Movie Review: “Is Genesis History?”

Genesis yec young earth creationism atheist critiqueIf you squeezed your eyes real tight and wished that all those stories from the Old Testament were really, honest-to-goodness true—from the six-day creation and Adam and Eve to the global Flood, the Tower of Babel, and all the rest—your wish has been granted! Or, at least you can imagine it for 101 minutes by watching Is Genesis History?, a documentary released as a DVD a week ago.

The movie is unapologetically young-earth Creationist (“young earth” means that they think that the earth and the rest of the universe is roughly 6000 years old, and “Creationist” means that they reject evolution).

The production quality is high, with some beautiful natural locations, and they interview a dozen relevant scientists. Breaking ranks with typical Creationist “scholarship,” these scientists’ doctorates are often actually in the field that they’re critiquing—geology, paleontology, biology, astronomy, and archaeology. They only tangentially addressed the elephant in the room: that conventional science has overwhelmingly concluded that the Big Bang and evolution are real and a 6000-year-old earth and global flood are not.

As an outsider to these scientific fields, I’m sometimes in a difficult spot. Some arguments are clearly nonsense. Some are legitimate open questions within conventional science. And some require more expertise (or research time) than I now have. I’ve written about a couple of times Creationists were able to shut me up with arguments I couldn’t answer here. That is, they shut me up until I had a chance to look into the claims more thoroughly and found out how I’d been lied to, which is not the best way to win me to your side.

If you can expand on my responses below, add those in the comments.

YouTube Preview Image

Canyons

The movie opens at a stream in a small canyon. The walls of the canyon look to be made of sand and gravel. We’re asked: How long would it take for a small stream like this to carve this canyon? Centuries, you might think? Surprise—we’re near Mt. St. Helens! It’s been 37 years since it erupted, and it already has canyons. We’re told that streams “cut through deep [bedrock], all in a couple of days.”

Don’t be ridiculous—streams didn’t cut through bedrock in days. I’ve been to Mt. St. Helens many times, including two visits to the Mount St. Helens Creation Center, a tiny museum with a Creationist presupposition that may have been the source of the observation, “Gosh, but don’t these recent canyons look just like a mini Grand Canyon?!”

Who would be surprised that water quickly cut canyons at Mt. St. Helens? They’re made of sand and gravel!

The movie introduces Steve Austin (geologist) who argued for a global flood, using the Grand Canyon as evidence. He said that the many layers show evidence of rapid sedimentation—that is, within hours or even minutes.

How? The upper Grand Canyon layers include sedimentary rock including sandstone, limestone, and shale. These rocks form under different conditions. Are they imagining that the advancing or retreating Flood changed its conditions so that different things would settle out? Limestone is mostly made from tiny fragments of marine organisms like coral. Shale is made from clay and other minerals, and unlike limestone and sandstone, it is composed of thin sheets. It would be complicated enough if all the sandstone were at the bottom, then the shale, and then the limestone (for example), but it’s actually a complex interleaving of various kinds of each stone—sandstone, then shale, then limestone, then more sandstone, and so on.

It gets worse when you remember that these layers contain fossils that are distinct to that layer. It’s not something simple like the animals were graded by size—the biggest falling out of the turbulent flood first and becoming part of the lowest layer, and so on. Why are there trilobite fossils in the Tapeats sandstone layer but none in the Hermit shale above, and why are there fossils of dragonflies with an eight-inch wingspan in the Hermit shale but none in the Tapeats sandstone? How would a chaotic flood create thousands of feet of distinctly interleaved layers? The question isn’t even acknowledged.

The movie points to the Bible, handwaving a geological explanation for water bursting out of the ground (“the fountains of the deep”) to create the Flood.

No, geology doesn’t help you much here, but a mythology borrowed from the nearby Sumerians explains things nicely. They imagined a dome of salt water above the earth (why do you think the sky is blue?) and fresh water underneath. (More analysis here and here.)

Next, we’re assured that the flood was global, not local. Where did all that water come from? Don’t worry—the mountains weren’t as high back then. But that means extreme mountain building in the few thousand years since the Ark landed. Again, we’re given assertion but no evidence.

Cutting of the Grand Canyon

Finally, he rejects the idea that the Canyon took millions or tens of millions of years to be cut by the Colorado River. He said, “Most geologists have jettisoned that idea” (untrue as far as I can tell). What he thinks did it is catastrophic erosion from the rapid draining of huge lakes, which might’ve carved the Grand Canyon in weeks.

Actually, I can imagine erosion from the rapid draining of huge lakes. Dry Falls in eastern Washington state was formed that way. The one small problem is that Dry Falls and Grand Canyon look completely different (pictures of each here).

He can sidestep this problem by imagining that the erosion happened to sand or silt, before it was turned to stone. In that case, of course, he must explain the magic that made it turn to stone in a few thousand years.

So many unanswered questions.

Continue with part 2.

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God
who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect
has intended us to forgo their use.
— Galileo Galilei

Image credit: Wikimedia

About Bob Seidensticker
  • Kevin K

    The Mt. Saint Helen’s (or Mount St. Helen’s, or Mt. St. He’s) canyons have been there for thousands and thousands of years. They were not formed by the eruption. That’s as pure a lie as was ever told. Strike one.

    The geology of the post-eruption riverbeds looks completely different from that of the riverbeds in the Grand Canyon. Straight line erosion compared with the “meandering” erosion. So, comparing the two is another rank lie. Strike two.

    And of course, the final lie is that “most geologist” have rejected how the Grand Canyon was formed slowly over time. Strike three.

    YECs can’t open their mouths without violating a Commandment of Hammurabi.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      I’m pretty sure that the Mt. St. Helens canyons are new. They were cut into the 200 feet (or so) of ash that was laid down during the eruptions in the 80s.

      That’s an interesting point about erosion in ash vs. in rock. I have no expertise here, so thanks for the data.

      • Kevin K

        I’ve been to both places. One looks nothing like the other. Even an amateur geologist would snicker at the suggestion that the same forces made both places.

        Of course, the real issue with YECers is to ask them why every place around every river system on Earth doesn’t look exactly and precisely like the Grand Canyon. After all … same flood, right?

        Watch them hummana hummana.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Yes, why there’s just one Grand Canyon instead of hundreds is left unexplained and unacknowledged.

        • Kevin K

          The entire Earth should be nothing but canyonland if their geology has even a hint of truth to it. Isn’t.

        • http://www.waitrose.com/ KKRDB

          Did they have geologists thousands of years ago?

          Take from there it speaks for itself…

        • http://www.waitrose.com/ KKRDB

          Come to think about it…The ancient Egyptians were very good and artistic builders..When I look at the Pharaoh’s pictures the are extremely well in adition their exploits in everything they produced.

        • Kodie

          What does that have to do with geology?

        • Kevin K

          Sure they did. Rudimentary, for sure … but they would not have been able to make things out brass and bronze and iron had it not been for an understanding of geology to know the likely place to find the ores necessary for those things. Nor quarry the big rocks for pyramids. And on and on. It may not have been as codified a “science” as we know it — but it was certainly geology.

        • Jim Jones

          It was science, just not called that. Anything we observe to repeat is science.

          And thus not religion.

        • Kodie

          Who was that stupid guy who thought he only needed one example of “objective morality” to prove it exists. They only need one canyon to prove the flood. What about the fjords? What about? God only needed on rainbow to promise Noah there would be no more floods, and only needed on mating pair of each animal and now every year it’s sharks and mosquitoes giving us nothing but grief.

        • Christine Gibbons

          The fjords were Slartibartfast!
          Arthur Dent: The Earth!
          Slartibartfast: Well, the Earth Mark II, in fact. We’re making a copy from our original blueprints.
          Arthur Dent: Are you telling me you originally made the Earth?
          Slartibartfast: Oh, yes. Did you ever go to a place – I think it was called Norway?
          Arthur Dent: No. No, I didn’t.
          Slartibartfast: Pity. That was one of mine. Won an award, you know. Lovely crinkly edges.

        • Rick

          Lots of other canyons with similar attributes.

          http://www.touropia.com/canyons-of-the-world/

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I’m not quite seeing it that way. Yes, there are other canyons, but are they geologically similar to the Grand Canyon? Which of those canyons be dropped into the first 12 minutes or so of this movie instead of the Grand Canyon and have the same arguments apply?

          The Grand Canyon is a big canyon carved into a relatively flat surface. Of your list, the Fish River canyon in Namibia (from the image) looks to be similar. By contrast, the Waimea canyon on Kauai is most certainly not like that–it’s all igneous rock, and it wasn’t flat.

          When you’re done with that question, there are other questions I asked in the post (and others have asked in the comments). You might want to have a go at those, since the film producers didn’t want to touch them.

          BTW, have you seen the movie? As I watched it, I thought that it would be a good fit for you.

        • Rick

          There are other large scale canyons like the Grand Canyon. Not all of the canyons in the link were formed in exactly the same way, but some were, which was the point.

          I’ve seen the movie, and did not find your commentary to be especialy well balanced nor objective, but I don’t find that commenting here leads to constructive dialogue. That is why I simply pointed out the easily discoered link with lots of other large canyons, some of which are similar to GC and others erosionnal but very different.

          The purpose of the list by the author of the site referenced was to show large, beautiful canyons. It was not put togetehr to find other canyons similar to the Grand Canyon. I thought it would be appropriate to send because it contained several canyons that refute the point above, “…why there’s just one Grand Canyon instead of hundreds.” The Grand Canyon is not the only one with similar features.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          So far, I’ve seen zero additional examples that the experts in the movie would agree were formed in the same way. You’ve simply pointed out other canyons; I had to point out that one (Kauai) was obviously not geologically similar in several ways. Are there others that would satisfy those experts? Show me. But let me make an aside: that the experts didn’t point to any other canyons that would meet their criteria is yet another fundamental question that they didn’t even acknowledge. We’re off to a very poor start for a movie that has the pretentions of being scientifically accurate.

          I’ve seen the movie, and did not find your commentary to be especialy well balanced nor objective

          You could be right. I’m not a geologist. Incredibly, though, the geologist in the movie (or maybe the fault is with the director and what was cut out) didn’t acknowledge or respond to the questions that I raised. Were they stupid questions? That’s possible, but in that case, they could’ve raised them and slaped them down with solid answers.

          That is why I simply pointed out the easily discoered link with lots of other large canyons, some of which are similar to GC and others erosionnal but very different.

          How many could’ve replaced the Grand Canyon as an example? And of all the rest, their existence is yet another problem—how could these canyons exist and not be created by the Flood??

          I thought it would be appropriate to send because it contained several canyons that refute the point above, “…why there’s just one Grand Canyon instead of hundreds.” The Grand Canyon is not the only one with similar features.

