. I've read all of his books and think most of them are bad. The only one that halfway convinced me was "The Case for Easter." He actually did bring up some legitimate arguments in that one. I bet he's made a fortune off of all those books though because people are desperate to believe in something. I don't blame them though because it's really depressing to think I won't see my parents again after they die. I'm willing to try to believe a lot of foolish stuff to avoid facing that reality.

I like The Case for Christ and what I've read of The Case for a Creator, but you're right that what he's doing is more Christian apologetics than unbiased investigation. My issue with that is that according to him, his own search was unbiased, and he investigated both claims from Christians, or at least theists, and claims from atheists, and found the former more convincing. His own search occurred in the late 70s and early 80s, but then he wrote his first book in 1998 and only used arguments from Christians. I find the book useful, but it's not going to alone convince many skeptics. I wish he had done a thorough reconstruction of his own actual search.

[PMDawg]

I mean, there's a certain amount of rational thought you have to suspend to believe in any religion. In order to believe creationism, you have to completely reject science. I honestly never knew creationists existed until I went to graduate school and met some. Of course, you also have to completely reject science and twist your mind into a pretzel to believe in God, so most people are irrational about something. Just don't become an anti-vaxxer because they are public nuisances.

You and Beardo just spout lies like they're truth. you repeat stuff you've heard repeated without putting any thought into it at all. It's a long debate that I'm not about to get into right now, but it is far from cut and dry from either standpoint.

As a scientific member of the aerospace industry, I find it astounding that people can write off creationism as "non-scientific". Everything we learned in physics, thermodynamics, and many of the other basic sciences teaches you that something can't come from nothing and that chaos comes from order, not the other way around. Yet people push that all aside without even the briefest thought. I have yet to come across ANYTHING that made itself, without having a designer first think it up, draw it (or otherwise describe it) and then have someone manufacture it. Down to the simplest thing - like a paperclip. Yet I'm to believe that the most complex things that have ever existed did just that? It doesn't make scientific sense to me. The more I learn about the universe, the more order I see and the more I'm convinced that it all had to be designed and built. Our greatest creations as humans are nothing but hollow attempts to copy the original Designer. The human body is a marvel that contains the blueprints for pumps, pipes, electricity, computers, the internet/networks, valves, fulcrums, ball joints, socket joints, and on and on.

I have a genius level IQ, advanced degrees, and work for THE premier science and aerospace organization on earth. And I can tell you that, scientifically speaking, it's not the slam dunk that you and Beardo want to imagine. The only people who are really closing off rational thought are those who completely dismiss the other side. To me, a lot of today's "science" is just another form of religion. A lot of unintelligent people reassure themselves regarding their intelligence by saying things like "I believe in Science!" or "Scientific consensus!", when in reality, they have an elementary level (at best) of scientific understanding.

[PMDawg]

Thats all fine, 7...but you did take offense to my young earth comment, as if believing the universe is 6000 years old is a requisite for Christian faith. Young earth creationists actually make up a minority of the overall faith, btw. And the recommendation of Hugh Ross as a writer on intelligent design is a great one, especially since he, as a Christian, fiercely challenges the young earth peddlers like Ken Hamm et. al.

Hugh Ross is a scientific bafoon who lies, exaggerates, and demonstrates a, let's say "poor" to be nice, level of basic scientific understanding to try to tie the Bible together with today's "science".

[BeardoMSU]

You and Beardo just spout lies like they're truth. you repeat stuff you've heard repeated without putting any thought into it at all. It's a long debate that I'm not about to get into right now, but it is far from cut and dry from either standpoint.

As a scientific member of the aerospace industry, I find it astounding that people can write off creationism as "non-scientific". Everything we learned in physics, thermodynamics, and many of the other basic sciences teaches you that something can't come from nothing and that chaos comes from order, not the other way around. Yet people push that all aside without even the briefest thought. I have yet to come across ANYTHING that made itself, without having a designer first think it up, draw it (or otherwise describe it) and then have someone manufacture it. Down to the simplest thing - like a paperclip. Yet I'm to believe that the most complex things that have ever existed did just that? It doesn't make scientific sense to me. The more I learn about the universe, the more order I see and the more I'm convinced that it all had to be designed and built. Our greatest creations as humans are nothing but hollow attempts to copy the original Designer. The human body is a marvel that contains the blueprints for pumps, pipes, electricity, computers, the internet/networks, valves, fulcrums, ball joints, socket joints, and on and on.