          Again: you’ve not given us one example. There were clearly some that weren’t like the Grand Canyon, and if you want to show us ones that do have the Grand Canyon’s complexity of sedimentary layers, that those layers roughly match up (I’m guessing that the same worldwide Flood would lay down similar layers worldwide?), that there was a similar catastrophic flood event that cut the canyon, and whatever else the Flood geology would argue, go ahead. But know that once you’d done that, you will simply have shown that the others canyons contradict the story. You must find alternate non-Flood explanations for their creation in the last few thousand years.

          BTW, I’ll be working on responding to the remainder of the movie in the days ahead. Let me know if you have any suggestions. Or, you can respond after the fact to those as well–either way.

        • eric

          I don’t think you even need to be an amateur geologist. It doesn’t take much learning at all to recognize that recently compressed ash might be easier for water to erode than sandstone, or to think about the fact that the ash from the eruption at St. Helens forms one fairly uniform layer while the grand canyon shows evidence of something like 40 separate layers.

        • Kevin K

          And in the case of the Grand Canyon, with the heavier layers in the middle. It’s practically the entire case against the “flood” geology, actually.

        • Greg G.

          I was looking at it ten years or more ago. I recall that the north rim of the GC is about a thousand feet higher than the south rim, and that is greater than the drop of a significant portion of the GC. If flood geology happened, the GC should be north to south and not east to west.

        • Kevin K

          Yes. That’s true. The weather on the north rim as a result is quite a bit colder and snowier than the south.

        • Jim Jones

          When I was at the Grand Canyon I pulled over outside it and was interested to see that the ground contained micro-Grand Canyons. It’s clear that the Canyon is a result of the nature of the geology there, not some imagined flood.

          Actual floods: Missoula Floods.

          Not recorded in history but in geology.

          And BTW, the bible ‘forgot’ to mention these two events:

          Chicxulub crater impact

          Or the rather more impressive Theia (planet) impact

  • Herald Newman

    I saw the trailer for this movie a couple of months ago, and it looked like it would induce a lot of face palms. I certainly didn’t want to pay to see the movie myself, and was hoping somebody would “take one for the team” and review this.

    Thanks Bob! Hope to see the rest of your review.

  • RichardSRussell

    Surprised by the high production values? You should be! It’s well known that you could put out a completely blank book or a 90-minute video of goldfish swimming in a bowl, slap the name “Jesus” into the title, and sell a couple of thousand copies to gullible Christian sheep, even if it got absolutely horrendous, scathing (but perfectly accurate) reviews as being a total ripoff.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      What?? You mean my negative review won’t turn any Christians away?

      • http://www.waitrose.com/ KKRDB

        Perhaps it was the way you dscribed it….Oh yea!

      • Chuck Johnson

        Additional Christians might be attracted to this film because you are persecuting them with your negative review.
        Some Christians love to suffer for what they believe.

  • Major Major

    Aron Ra actually did a multi part series on the impossiblity of the Noahic flood based on a peer reviewed paper written by two Christian geologist. It’s definitely worth watching.

    • sandy

      When talking to my christian friends, before we talk of the impossibility of the flood, I like to bring up WHY would you worship a god who regretted (fucked up) his creation then murdered everyone and animal to correct his mistake but saved the wonderful character Noah who got drunk and sent his son off for seeing his junk. And also point out, oh by the way, the christian flood story is a copy of the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh which happened 1500 years earlier. So where there two floods? The whole thing is ridiculous.

      • Rudy R

        But wait, since the flood failed as a re-boot to fix the problem he set into motion, Yahweh sent himself down to Earth as a human, to sacrifice himself, in order to forgive sins that he invented in the first place.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Give him a break. He’s only human.

        • sandy

          Ya it’s pretty messed up logically. How, how can anyone believe this shit.

      • YoOhioGirl

        The flood part of the Epic of Gilgamesh dates much later, to around 650 B.C.
        (Keyword is the “Flood part” which was a late addition….
        produced from the Atrahasis account written, according to its own
        scribe, around 1800 BC.).. it has been reconstructed.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      Thanks for the tip. Here’s one of them:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MeHmWapM4Y

  • http://www.waitrose.com/ KKRDB

    I am fedup hearing the BS about jesus and god.
    Nuff said..

    • Joe

      Aren’t we all?

  • Greg G.

    The $6 million Stone Cold Steve Austin read about the practices one should avoid when collecting samples for radiometric dating, then raised money for an expedition to do those bad practices. When a volcano happens, the lava flows through older rock and pieces break off into the flow. The books say that this will give incorrect readings because the rocks are older. So that is exactly what Austin did.

    When he sent them for testing, he questioned why he should have to advise the testers what the expected range would be. Of course the meters and oscilloscopes doing the measurements have to be properly set to get a reading that is not 0 nor max. It’s like the doctor’s scales where one heavy weight is moved over to one setting and the small weight slides across to get the weight. It is less time-consuming to estimate where the big weight goes and adjust it up or down to quickly narrow down the proper place. Doing radiometric dating is more difficult and expensive when you have to guess a starting point.

    The age readings Austin ended up with did not agree with the dates for the volcanic flows he tested but they did agree with the ages of the other layers.

  • Joe

    Once again it’s demonstrated to be much easier to accept the natural implications of scientific discoveries than to try to retrofit them to your pre-conceived beliefs.

  • Rudy R

    Funny how the global flood wasn’t noticed by the early Chinese and Egyptians.

    • Abrondon
      • epeeist

        To invoke an element of Quinean ontology.

        If a and b are kinds of F then a = b if and only if there is an identity relationship between them.

        In this case, given both are floods then a suitable identity criterion would be for them to have the same spatio-temporal location.

        So, over to you to demonstrate that this is so.

        Incidentally it is really impolite to link to an hour’s worth of proselytising when trying to make a simple point.

      • Zeta

        To Abrondon, this is apologetic garbage, full of alternative facts, speculation, and highly misleading use of the Chinese language and Chinese historical writings. Since you posted the video link without any comments, I would like to know whether you agree with the contents of Kong Hee’s preaching in the video.

      • Rudy R

        It was not…

        See how easy that is?

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      Also funny how the flood story (God told one hero to save all the animals in a boat) is similar to the flood stories of the guys down the street (Akkadians, Babylonians, Sumerians, etc.).

      • Tony D’Arcy

        (Sod the plants and micro-organisms)

      • Rudy R

        But those similar flood stories were all fiction. Just like all those fictional messiahs before Jesus.

      • YoOhioGirl

        A Fragmentary tablet labelled CBM 13532 or CBS 13532 found in Nippur…which is almost verbatim to the biblical detail account
        of Noah’s flood…is dated, roughly 2,000-2,200 B.C.
        The 2,000 BC dating places the cuneiform work prior to The “standard”Akkadian version of the Epic of Gilgamesh.

        The 2,200 BC dating place it before the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh.
        The library in which it was found was destroyed around 2100 BC by the Elamites….which tells us the tablet can not be much later than that. The language of this tablet is unlike those discovered alongside it..
        It is quite different from that of most of the other tablets
        It’s a resemblance of biblical Hebrew

        • Greg G.

          http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG211.html

          The tablet could not be dated by strata because its location was not recorded. Using other methods of dating places it later than the Epic of Gilgamish.

          Also, there were too many missing fragments to decipher the story. Hilbrecht filled in the missing parts with the Biblical story.

        • http://www.thethinkingministry.com/ YoOhioGirl

          The flood part of the Epic of Gilgamesh dates much later, to around 650 B.C.
          (Keyword is the “Flood part” which was a late addition….
          produced from the Atrahasis account written, according to its own scribe, around 1800 BC.).. it has been reconstructed.

          Even so…your own link places the Sumerian and Assyrian versions (the collection as a whole…not to be confused with the flood later addition) to 1700 BCE. As well as admit the CBM 13532 was discovered in Nippur..The library in which it was found was destroyed around 2100 BC by the Elamites..

    • Joe

      They were the climate change deniers of their day.

    • YoOhioGirl

      The chronology of such civilizations rests upon
      their reliability… Should we not call out all
      the inconsistencies often found in these records?
      It’s not just the immense amount of significant differences,
      but there are scribal errors, huge gaps between
      said history, the overlapping of dynasties and
      different historical figures taking claim of
      the same recorded events in different texts.

      Do you find all the claims believable…
      such as the Sumerian King List states…
      their ten rulers typically reign for about
      30,150 years or a total of 432,000 years at
      some point in their early history?

      When we exam China historical documents (“Shu King” )..We notice that it is not as reliable as some others would lead us to believe….
      China’s recordings do not show an unbreakable link…
      There has been proven “dating” gaps in-between history (and yes..that does include the time frame pre-flood & post…What that means is…there are some Chinese records that can be dated BEFORE the flood..even in sequences…not so much after the flood (at least for a time being).

      After the flood..there are no known Chinese records that can be dated DIRECTLY after…There is a huge dating gap (years worth before one can date the next set of Chinese records post-flood).. What we have come to learn is that the Chinese has “filled” those gaps with various versions of history… Chinese scholar;Yan Ruou, was among the chief discovers of the forges in the Chinese texts.

      • Rudy R

        Apologist much? Do I really need to respond with actual historical scholarship?

        • YoOhioGirl

          Yes..you would need to response with actual historical scholarship that disagrees. What I stated can be researched by anyone and found to be true.

        • Rudy R

          Before I start responding to historical data that would prove the Genesis flood didn’t occur, isn’t the fact that Chinese and Egyptian civilizations existed before and after the flood not logical enough to debunk the flood story? Are we to believe that Yahweh killed every man, woman, child and animal, with the exception of Noah and Company, and then magically zapped the Chinese and Egyptians back into existence, where they could carry on their cultures where they left off before the flood? Why would the Chinese need to fill the historical gaps? If they were annihilated during the flood, there should be no Chinese after the flood to fill in the gaps. But obviously, there are Chinese living today, as evidenced by the 1B+ Chinese population and the Chinese Premier eating the most wonderful chocolate cake with our fearless leader.

        • Wisdom Speak

          That doesn’t even make sense….Civilizations against before and after the flood for more than just the Chinese and Egyptian…you would need to prove those existed during the flood for the flood to have never happen. I already know some claim 5 did and China being the greatest example..but given by their own scholar;Yan Ruou, we know they a forged their records.

        • Rudy R

          So everything we know about the Chinese culture before the Biblical flood are all forgeries? That all the archeological evidence is not dated correctly and would be younger then the flood?

        • Wisdom Speak

          No….But can we believe everything they documented?
          Do you find all the claims believable…
          such as the Sumerian King List states…
          their ten rulers typically reign for about
          30,150 years or a total of 432,000 years at
          some point in their early history?

        • Rudy R

          No….But can we believe everything they documented?

          who is they?

          For some reason, you are stuck on the Sumerian King List as the gold standard for your argument. If I concede that the claim is not believable, then what? Should I then believe in the Biblical flood?

          There is evidence that can be argued strongly for the existence of the Xia Dynasty (2700-1600 BCE). The Biblical flood is conservatively established at circa 2300 BCE. Can you see the problem?

        • Wisdom Speak

          No..I’m not stuck on the Sumerian King List…it has nothing to do with the debate on the Biblical flood. It has to do with the reliability of the Chinese record. I only mention it because it was an argument giving against the flood..as if the flood didn’t happen because they didn’t record it (if I’m not mistaken). I only point out their list as well as their own scholar proving their records are always reliable.

        • Wisdom Speak

          Let me ask you this…concerning literary evidences :
          Let’s take Hannibal for an example
          Although there are plenty of writings about this general
          (minus the fact he is NOT mentioned in any Carthaginian sources
          themselves..even though he is alleged to be their greatest leader…
          obviously because the victorious Romans burned their city down…so the Roman version of history would survive….Would that classify as “solid evidence”, “proof” or possible forgeries of said events?).
          There exist no archaeological evidence to support he ever existed.
          What about the “disparities” (or would you call them contradictions)
          in the details of the path Hannibal is said to have taken recorded by Polybius and Livy?

          What we know about Hannibal comes from the Greeks and the Romans writings (NONE from archaeology to prove physical evidences…including any elephant remains or bones from any of the Carthaginian soldiers). The historians, Polybius and Livy, couldn’t even agree on the route he took

        • Rudy R

          What at all does this have to do with proving or debunking the Biblical flood?

          Sounds like more apologist reasoning than anything else. I don’t care that Hannibal can be proven to have existed (or not). Your argument seems analogous to an apologist comparing histories between Jesus and Caesar. If we believe Caesar existed based on flimsy evidence, we should believe Jesus existed as well.

        • Wisdom Speak

          That question isn’t about existences. We were talking about literary evidences… If one claim against the flood use the records of others…then we can indeed bring into question the reliability of secular documents (in the same manner one question the biblical accounts).
          In other words..if we cannot trust secular reports..then we cannot use them as solid evidences against biblical claims.

        • Pofarmer

          Every ancient record could be completely unreliable, and that wouldn’t help yours.

        • Wisdom Speak

          Now….we are going somewhere….
          Since we can agree on that…It’s a good starting point for a more truthful evaluation of all data before us…

        • Rudy R

          What secular reports do you not trust? Which ones do you trust? If you don’t trust any secular reports, would you necessarily come to the conclusion that the Bible claims are true? And if you believe the Bible claims to be true, how did you determine the claims were fact and not fiction? You do realize that many historical scholars believe the Pentateuch was not written by Moses and that the author or authors are considered anonymous, right? And you do also realize that the earliest Genesis manuscripts are dated 820-850 AD, right? So if we don’t know who wrote Genesis and we don’t have the original manuscripts, but copies of copies of copies of copies, than what is your method to determine Genesis to be anything other than fiction?

        • Pofarmer
        • Wisdom Speak

          If you didn’t catch this contradiction in your own link..then I can’t help you:

          However, Prof. Mahaney and co-authors have finally provided solid evidence for the most likely transit route that took Hannibal’s forces across the Alps — via the Col de Traversette pass.

          So is it “solid evidence” or “mostly likely”?

        • Pofarmer

          You really don’t understand how science or history works, do you?

        • Wisdom Speak

          Of course I do… You still didn’t address the contradiction. It cannot be solid evidence for something when you don’t know for sure that is the correct route. You’re only making assumptions that what you found belong to the event in question.

        • Pofarmer

          If you understood it, you would understand why the statement is provisional, even with incredibly strong evidence. But, this still refutes your statement that there is no archaeological evidence for Hannibal.

        • Wisdom Speak

          No it doesn’t..You’re attempting to assign recent findings to Hannibal. And this claim isn’t even new..it was rejected a half century ago.

        • Pofarmer

          And here I thought we were going to find something to agree on. I’m shocked, shocked I tell you.

        • Wisdom Speak

          We agree on this: Every ancient record could be completely unreliable.
          I just cannot agree that the Hannibal mystery is solved when the experts haven’t yet. We only have a few scientists making a claim..and attempting to back it with findings in horse manure. I could see elephants..as that would be harder to explain how they got there in the Alps besides Hannibal.

        • Pofarmer

          You realize that practically all the elephants died, right?

        • Wisdom Speak

          What does that have to do with them finding horse manure and not elephants manure? Of course..I know you’re attempting to be funny…Just saying…horse manure on the Alps without Hannibal is possible… now finding elephants manure on the Alps makes a stronger case for Hannibal.

        • Pofarmer

          So you think there was another very large expedition with The correct dating?

        • Wisdom Speak

          And that article is a year old…What is the update? I don’t recall hearing the rest of the experts confirm the few scientists claims..
          For the record..I’m not even saying the events never happen. I’m just saying as to date..we cannot prove it did.

        • Pofarmer

          What would the update be? Evidence still found? It would be much more likely to find a refutation. Might find more on Google scholar.

        • Wisdom Speak

          It’s a claim..no different than shroud of turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo… None of which is “solid evidence for the events of Hannibal or the resurrection of Christ.

        • Pofarmer

          So how was this claim rejected half a century ago?

        • Wisdom Speak

          From your own link:This crossing point was first proposed over a half century ago by the biologist and polymath Sir Gavin de Beer, but has not previously been widely accepted by the academic community.
          And you can see he was a biologist too..

        • Pofarmer

          That doesn’t mean it was debunked. Just that it wasn’t widely accepted.

        • Wisdom Speak

          I didn’t say it was debunked. I said it was rejected and it was. It’s not a new claim…

        • Pofarmer

          So, then we don’t look at new evidence?

        • Wisdom Speak

          of course we do…But you said it was solid evidences…and it’s not…it has about as much evidences for Hannibal as shroud of turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo has for the resurrection of Christ.

        • Pofarmer

          Uhm, large amounts of dung indicates large numbers of animals, in a time frame that agrees with other known details. I’ll admit, I’m not privvy to all the details of the evidence for Hannibal, but your radical skepticism here seems-misplaced.

        • epeeist

          I’m not privvy to all the details of the evidence for Hannibal, but your radical skepticism here seems-misplaced.

          The one thing she isn’t is a radical sceptic. She is perfectly happy to demand rigour when it comes to things she wants to use as contrary examples. However things like teh bibul get a free pass.

        • Wisdom Speak

          Not necessarily true.. I did include and concluded the shroud of turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo on equal footing of skepticism.

        • Pofarmer

          The least I can do is point that out. d;0}

        • Wisdom Speak

          Once again :”large amounts of dung indicates large numbers of animals, in a time frame that agrees with other known details” no more equal it belong to Hannibal as SOLID evidences as the evidences presented of the shroud of turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo for the resurrection of Christ. Both can be said to be substantial evidence….but I’m sure you will argue against the latter…even though the claims for both produce what they call as “proof”…

        • Pofarmer

          Uhm, the Shroud of Turin was called a hoax on the middle ages right after it appeared. Im not aware of the other and don’t care, this has been a fun little aside, but upon firther examination it’s become clear, much like Diogones of Sinope and others. Hannibal had official biographers. Those works are no longer extant but fragments remain. We know of them also because OTHERS who wrote about Hannibal listed them as their sources. We then have works from ooposing sources(our remaining history) who were more or less contemporary with Hannibal, and used those primary sources. We then have the records of his conquests recorded by his enemies. On top of this, we do have a small amount of archaelogical evidence that agrees with the contemporary stories. The question would be, if Hannibal wasn’t real, why would all these people make him up? I mean, we have the records of the movements of Legions and etc, to oppose him. Just please admit, the amount and quality if information available to confirm the existence of Hannibal is far superior and of a fundamentally different nature than the evidence for Jesus, which consists of hagiographic materials of unknown authorship. So, Ill ask again. What is the evidence that Jesus is any less fictional than Hercules, or Romulus, or Horus, or Dionysus or Mythras or any host of any other ancient concocted dieties?

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU: Uhm, the Shroud of Turin was called a hoax on the middle ages right after it appeared.
          ME: And that route was rejected when it first was introduced..Yet the claim for both is still with us.

          YOU:Hannibal had official biographers. Those works are no longer extant but fragments remain. We know of them also because OTHERS who wrote about Hannibal listed them as their sources. We then have works from ooposing sources(our remaining history) who were more or less contemporary with Hannibal, and used those primary sources. We then have the records of his conquests recorded by his enemies.
          ME: I did mention that in my first post on Hannibal.
          The records couldn’t agree with the route who took…That is why they have been looking for it for thousands of years. The data in the documents aren’t as reliable as one may wish.

          YOU: On top of this, we do have a small amount of archaelogical evidence that agrees with the contemporary stories
          ME: No we don’t. What we have is evidences that a group of horses been in that area around the same time and met their deaths. Horse aren’t uncommon to the Alps..which is why I said if they found a group of dead elephant dung in the era..then it would be more of a smoking gun.

          YOU:The question would be, if Hannibal wasn’t real, why would all these people make him up?
          ME: That wasn’t the question I put forth. I was questioning the reliability of the records concerning him as well as the records of the Chinese.. Bias aside..you have to admit that secular documents can be questionable.

        • Pofarmer

          Now hold on a minute. The documentary evidence that we do have indicates that the Noahic flood story is the culmination of a long line of flood stories that were common to the local areas. The Hebrews made theirs bigger and badder. But rather than go with the idea that the Hebrew flood was a flood story based on other older stories, your theory here is going to be that every other culture in the world that didn’t record the great flood has questionable records? Isn’t that special.

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU:But rather than go with the idea that the Hebrew flood was a flood story based on other older stories,
          ME:That’s not true..The flood part of the Epic of Gilgamesh dates much later, to around 650 B.C.
          (Keyword is the “Flood part” which was a late addition….
          produced from the Atrahasis account written, according to its own scribe, around 1800 BC.).. it has been reconstructed. The Sumerian and Assyrian versions (the collection as a whole…not to be confused with the flood later addition) to 1700 BCE. A Fragmentary tablet labelled CBM 13532 or CBS 13532 found in Nippur…which is almost verbatim to the biblical detail account
          of Noah’s flood…is dated, roughly 2,000-2,200 B.C. The 2,200 BC dating place it before the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh.
          The library in which it was found was destroyed around 2100 BC by the Elamites….which tells us the tablet can not be much later than that.

        • Pofarmer

          To my knowledge, none of the OT can be dated to before around 600 B.C. Mainly because it’s never been found on clay tablets etc. The best idea is that the Hebrew OT dates to after the Babylonian captivity.