I have a genius level IQ, advanced degrees, and work for THE premier science and aerospace organization on earth. And I can tell you that, scientifically speaking, it's not the slam dunk that you and Beardo want to imagine. The only people who are really closing off rational thought are those who completely dismiss the other side. To me, a lot of today's "science" is just another form of religion. A lot of unintelligent people reassure themselves regarding their intelligence by saying things like "I believe in Science!" or "Scientific consensus!", when in reality, they have an elementary level (at best) of scientific understanding.

I just said the earth wasn't 6000 years old bro. Sorry your genius level IQ was so triggered by that.

[BeardoMSU]

Hugh Ross is a scientific bafoon who lies, exaggerates, and demonstrates a, let's say "poor" to be nice, level of basic scientific understanding to try to tie the Bible together with today's "science".

Ok, Ken.

[PMDawg]

I'm not going to tell you that some of my beliefs don't sound crazy. I get that, and I'm ok with it. Someone who doesn't believe in the supernatural will always look at the virgin birth or the resurrection or miracles and say it's silly and stupid. And I'm fine with that because I do believe in a supernatural God who can do all things. Frankly, it is silly-sounding to me to say that we are all simply here because once there was a cell and it started to mutate. A person is free to believe that, and I can't disprove it, but it sounds silly to me.

I'm not saying it's lazy or morally bankrupt to 'believe' in science. My point is that it isn't science vs. religion. I believe in a supernatural God who created all things...so I believe that the things that science observes and tries to figure out were all created by that God. I don't think that if science answers something, it means God doesn't. My belief is that God exists outside our plane of existence (on the account of the fact that he created it), and that all that we can see, touch, and observe is inside that plane of existence. It is akin to being part of a Rube Goldberg machine; you can look back and observe that the final ball was hit by some mechanism, then look further back and see that the mechanism was hit by another ball, etc. What you can't ever see by observation is how the Rube Goldberg machine came to be in the first place. So science provides us very valuable things, and I am all for it. What I don't think it can answer is how we came to be, and it certainly can't answer why. Which is why those with a materialistic worldview say, 'It just is.' Because science can't say more than that. But science isn't what is saying, 'It just is.' The worldview a person has will always inform their assumptions taken from those observations.

So when I say it is lazy and morally bankrupt, I'm not talking about those with a materialistic worldview. They have at least taken observations and formed a belief. What I think is lazy and morally bankrupt is the lack of attempt at all to develop a worldview. That is agnosticism, saying, 'I don't know and I don't care to look any further or come to a belief.' That is not belief in science, that is a lack of caring for any of it at all.

So I don't believe there is such a thing as 'belief in science.' I think what people mean when they say that is either a materialistic worldview or the belief that science (which is really just observation) can lead to an answer on all things. The first is fine, the second is simply untrue.

Exactly. Science is from God, he created it. The two are not mutually exclusive. When we learn about science, we are learning how God did things. Not how things could happen without a God. The fact is, we're just not smart enough to know exactly how to tie the two together - and we never will be. We will never know everything, and that's true whether you believe in God or not.

[Dawg2003]

I like The Case for Christ and what I've read of The Case for a Creator, but you're right that what he's doing is more Christian apologetics than unbiased investigation. My issue with that is that according to him, his own search was unbiased, and he investigated both claims from Christians, or at least theists, and claims from atheists, and found the former more convincing. His own search occurred in the late 70s and early 80s, but then he wrote his first book in 1998 and only used arguments from Christians. I find the book useful, but it's not going to alone convince many skeptics. I wish he had done a thorough reconstruction of his own actual search.

The Case for the Creator did bring up some interesting points, but you're right. It was more of an apologetics book than an actual investigation. I actually talked online with the guy who wrote "God's Crime Scene," and he sent me a free copy of his book. I haven't finished it yet, but he's brought up a lot of good points that have made me think. I think I'll always be skeptical but still out there searching.