        • Wisdom Speak

          A Fragmentary tablet labelled CBM 13532 or CBS 13532 found in Nippur…which is almost verbatim to the biblical detail account is dated, roughly 2,000-2,200 B.C. The 2,200 BC dating place it before the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh.
          The library in which it was found was destroyed around 2100 BC by the Elamites….which tells us the tablet can not be much later than that. (My last paragraph to you from the other post)

        • Pofarmer

          Surely you realized what the problem here is?

        • Wisdom Speak

          Not as you see it

        • Pofarmer

          Well, there’s actually at least a couple. Number one is, as Greg has pointed out, to get the Sumerian text to align with the biblical account there’s a whole lot of interpolating going on. Problem Number two would be that it’s a Sumerian text. Even if it did align with the Biblical story, you don’t have any way to determine that the Hebrews didn’t crib it off the Sumerians, and not the other way around. You’re just assuming the conclusion that you prefer.

        • Greg G.

          I think she has blocked me. She hasn’t replied to me in a while. Quote the talk.origins page to her. Especially Without the “two of everything” line, everything in the CBM 13532 fragment is as consistent with the Babylonian flood version as it is with Genesis.

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU: Well, there’s actually at least a couple. Number one is, as Greg has pointed out, to get the Sumerian text to align with the biblical account there’s a whole lot of interpolating going on.

          ME: Again that’s not true. They are speaking of the text available to them (not that which is missing). do you even know how much (percentage) is missing from the tablet?

          YOU:. Problem Number two would be that it’s a Sumerian text. Even if it did align with the Biblical story, you don’t have any way to determine that the Hebrews didn’t crib it off the Sumerians, and not the other way around. You’re just assuming the conclusion that you prefer.

          ME: The tablet is written in a Semitic dialect.

        • Greg G.

          They are speaking of the text available to them (not that which is missing).

          http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG211.html

          The claim rests entirely on Hilprecht’s translation of the tablet (Hilprecht 1910). Because the tablet is so fragmentary, Hilprecht’s translation includes interpolations based on context, and sometimes these are mere guesses. In particular, Hilbrecht’s translation of bringing “creeping things, two of everything” is supplied purely from Hilbrecht’s imagination based on a translation, dubious in itself, where he renders, “instead of a number.” Barton (1911) renders the same line, “let the artisans (or people) come” and calls Hilprecht’s version “grossly mistranslated.” (See also Prince and Vanderburgh 1910.)

          Without the “two of everything” line, everything in the CBM 13532 fragment is as consistent with the Babylonian flood version as it is with Genesis.

        • Wisdom Speak

          Let’s look at it:
          1. The claim rests entirely on Hilprecht’s translation of the tablet

          * He is translating what is actually there

          2. Because the tablet is so fragmentary,
          *Do you know what percentage of the tablet is missing (leading into the next statement)?

          3.Hilprecht’s translation includes interpolations based on context, and sometimes these are mere guesses.
          *See his translation “includes” interpolations (which are noted as such in the translation)…and look at this “based on context” and “sometimes” there are mere guesses
          (The response was even admitting it is “sometimes” , which is why I ask if you even know what percentage is missing and the interpolations is not based on the Bible, but on the context of the tablet).

        • David Cromie

          Your argument is threadbare!

        • Wisdom Speak

          That’s an opinion. I feel the counterarguments are as well.

        • Pofarmer
        • Wisdom Speak

          You mean some Christians don’t buy it either. It’s not like all scientists agree on everything.

        • Pofarmer

          Nah, but science generally evolves towards consensus. Theology, not so much.

        • Wisdom Speak

          Who told you that untruth? Especially given the knowledge of the council of nicaea, ruling of apocryphal books,etc.

        • Pofarmer

          And look since then.

        • Wisdom Speak

          So Theology evolves towards consensus in general or no?

        • Pofarmer

          40 some thousand denominations of Christianity says no.

        • David Cromie

          A consensus on BS is still BS!

        • Wisdom Speak

          That’s not the point. Pofarmer claimed Theology don’t generally evolves towards consensus as science do…which is untrue.

        • Greg G.

          http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG211.html

          The claim rests entirely on Hilprecht’s translation of the tablet (Hilprecht 1910). Because the tablet is so fragmentary, Hilprecht’s translation includes interpolations based on context, and sometimes these are mere guesses. In particular, Hilbrecht’s translation of bringing “creeping things, two of everything” is supplied purely from Hilbrecht’s imagination based on a translation, dubious in itself, where he renders, “instead of a number.” Barton (1911) renders the same line, “let the artisans (or people) come” and calls Hilprecht’s version “grossly mistranslated.” (See also Prince and Vanderburgh 1910.)

          Without the “two of everything” line, everything in the CBM 13532 fragment is as consistent with the Babylonian flood version as it is with Genesis.

          The early date ascribed to the tablet is unsupportable. The exact location where the tablet was excavated was not recorded, and when Hilbrecht came to it, it had been kept in boxes mingling tablets from different periods (Barton 1911). The philology and style of writing indicate a date from the Cassite period (c. 1750-1170 BCE), and not before the First Babylonian Dynasty (ca. 1830-1531 BCE) (Barton 1911).

          Sumerian and Assyrian versions of the flood story, quite similar to the Babylonian version, date back to 1700 BCE or earlier (Tigay 1982).

          EDIT: Added my bolding.

        • Greg G.

          A Fragmentary tablet labelled CBM 13532 or CBS 13532 found in Nippur…which is almost verbatim to the biblical detail account
          of Noah’s flood…is dated

          This again? The verbatim parts come from the interpolations for the missing fragments that the translator inferred from the biblical account.

        • Pofarmer

          This is taking motivated “reasoning” to a whole ‘nother level.

        • Wisdom Speak

          The verbatim parts does not come from the interpolations for the missing fragments. Where do you get your information? It comes from what is actually available on the tablet to translate.. The tablet is written in a Semitic dialect.

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU: your theory here is going to be that every other culture in the world that didn’t record the great flood has questionable records? Isn’t that special.
          ME: Their records aren’t questionable because they didn’t record it. It’s questionable because of what we know about them. China was even as an example. Their own scholar, Yan Ruou, was among the chief discovers of the forges in the Chinese texts. And I’m sure you don’t believe the Sumerian King List when it states…their ten rulers typically reign for about 30,150 years.

        • Pofarmer

          I’ll be darned. It turns out that Hannibal had official biographers too, fragments of their works remain and they are listed as sources for extant worts. Nuts.

        • Wisdom Speak

          It hasn’t remained a mystery and debated for thousands of years for nothing.

        • epeeist

          You really don’t understand how science or history works, do you?

          FIFY

        • Pofarmer

          Words fail me at this level of stupidity.

        • epeeist

          Civilizations existed before and after the flood

          This supposed flood, what is the hard, physical evidence for its occurrence? You know, things like archaeology, geology, biology…

        • Wisdom Speak

          I don’t know about any hard evidence for this particular flood…as the earth been covered with water at least six times (if memory serves me correctly)… The Bible speaks of two.

        • epeeist

          I don’t know about any hard evidence for this particular flood.

          So if you have no evidence then why should we accept it happened?

        • Greg G.

          The Bible speaks of one that occurred after plants and animals last evolved to live on land. That never happened.

        • Wisdom Speak

          So now..you’re admitting the earth was flooded a few times before….yet still ask for evidences when it comes to noah..as if the earth doesn’t already show sides of being flooded….tsk tsk tsk :)

        • Greg G.

          I am not sure that all the land was never covered at times in the past. But if it was ever flooded after land plants and animals evolved, that life would be wiped out and it would have to start over. That’s why I said “last evolved”.

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU: But if it was ever flooded after land plants and animals evolved, that life would be wiped out and it would have to start over.

          ME: And it has….
          Bible claim can be found in Genesis with the replenish of everything.
          Science-the extinction of Homini groups

        • Kodie

          Lying, misrepresenting Greg G.? He is just saying the other one that the bible says and then:

          That never happened.

          Where is he admitting anything? Seriously, get a handle on reading comprehension before you open your big fat stupid lying mouth again. Ya didn’t get a gotcha, so calm the fuck down.

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU: Lying, misrepresenting Greg G.? He is just saying the other one that the bible says and then: Where is he admitting anything?

          ME: He can answer for himself.

          YOU:He is just saying the other one that the bible says

          ME: So are you now admitting he said the Bible speaks of two floods?

          YOU: Ya didn’t get a gotcha

          ME:I don’t need one.

        • Kodie

          I’m just trying to keep you honest. It’s impossible.

        • epeeist

          you’re admitting the earth was flooded a few times

          Floods happen, but covering the whole of the earth is another matter.

          I am not sure why you are continuing with this since you have already admitted that you have no hard evidence for a Noachic flood. And of course there is a huge amount of evidence against it happening.

    • Kodie

      ‘Cause they were all killed in it, though.

  • Kuno

    So the flood laid down the different sediments and carved the Grand Canyon through them – at the same time.

    Also, those giant masses of water with enough pressure to cut through all those sediment layers did make all those turns and meanders, something for that water under a high pressure is not really known for.

    Yeah, I don’t think so.

    • Herald Newman

      It’s apologetics, and it’s not meant for outsiders. Apologetics is a tool to keep the faithful believing that they know the truth.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      Just to clarify, I think they imagine the Flood laying down the sediments, and then (later) huge lakes held back by failing earthen dams swept over the region to carve the Canyon in days or weeks.

      I’m curious to hear how the layers of silt and sand got magicked into stone.

    • Greg G.

      The San Juan River is a tributary to the Colorado River upstream from the Grand Canyon. The river is 1000 feet below the valley floor. About a mile or so from here is an 1100 foot cliff rising above the valley. Fast moving waters cannot make the turns and slow moving waters would take more than a few thousand years. The meanderings go on for miles and miles.

      https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/2009-08-20-01800_USA_Utah_316_Goosenecks_SP.jpg

      Not very many miles away is the Mexican Hat Rock formation:

      https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Mexicanhatrock.jpg

      How could that be formed by rushing waters without toppling it?

  • https://www.jonmorgan.info Jon Morgan

    In the next couple of weeks you can watch the first 14 minutes absolutely for free. I was wondering about doing it myself. You can also read an interview about it at the same place…

    https://www.challies.com/sponsored/3-things-i-learned-making-the-film-is-genesis-history

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      14 minutes should take you through the first Grand Canyon discussion. See if you find it more convincing than I did.

      • https://www.jonmorgan.info Jon Morgan

        Well, I’ve finally watched that preview, and I marvel at the scale of the effects they can hypothesise. The biggest one I noticed was the height of the mountains, which I see you also mentioned in your review. He mentioned the mountains were built up during or after the flood, but I’m not aware of any flood process that would build up mountains significantly above water level. Carving canyons is great on the destruction side, but the constructive building up required seems to be missing. And that leaves it to after, and no explanation of what caused that after.

        Similarly the Great Unconformity stretching all over the world: like you, I’m not a geologist, so pardon me if I’m missing something, but if it’s all over the world surely there have to either be gaps in it or have it sunk a long way to stretch across the oceans. What flood (or other) process is doing that, and how long does it take.

        I’m also not keen on saying “We don’t have a certain answer, so you should just accept mine. Bonus: It fits with the Bible (or we allege it does).” Or on presupposing the flood in the explanation: It must be a global flood, because a local flood would be too small to build a canyon this size.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Yeah, that’s one of the crazy consequences of their outlook. They reject conventional science, but in so doing, they must dramatically accelerate the things that conventional science tells us.

          One of the benefits of this research is that I learned what an “unconformity” is. It’s simply where there’s an abrupt age jump in the layers. What happened was layers got built up, and then they got eroded (making the top layer older and older), and then there was another layer-building phase. I think the Grand Canyon has a dozen or so unconformities in its layers. I hadn’t heard that about the Great Unconformity, though. Interesting.

          Also: a local flood would’ve been confined to the Middle East.

  • Herald Newman

    So I just watched the 14 minute preview. Dr Austin gives a very brief explanation, and covers almost no details, about the Grand Canyon. He more or less asserts that the strata were laid down very quickly, and that this supports his global flood belief. We don’t really get an explanation as to why he believes this. We’re also repeatedly told that we’re “seeing the power of water” in action.

    It reminds me of listening to a religious apologist. They tell you one thing, largely on the hopes you don’t investigate. The objectivity seems to be distinctly lacking, given that they’re going against the grain of mainstream science.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      There’s a very brief acknowledgement of reality when the host asks what conventional science says, as I recall.

      The goal, IMO, is to let the YECs pretend that they have some smart eggheads on their side, too.

      • Herald Newman

        I was thinking about this more, and the arguments in the movie kind of remind me of the minimum facts type arguments for Jesus’ resurrection, from people like Habermas. Habermas ignores one really important fact: We don’t ever see dead people come back after being dead for more than about 30 minutes.

        I believe it was who posted a few pictures, including one of a series a goose-necks in the rivers, and the Mexican hat rock formations. How are these possible by global flood?

        As long as they ignore the other evidence, their explanation works. If they cared to actually incorporate maximal facts, they’d see that their explanation offers very little.

        • epeeist

          As long as they ignore the other evidence, their explanation works.

          It’s a bit like anomaly hunting or any of the other fallacies of one-sidedness.

        • Greg G.

          How about survior bias?

          https://xkcd.com/1827/

        • Pofarmer
        • Greg G.

          I remember when you mentioned him.

        • Greg G.

          I believe it was who posted a few pictures, including one of a series a goose-necks in the rivers, and the Mexican hat rock formations.

          I posted those pictures recently.

        • Herald Newman

          Terribly sorry!!! When I first started writing this I put your name in the comment, and erased it so that I could try to link directly to you. I must not have put your name back.

          I’ve edited my post to reflect that

        • Greg G.

          I figured you did what I have done occasionally, leaving a blank space thinking the name would come to me by the time I finished typing, then forgetting I was trying to remember something.

    • Tommy

      Apologists to fact-free statements are like flies to sh*t.

  • LeekSoup

    I’ve visited the Grand Canyon and just looking at it you can tell it wasn’t something that happened quickly. That’s as good an argument as any apologist will give you.

    TBH I didn’t like the GC as much as some of the other places we visited on that road trip. I’d like to see a YEC explain wind-carved sites like Arches or Bryce Canyon. Or even a water-carved feature like Goosenecks, which was utterly mad.

    That part of the world is a fantastic place to tour round. Every day we got out of the car and went ‘Wow’ at something.

  • Sophia Sadek

    “The Grand Canyon is so beautiful that only an idol fashioned in the fourth century could have carved it out.”

  • YoOhioGirl

    YOU: That the Big Bang is real

    ME: Scientists believe that it is possible for dark energy to inverse; generating a crunch..buckling repeatedly inward causing everything to become compress:

    Isaiah 34:4
    And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll:

    Revelation 6:14
    The heavens receded like a scroll being rolled up,

    until it has no other option, but to “rebirth”
    (This is known as “The Big Bounce” in science)

    • epeeist

      Let’s ask some questions about your Isaiah an Revelations quotations.

      1. Are they simply taken out of context? Yes

      2. Are other interpretations possible? Yes

      3. Are they so incredibly vague they could mean anything? Yes

      4. Are they any better prophecies than those that could be found in something like Old Moore’s Almanck or Nostradamus. No, they are not.

      • http://www.thethinkingministry.com/ YoOhioGirl

        That’s just opinions..we all have those..doesn’t make for a great rebuttal though…. to the fact that both descriptions are basically saying the same thing.
        Science:dark energy may buckle inward

        Bible: heavens rolled together as a scroll (that’s inward)

        And we can note both heaven and dark energy is located in the same place :the universe
        Both science and scriptures tells us this process has happen before..

        • epeeist

          That’s just opinions

          Whereas your post is?

          To be frank, why should we take any quotation from the bible as anything more than an extract from a particular mythos.

          We occasionally get visits from a poster who calls himself SparklingMoon who makes claims of the same type as yours, but drawn from the Quran rather than the bible. What makes your extracts any more factual than his?

        • http://www.thethinkingministry.com/ YoOhioGirl

          YOU: Whereas your post is?
          ME: I just said we all have opinions

          YOU:To be frank, why should we take any quotation from the bible as anything more than an extract from a particular mythos.
          We occasionally get visits from a poster who calls himself SparklingMoon who makes claims of the same type as yours, but drawn from the Quran rather than the bible. What makes your extracts any more factual than his?

          ME: Whether usage of the Bible, Quran, or science..we are all interpreting what is before us… and that is where great conversation comes in.
          As far as quotation from the bible….if it is offering the same or similar description as what you believe..then it should be worthy of consideration.

        • epeeist

          I just said we all have opinions

          Indeed we do, but we aren’t talking opinions here but whether quotations like yours correspond to the facts. Which, given the extended version of Isaiah produced by Zeta, they are plainly not.

          .if it is offering the same or similar description as what you believe.

          What has belief got to do with it? As it is neither the bible or the quran offer anything near the level of description or explanation of the theories of modern cosmology.

        • http://www.thethinkingministry.com/ YoOhioGirl

          YOU:Indeed we do, but we aren’t talking opinions here

          ME:You were..you didn’t rebuttal what I quote..you only gave your opinion

          YOU: but whether quotations like yours correspond to the facts. Which, given the extended version of Isaiah produced by Zeta, they are plainly not.

          Me: Zeta misquoted me..so unless you two need to make your case on being dishonest..then you haven’t made it yet.

          YOU: What has belief got to do with it? As it is neither the bible or the quran offer anything near the level of description or explanation of the theories of modern cosmology.

          ME: Beliefs have everything to do with it. We all have them..both secular and religious

        • Zeta

          ” Zeta misquoted me…”

          You quoted half of Isaiah 34:4. I gave the full quote. In what way did I misquote you? Please elaborate.

          You still refuse to answer my question:

          The stars (hosts of heaven) will dissolve and they will all fall down to Earth from the sky?

          How does that happen?

        • YoOhioGirl

          I said you misquoted me, not that you misquoted Isaiah. (Can you admit to that?)

          1: I never said that actual stars are really only intergalactic stars-that’s a lie on your part.

          2. The truth-I said that planets in the antiquity, were called “Wandering stars”….(to get a better understanding on the ancient writings) and even with that being a known fact…I said there still are actual stars that are wandering through space..and those stars that are wandering through space (not the others) are called intergalactic stars….and those stars live outside the Milky Way.

        • epeeist

          ME:You were..you didn’t rebuttal what I quote..you only gave your opinion

          No, I pointed out that your quote-mined extract was so vague as to be meaningless, or at least capable of being made to mean almost anything.

          Which is not just a rebuttal but a refutation of the point you attempted to make.

          Me: Zeta misquoted me

          No, he didn’t. What he did do was to point out that you had quote mined a passage in an attempt to make it appear to have some kind of relevance to the facts as we now know them.

          ME: Beliefs have everything to do with it. We all have them

          Indeed we do, personally I think Eric Srecki is one of the greatest ever epeeists and Guillame Machaut one of the best musicians of the Ars Nova.

          But if I was to say that I believe that the asteroid that recently passed us quite closely could sing you might have difficulties accepting my beliefs.

        • YoOhioGirl

          YOU:No, I pointed out that your quote-mined extract was so vague as to be meaningless, or at least capable of being made to mean almost anything.
          Which is not just a rebuttal but a refutation of the point you attempted to make.

          ME: We have to disagree.. You didn’t rebuttal what I said..you only offered your opinion on it…you don’t see the differences?
          For it to be a rebuttal..you would need to offer more than your belief that other interpretations are possible and it could mean anything (That’s just an opinion).. A rebuttal/refutation is you actually providing a argument against what I wrote.

          YOU:No, he didn’t. What he did do was to point out that you had quote mined a passage in an attempt to make it appear to have some kind of relevance to the facts as we now know them.

          ME: Yes he did.. I said he misquoted me, not that he misquoted Isaiah. You would need to read our exchanged from the start. It started with him making a false assumption of me believing stars were fixed in their place. My reply was about stars that wander in space..And from there..his additionals comments kept misquoting my original reply about certain stars.. I never said that actual stars are really only intergalactic stars or intergalactic stars were “real” stars..

          YOU:Indeed we do, personally I think Eric Srecki is one of the greatest ever epeeists and Guillame Machaut one of the best musicians of the Ars Nova.
          But if I was to say that I believe that the asteroid that recently passed us quite closely could sing you might have difficulties accepting my beliefs.

          ME: We don’t have to accept the other’s beliefs..that is why we all have free will and freedom to choice.

    • Zeta

      YoOhioGirl: “Isaiah 34:4…

      Why don’t you quote Isaiah 34:4 completely?
      And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: and all their host shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a falling fig from the fig tree.

      The stars (hosts of heaven) will dissolve and they will all fall down to Earth from the sky? You talked about “The Great Bounce” (seemingly having some knowledge of modern astronomy) but you still believe that stars are like lights studded onto the solid firmament that your god created on the second day.

      Any idea what real stars are like? How do they “dissolve” and fall to Earth? Any idea what and where is the nearest star (other than the Sun)?

      • http://www.thethinkingministry.com/ YoOhioGirl

        You don’t know me personally to speak on what I believe about stars as little lights studded onto the solid firmament. That’s a wrong assumption on your part.

        The word planet comes from the Greek term planētēs, which means “wanderer”…
        Planets in the antiquity, were called “Wandering stars” or
        “asteres planetai”(in Greek) because of the movement of certain lights across the sky with other stars.

        Then there are actual stars that wander through space known as
        “intergalactic stars”. It is believed that they were flung from their galaxies in past gravitational interactions, and live in in enormous numbers outside the Milky Way.

        • Zeta

          YoOhioGirl: “… “Wandering stars” …

          So the stars studded onto the firmament are only planets, no real stars inside the firmament?

          Actual stars are “intergalactic stars.. flung from their galaxies in past … outside the Milky Way”? Mumbo-Jumbo! I wonder where you learn your astronomy from.

          You haven’t answered my questions:
          Any idea what real stars are like? How do they “dissolve” and fall to Earth?

        • http://www.thethinkingministry.com/ YoOhioGirl

          I only have respectful conversations..if you’re mature enough to do such..this discussion can continue..if not…I will ignore you.

        • Zeta

          Of course you are free to ignore me. Your comment about “actual stars are really only intergalactic stars” shows a very poor knowledge of basic astronomy. There are an estimated 200 billion “real stars” in the Milky Way alone. There are also an estimated 200 billion or more galaxies, each containing hundreds of billions of real stars.

        • http://www.thethinkingministry.com/ YoOhioGirl

          No..you misquoted me and thus misleading the conversation and my position. You need to re-read what I said. My knowledge of astronomy is very well in depth..

          1: I never said that actual stars are really only intergalactic stars-that’s a lie on your part.

          2. The truth-I said that planets in the antiquity, were called “Wandering stars”….(to get a better understanding on the ancient writings) and even with that being a known fact…I said there still are actual stars that are wandering through space..and those stars that are wandering through space (not the others) are called intergalactic stars….and those stars live outside the Milky Way.

        • Zeta

          See my other comment on this.

        • http://www.thethinkingministry.com/ YoOhioGirl

          Did you miss this part: Massive stars violently collapse in their deaths and it ends in powerful explosions known as “gamma ray bursts”:

          And you quoted me inaccurate (and that is misleading)..I didn’t say “actual stars are intergalactic stars.. flung from their galaxies in past … outside the Milky Way”…..
          What I said was: there are actual stars that wander through space..those stars…(the ones that are wandering through space) are known as “intergalactic stars”…completely different meaning..and what I noted is astronomically correct.

        • epeeist

          Massive stars violently collapse in their deaths and it ends in powerful explosions known as “gamma ray bursts”:

          What percentage of the stars in the galaxy (or other galaxies for that matter) fit this profile?

          What percentage of stars are intergalactic?

          And how does this support your vacuous quotations from the bible?

        • http://www.thethinkingministry.com/ YoOhioGirl

          The conversation with Zeta was on stars.. Zeta made an assumption on what he/she thought I believed about stars being these little lights studded onto the solid firmament. He/She was wrong… And as I shared some of what I actually believed.. he/she misquoted me. And if you are going to be insulting..we have nothing more to discuss.

        • epeeist

          The conversation with Zeta was on stars.

          So no answer to the questions I raised.

        • YoOhioGirl

          What question did you raise?

        • epeeist

          What question did you raise?

          What percentage of stars undergo violent collapse and emit gamma ray bursts; what percentage of stars are intergalactic; but most of all, what has this got to do with your vacuous quotations from the bible.

        • YoOhioGirl

          I answered your question. I’ll try once more..My comment about intergalactic and stars collapsing was in response to a false assumption that I believed stars were fixed in their place. I do not believe that and the Bible does not say they are (which should be obvious with the quote from the Bible of telling falling).

        • Zeta

          Did you miss this part: Massive stars violently collapse in their deaths and it ends in powerful explosions known as “gamma ray bursts”:

          You must have edited your comment while I was writing my comment. I still have the original text on my screen. It starts from “The word planet comes from…” and ends at “live in in enormous numbers outside the Milky Way.” I have a screen capture of your comment in case you are not convinced. You have added one paragraph to the beginning and a few more paragraphs at the end.

        • http://www.thethinkingministry.com/ YoOhioGirl

          The time is stamp on each post and screen captures can be manipulated…I do know I have never said what you quoted.. just given what you just said.. “live in in enormous numbers outside the Milky Way.” Was my point…on which stars I was talking about..

        • Zeta

          I asked you “Any idea what real stars are like? How do they “dissolve” and fall to Earth?”

          You replied mentioning only two types of celestial objects: planets (wondering stars) and intergalactic stars as real stars (“Then there are actual stars that wander through space known as “intergalactic stars”.)

          My comment was in response to this comment of yours. If you have additional info to include, you should write more clearly and completely.

        • YoOhioGirl

          Anyone can follow the flow of the conversation and see my writings are clear if they are honest and not bias towards one stand over another. You made a wrong assumption on what you thought I believed about stars being fixed in their place by my God..correct? Hence why my comment was about intergalactic stars. And when you quote me on intergalactic stars you twist it to mean what you need to make your argument seem legit…You should quote me verbatim to keep the discussion honest.

        • Zeta

          Hence why my comment was about intergalactic stars. And when you quote me on intergalactic stars you twist it to mean what you need to make your argument seem legit..

          All celestial bodies (planets, stars in galaxies, intergalactic stars, etc.) are constantly in motion. Why did you only mention planets and intergalactic stars in response to my question to you on what stars are? As I already mentioned in another comment, you need to write more clearly, more completely and more accurately to avoid misunderstanding.

          If you don’t hold the biblical view of the cosmos as given in your holy book, please explain how stars can dissolve and fall to Earth. Where are these stars and what is the mechanism for that to happen?

        • YoOhioGirl

          All celestial bodies (planets, stars in galaxies, intergalactic stars, etc.) are constantly in motion. Why did you only mention planets and intergalactic stars in response to my question to you on what stars are? As I already mentioned in another comment, you need to write more clearly, more completely and more accurately to avoid misunderstanding.

          ME: The misunderstanding is on your end. The flow of the conversation is clear to anyone who is honest. Your first reply to me was a wrong assumption on what you believed I believed about stars being fixed in their place. I mention intergalactic stars in response to that wrong assumption. I did not mention intergalactic stars in response to your question t on what stars are.

        • Kodie

          You know you edited your comment and anyone who is honest can follow the conversation from comments deposited to their email? And your name change.

          This is the full text of the post Zeta was working with:

          The word planet comes from the Greek term planētēs, which means “wanderer”…Planets in the antiquity, were called “Wandering stars” or “asteres planetai”(in Greek) because of the movement of certain lights across the sky with other stars.

          Then there are actual stars that wander through space known as “intergalacticstars”. It is believed that they were flung from their galaxies in past gravitational interactions, and live in in enormous numbers outside the Milky Way.

          If you’re going to accuse people of not following the discussion, you’re going to have to get your posts right the first time so there’s no record of a different post being automatically sent to subscribers of this thread in their email.

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU:You know you edited your comment and anyone who is honest can follow the conversation from comments deposited to their email?

          ME: Who said I didn’t edit my comments? I wasn’t addressing what I edit. That is why I asked Zeta if he missed that part ….It was a question not an accusation.. What I asked of Zeta was in the midst of our conversation not to reword what I actually wrote because it can change the meaning. Obviously..if he is misquoting me then he read the quote… How’s is this hard to comprehend?

          YOU: And your name change.
          ME: Yes…They do allow that.

        • Kodie

          You accused Zeta of not reading what you wrote, as if you hadn’t changed it.

          I just wanted to make sure people know they are looking for YoOhioGirl, which you later changed to Wisdom Speak. Changing your name after the posts have been sent to subscriber email makes it kind of hard to find if they didn’t know you recently posted under a different name. YoOhioGirl.

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU:You accused Zeta of not reading what you wrote, as if you hadn’t changed it.
          ME: Wrong again…That’s your interpretation and reading into my statement. I did not write Zeta you are not reading what I wrote. I asked Zeta did you miss this part?-Big differences…That is why in order for you to make a case you need to twist wording to fit how you comprehended a post. Obviously Zeta explained he didn’t see it because as he was commenting already on that post I was editing… And there was no further posts from me on that matter..Try as you may. The misunderstanding is on your end.

          YOU:I just wanted to make sure people know they are looking for YoOhioGirl, which you later changed to Wisdom Speak. Changing your name after the posts have been sent to subscriber email makes it kind of hard to find if they didn’t know you recently posted under a different name. YoOhioGirl.
          ME:The name change isn’t going to change anything…

        • Wisdom Speak

          You’re just trying to hard too discredit me and it’s just not going to work. There is no way for me to know what Zeta read or didn’t read as we are posting back and forth around the same time..unless he replies to something in my post. According to Zeta’s answer we must have been pretty much posting to each other at the same time..So he didn’t see the addition to my post…That is why I asked him.. And when he explained why he didn’t see the part I added…it wasn’t an issue…If what you’re attempting to imply was anywhere near truth..then I would have further called Zeta a liar..which I didn’t. You simply misunderstood the conversation between Zeta and I.

        • Kodie

          You discredit yourself by lying.

        • Wisdom Speak

          No…you just having trouble comprehending. Zeta claimed I said this: that actual stars are really only intergalactic stars…
          When I said this:there still are actual stars that are wandering through space..and those stars that are wandering through space (not the others) are called intergalactic stars….and those stars live outside the Milky Way.

          That is misquoting me. I never said ACTUAL stars are really ONLY intergalactic stars. I said there are actual stars that are wandering through space (because I just got finish saying:that planets in the antiquity, were called “Wandering stars”). The stars that are wandering through space and live in the Milky way are called intergalactic stars. how anyone cannot comprehend that I’m talking about certain stars and not others is beyond me.

        • Wisdom Speak

          Now here is the actual post you’re obsessed with:

          Did you miss this part (It’s a QUESTION. I didn’t state You missed this part. Obviously Zeta knew it was a question and not an accusation, I assume, because he answered it by pretty much saying he didn’t see it because he was already commenting at the same time I added it. It seems like you’re making a big deal out of it because you’re having trouble comprehending on your end) : Massive stars violently collapse in their deaths and it ends in powerful explosions known as “gamma ray bursts”:

          And (Note the word AND…it indicate a separate issue..and then as you read further..You will see what my issue was of Zeta misquoting me. It had nothing to do with the added portion) you quoted me inaccurate (and that is misleading)..I didn’t say “actual stars are intergalactic stars.. flung from their galaxies in past … outside the Milky Way”…..
          What I said was: there are actual stars that wander through space..those stars…(the ones that are wandering through space) are known as “intergalactic stars”…completely different meaning..and what I noted is astronomically correct.

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU:If you’re going to accuse people of not following the discussion, you’re going to have to get your posts right the first time so there’s no record of a different post being automatically sent to subscribers of this thread in their email.

          ME: The misunderstanding is on your end.. If you’re following the discussion properly..you would know..It was a question put forth on whether or not Zeta seen what I added. He made it clear that He didn’t because He was already commenting at the same time I added… And from there we didn’t even speak on that part.
          Now what we did speak on..was what he did actual read from my post..and in many of his replies he reworded what I posted…causing the whole meaning to be different. I simply requested he quote me verbatim to avoid the dishonesty. If that doesn’t offer clarification for you. I don’t know what will.

        • Kodie

          I don’t believe a fucking word you say.

        • Wisdom Speak

          That’s your right. It still isn’t going to change the truth. It was a question (anyone can go back and read it) not an accusation. Zeta explain that he did not see it because he was already commenting as I was editing..Those are facts.

        • Kodie

          And the fact that you not only edited your comment, you lied about how much of it you edited, and you lied about Zeta misrepresenting what you had said, and you accused Zeta of manipulating a picture of what you had posted originally, before I told you that everyone gets that emailed to them once they comment or subscribe to the thread. Now you are just backpedaling instead of admit graciously that you made an ass of yourself and tried to get away with lying.

          These are the complete facts.

        • Pofarmer

          Ya know, I don’t get comments via email. Only notifications on disqus, and there are a couple of comments that I either a) misread and then replied to or b) got changed after I replied. I’m now thinking it’s b) and Wisdom Speaks is more dishonest than I thought.

        • Kodie

          I get all comments sent to email, it’s been kind of bogging me down the past couple days, but I just scroll through until I see something to respond or like. I don’t even read other blogs, just CE.

          The notifications I get in disqus only pertain to my posts, who likes or responds to only my posts. The ones sent to email are immediate and unedited. The edited versions do not come through email again. On disqus, just like even in email, if I click on a post, it will show me the latest version of it. If someone like YoOhioGirl posts a 2 paragraph bullshit on floating stars, and I click “Reply to YoOhioGirl” from email, I get to the thread on CE and see a 5 paragraph extended bullshit and douchery under the name “Wisdom Speak”.

          For example.

        • Kodie

          This is the edited version as of Saturday 8:43am EDT:

          You don’t know me personally to speak on what I believe about stars as little lights studded onto the solid firmament. That’s a wrong assumption on your part. My first responses was addressing the “Big Bang” notion.. Now as for the stars:

          The word planet comes from the Greek term planētēs, which means “wanderer”…Planets in the antiquity, were called “Wandering stars” or “asteres planetai”(in Greek) because of the movement of certain lights across the sky with other stars.

          Then there are actual stars that wander through space known as “intergalactic stars”. It is believed that they were flung from their galaxies in past gravitational interactions, and live in in enormous numbers outside
          the Milky Way.

          Then shall I touch on the “morning star” (host of heaven) for you?
          (Revelation 12:4) Its tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth (these are the fallen angels..like satan who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling-(Jude 1:6)

          Or this gem of comparison:

          Massive stars violently collapse in their deaths and it ends in powerful explosions known as “gamma ray bursts”:

          Terrestrial gamma-ray flashes produced in the Earth’s atmosphere and are associated with lightning.(Luke 10:18) He(Jesus) replied, “I saw satan fall like lightning from heaven (universe).

          Don’t accuse people of misquoting you or missing parts of a post they didn’t see before they posted their response. You’re being dishonest.

        • Pofarmer

          A dishonest apologist? I’m shocked, shocked I tell you.

        • Wisdom Speak

          No you are being dishonest. You need to show my original post. Besides the fact…I was addressing the misquote Zeta was doing or if you will rewording what I actually wrote (not any addition I made… which should be understood if I’m asking him if he missed a part of post). He obviously saw the quote in question if he’s misquoting it.

        • Kodie

          I already blockquoted it exactly as it appeared in my email, and what your post looked like at 8:43 this morning. If you can’t follow the discussion, don’t try to accuse me of telling a lie about you. The email to subscribers to this thread will tell everyone I’m not the liar, you are. I have history here, you have zero traceable history. Nobody knows who you are, so you don’t have credibility, but anyone who chooses to check on me can look to their email and find the original post is missing 3 whole paragraphs.

          When I edit my own posts, I mark where I added significant material, but not if I changed a typo. You’re trying to act persecuted, but if you know what you’re talking about, I don’t know what purpose you’d have to be dishonest about it or accuse people of making you look stupid.

          Just admit you edited your post, apologize for not being clear or thorough enough on the first pass, and stop accusing Zeta of lying or ignoring what you posted. You changed it, just admit it. You have no credibility going forward about anything if your plan is to double down on this point. It’s not some mysterious event that is lost to time that nobody knows what really happened – everyone can check you in their email that you’re pitching a fit because you don’t want to admit you changed what you originally said. Changing what you wrote does not give you any right to accuse people of misrepresenting you.

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU:I already blockquoted it
          ME:I said show my original post. You even said :This is the edited version as of Saturday 8:43am EDT

        • Kodie

          I posted both, the edited version directly after the original version. 2 different posts, so 8:43am EDT on Saturday, and the original would not have been posted more than 30 minutes (probably 5 minutes) earlier.

          I thought you were all about following the discussion. You even try to be such an asshole about people who can’t keep up like you are so good at it. No, you edited your post and then become a miserable douche about people not following what you said because they only saw the original and not noticed that you edited it. Seriously, you are high strung and an asshole.

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU:Just admit you edited your post, apologize for not being clear or thorough enough on the first pass, and stop accusing Zeta of lying or ignoring what you posted. You changed it, just admit it. You have no credibility going forward about anything if your plan is to double down on this point. It’s not some mysterious event that is lost to time that nobody knows what really happened – everyone can check you in their email that you’re pitching a fit because you don’t want to admit you changed what you originally said. Changing what you wrote does not give you any right to accuse people of misrepresenting you.

          ME: You’re all over the place.. You want me to apologize because you couldn’t comprehend the conversation I was having with another person makes no sense.
          I invite everyone to read the whole exchange from the beginning with Zeta and everyone to post all of my original posts and edits and Zetas.. The problem isn’t on my end..It’s in you reading into something that isn’t there.
          But for the last time…this is how it went with Zeta and I…
          Zeta first post to me involved an assumption that I believed stars were fixed in their place…My original reply was Zeta didn’t know me personally (show any proof that paragraph was added later as Zeta claimed.. It was NOT..that was part of the original reply).. But what I did add to a later post…I asked if Zeta missed it (I didn’t say Zeta you ignored this part or Zeta you’re not reading what I wrote…that is your interpretation..NOT what I actually wrote. You want to make it seem like I made a statement to or about Zeta and I did not. I asked a question)…When Zeta replied he did not because he was already in the process of replying to the original message. The issue was dead. Now what I asked of Zeta wasn’t concerning that… It was about what he did actually read and was replying back too (like you and so many here) was misquoting and twisting what I actually wrote to fit into how you comprehend and interpret what you read (as many do with scriptures). They aren’t the same. So with respect to honesty…I suggest one quote me and scriptures verbatim.

        • Kodie

          No, I want you to apologize for having such a defensive attitude and blaming everyone else for what you have said and done.

          This is the original full text of the post you made 4:04am Friday, Apr. 21 (I don’t know what time zone).

          The word planet comes from the Greek term planētēs, which means “wanderer”…
          Planets in the antiquity, were called “Wandering stars” or “asteres planetai”(in Greek) because of the movement of certain lights across the sky with other stars.

          Then there are actual stars that wander through space known as “intergalactic stars”. It is believed that they were flung from their galaxies in past gravitational interactions, and live in in enormous numbers outside
          the Milky Way.

          That’s it, that’s what you originally wrote.

          Here are two follow-up posts you made (which I got from your profile, not from my email) I bolded a couple important parts:

          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2017/04/movie-review-genesis-history/#comment-3266479441

          Did you miss this part: Massive stars violently collapse in their deaths and it ends in powerful explosions known as “gamma ray bursts”:

          And you quoted me inaccurate (and that is misleading)..I didn’t say “actual stars are intergalactic stars.. flung from their galaxies in past …
          outside the Milky Way”…..
          What I said was: there are actual stars that wander through space..those stars…(the ones that are wandering through space) are known as “intergalactic stars”…completely different meaning..and what I noted is astronomically correct.

          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2017/04/movie-review-genesis-history/#comment-3266507073

          No..you misquoted me and thus misleading the conversation and my position. You need to re-read what I said. My knowledge of astronomy is
          very well in depth..

          1: I never said that actual stars are really only intergalactic stars-that’s a lie on your part.

          2.The truth-I said that planets in the antiquity, were called “Wandering stars”….(to get a better understanding on the ancient writings) and even with that being a known fact…I said there still are actual stars that are wandering through space..and those stars that are wandering through space (not the others) are called intergalactic stars….and those stars live outside the Milky Way.

          That’s not the complete truth, and you behaved like such an asshole about being accused of editing your post.

          Zeta wrote:

          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2017/04/movie-review-genesis-history/#comment-3266527941

          You must have edited your comment while I was writing my comment. I still have the original text on my screen. It starts from “The word planet comes from…” and ends at “live in in enormous numbers outside the Milky Way.” I have a screen capture of your comment in case you are not convinced. You have added one paragraph to the beginning and a few more paragraphs at the end.

          Instead of admitting you edited your comment, you protested like an ass that had never said what Zeta said you said, and furthermore, that you would not accept screen captures as proof that you had said them.

          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2017/04/movie-review-genesis-history/#comment-3266532947

          The time is stamp on each post and screen captures can be manipulated…I do know I have never said what you quoted.. just given what you just said.. “live in in enormous numbers outside the Milky Way.” Was my point…on which stars I was talking about..

          In the edited and current version as of 2:11pm EDT Sunday, italicized additions to the original:

          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2017/04/movie-review-genesis-history/#comment-3266438294

          You don’t know me personally to speak on what I believe about stars as little lights studded onto the solid firmament. That’s a wrong assumption on your part. My first responses was addressing the “Big Bang” notion.. Now as for the stars:

          The word planet comes from the Greek term planētēs, which means “wanderer”…
          Planets in the antiquity, were called “Wandering stars” or “asteres planetai”(in Greek) because of the movement of certain lights across the sky with other stars.

          Then there are actual stars that wander through space known as “intergalactic stars”. It is believed that they were flung from their galaxies in past gravitational interactions, and live in in enormous numbers outside
          the Milky Way.

          Then shall I touch on the “morning star” (host of heaven) for you?

          (Revelation 12:4)
          Its tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth (these are the fallen angels..like satan who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling-(Jude 1:6)

          Or this gem of comparison:

          Massive stars violently collapse in their deaths and it ends in powerful explosions known as “gamma ray bursts”:

          Terrestrial gamma-ray flashes produced in the Earth’s atmosphere and are associated with lightning.

          (Luke 10:18)
          He(Jesus) replied, “I saw satan fall like lightning from heaven (universe).

          It doesn’t look like you touched the original portion of the post at all, and I did look at them side by side in an editor. You know you edited your comment, we know you edited your comment, you originally tried to pretend you hadn’t, and you developed a fucking attitude about it trying to make Zeta look stupid for not reading, ignoring, misquoting, misrepresenting you, and then accused Zeta of trying to sabotage you by manipulating a screen shot. APOLOGIZE FOR THIS.

          There is no excuse for you to try to go through so much trouble to lie, and then pretend you didn’t lie, and then when caught in your lie, continue to pretend it’s someone else’s mistake. When Zeta said “You must have edited your comment while I was writing my comment”, you should have said “Yeah I did that, sorry if it was confusing, sorry it was unmarked, sorry I became a flaming bitch about your reading comprehension when it was entirely my own fault. But we’re all caught up now, right? Not until you apologize.

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU:No, I want you to apologize for having such a defensive attitude and blaming everyone else for what you have said and done.
          ME:You’re responsible for own comprehension skills…not I

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU:anyone who chooses to check on me can look to their email and find the original post is missing 3 whole paragraphs.
          ME: You produced an edited version..So I asked you to produce the original. I’m not saying I didn’t edit my post. But Zeta is incorrect when he said I added the first paragraph (That has always been part of the original post..hence why nobody will post the original post because it will show Zeta was incorrect on that part)…Now as far as the part I did add….that is why I ASKED Zeta if he saw it…Zeta made it clear in the reply he didn’t because he was already commenting to the original post…and that was it on that subject between Zeta and I… I didn’t call him a liar. I didn’t accuse him of setting me up to look stupid. I didn’t say, Zeta you’re not reading all of my posts then. You’re simply had a problem comprehending the conversation and refuse to admit it. Now me asking said NOT to misquote me had nothing to do with that question.

        • YoOhioGirl

          YOU:If you don’t hold the biblical view of the cosmos as given in your holy book,

          ME: I agree with the biblical view of the cosmos.

          Psalm 104 states scientific facts:
          “Who coverest thyself with light as with a
          garment . Who stretchest out the heavens like a
          curtain”.
          Modern science teaches that in the beginning.
          light appeared before anything else of
          significance and covered everything.
          (Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment)
          After this emergence of light …the universe
          began to immediately expand.
          (Who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain)
          The principle of isostasy (chapter 104:5-9) was
          not discovered until approximately 1900 AD…..yet
          it was precisely documented in Psalm 104…
          in the exact same locality in the origin
          chronology where it was a prevalent facet in the
          continents’ inception …which is believed to have
          been written around 1015 BC. Psalm 104 also
          contains an accurate chronicle of creation
          occurrence..only recently known to modern
          science.
          The sun appears in this scripture after the
          expansion of the universe.
          By the time this chapter reaches verse 20…it
          has disclosed over thirty details of the
          creation process in sequential order
          (verified by science)

          Psalm 104 is influenced by the book of Job
          (which is said to be the oldest book in the Bible)
          Who alone stretches out the heavens…(Job 9:8)
          He stretches out the north over empty space and
          hangs the earth on nothing…(Job 26:7)

          Does “empty space” exist? Is there such a thing as “nothing”?
          Approximately 4% of the universe is visible, the rest consist of “nothing”(we can see). Corroboration of the other 96% is detectable only because of their effect on the observable matter (substance) around them:
          (Hebrews 11:1)
          Now faith is the substance (matter) of things hoped for; the evidence of things not seen
          Dark energy could be properly titled “The Energy of Nothing”..
          The universe’s total matter is positive and its whole energy is negative,when combined: nothing (zero)!
          Quantum vacuum fluctuation allows energy and matter to appear out of nothingness.
          (Job 26:7)
          He stretches out the north over the VOID
          “and hangs the earth on NOTHING”.
          Astronomers in general, did not deduce this finding until the time Hipparchus (190-120 BC)

          YOU: please explain how stars can dissolve and fall to Earth. Where are these stars and what is the mechanism for that to happen?

          ME: The continual growing gap between galaxies could result in a sustained universal temperature…if this was to happen; heats movement would be prohibited. It would prevent the stars from shining. When stars run out of hydrogen..it contract and the core heats up, using up the helium. Gravity of the star causes it to collapse..

        • Kodie

          Why you lie?

        • Greg G.

          You should quote me verbatim to keep the discussion honest.

          Just so you know, when you hit post, Disqus shows that there is a new reply to comments in a browser window. When that link is clicked, the viewer sees what your post said when you hit “Post as”. Subsequent edits are not shown until the page is refreshed. You should not expect a person to refresh constantly to check for edits as they would lose all of their other notifications. Also, Disqus sends emails of the original posting so the recipient can see your edits.

          It is bad form to blame the victim of your edits. It makes you look dishonest when you can’t even admit that you made edits.

        • Wisdom Speak

          I’m not blaming you for anything I edit..as you say..people can see all that I quote originally (That is not in question).. But when you’re replying back to a position I take..you rearrange what I say or leave out a word (same as you do with some scriptures) instead of quoting me and the scripture verbatim…Doing so can change the whole meaning of what I’m saying and what the Bible authors actually wrote..

        • Kodie

          Now you’re accusing Zeta of manipulating your posts? Honey, do you know that when you make an original post to disqus, anyone who subscribes to the thread gets it sent to their email, but not the edits? You are now standing there, a total fucking liar, accusing Zeta of trying to make you look stupid.

          We all know what you said and we all know you edited your comment to say more things. So stop acting like you didn’t, and stop blaming Zeta and just admit it.

        • Wisdom Speak

          Again anyone can look back and see my original post to Zeta did not start with “The word planet comes from…” and if I added a paragraph later then produce the proof. I started out with You don’t know me personally to speak on what I believe about stars as little lights studded onto the solid firmament. That’s a wrong assumption on your part”…
          I’ll wait for you or anyone to show evidence that I added the first paragraph later!

        • Kodie

          When you were posting under the name YoOhioGirl, anyone can look in their email and see that you are a total fucking liar.

          You know I did post the text of your original post. Zeta offered screenshots and you put up a fuss because you want people to think we’re lying. But they can look in their email and know that you’re the fucking liar. You did not start your post with “You don’t know me personally but blah blah blah”. You totally started with the word for planet.

          Stop lying, everyone knows you’re lying. It was in the email. You can’t edit what’s sent to the email subscribers.

        • Dave Griffin

          You reference the bible, which you accept without any rational inquiry, in your attempts to reason into other minds your ideas, while still you leave us with no good reason to believe your sources. You present your dogmas, which others have rejected for lack of supporting evidence, as if they were self-evident, but in fact they are self-evident only to those who have accepted them without evidence. Don’t you get dizzy walking around in such tight circles?

        • YoOhioGirl

          YOU: You reference the bible
          ME: My posts aren’t using just biblical references…

          YOU: which you accept without any rational inquiry,
          ME: I’m stating scientifically facts (rational inquiry) that are in agreement.

          YOU:You present your dogmas, which others have rejected for lack of supporting evidence.

          ME: What lack of supporting evidence? The Bible talks of falling stars. I supported that notion with a scientific fact: The continual growing gap between galaxies could result in a sustained universal temperature…if this was to happen; heats movement would be prohibited. It would prevent the stars from shining. When stars run out of hydrogen..it contract and the core heats up, using up the helium. Gravity of the star causes it to collapse..Massive stars violently collapse in their deaths and it ends in powerful explosions known as “gamma ray bursts”:
          The principle of isostasy (chapter 104:5-9) was
          not discovered until approximately 1900 AD…..yet
          it was precisely documented in Psalm 104
          in the exact same locality in the origin
          chronology where it was a prevalent facet in the
          continents’ inception …which is believed to have
          been written around 1015 BC. Psalm 104 also
          contains an accurate chronicle of creation
          occurrence..only recently known to modern
          science.
          The sun appears in this scripture after the
          expansion of the universe.
          By the time this chapter reaches verse 20…it
          has disclosed over thirty details of the
          creation process in sequential order…
          So what more supporting proof do you need?

        • Greg G.

          The Bible says the stars fall to Earth, not that they fall in on themselves. Psalm 104 is not about modern cosmology, it’s about a three-tier flat earth universe. Tell the people of Banda Aceh about that boundary that the waters may not pass.

        • YoOhioGirl

          YOU:The Bible says the stars fall to Earth,
          ME: That has been the key discussion I’ve been having. Why my comment was about stars collapsing.
          I even explained how it was scientifically possible:
          The continual growing gap between galaxies could result in a sustained universal temperature…if this was to happen; heats movement would be prohibited. It would prevent the stars from shining. When stars run out of hydrogen..it contract and the core heats up, using up the helium. Gravity of the star causes it to collapse..

          YOU: not that they fall in on themselves.
          ME: I never said they did. You’re speaking of my comment about the Big Bang..in which I replied: Scientists believe that it is possible for dark energy to inverse; generating a crunch..buckling repeatedly inward causing everything to become compress:
          Isaiah 34:4
          And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll:
          Revelation 6:14
          The heavens receded like a scroll being rolled up,
          until it has no other option, but to “rebirth”
          (This is known as “The Big Bounce” in science)

          Now let’s look at this carefully so we can all comprehend…. Isaiah clearly stated that the host of heaven shall dissolved then it’s the heavens that shall be rolled together as scroll and Revelations confirmed that..

          YOU: Psalm 104 is not about modern cosmology,
          ME: UNtrue. The principle of isostasy is found in verses 5-9 written around 1015 BC. and the science community had not discovered it until approximately 1900 AD. Psalm 104 also contains an accurate chronicle of creation
          occurrence..only recently known to modern
          science.

          YOU: it’s about a three-tier flat earth universe.
          ME: That’s incorrect. Psalm 104 doesn’t describe a flat earth. You are free to point out where is that chapter is does. Psalm 104 details of the creation process in sequential order.

        • Michael Neville

          You’re just being silly now. The Bible is not and doesn’t pretend to be a scientific treatise. It’s a collection of bronze and iron age religious myths, fables and lies, written by people who thought the flat Earth floated on water and the sky was a dome resting on terrestrial foundations with holes in it that let the water above the dome fall as rain.

        • YoOhioGirl

          I’m here to have conversations on the information presented, just saying someone is silly is an attempt at shifting the dialogue to the person. You are free to actually point out what you find to be silly.

        • YoOhioGirl

          YOU: The Bible is not and doesn’t pretend to be a scientific treatise. It’s a collection of bronze and iron age religious myths, fables and lies, written by people who thought the flat Earth floated on water and the sky was a dome resting on terrestrial foundations with holes in it that let the water above the dome fall as rain.
          ME: You mean..you assume you know what the authors of those days believed. Since you weren’t there and you’re not them, you can only hold an opinion on what you think they believed based on your own interpretations of their writings. Big differences..

        • YoOhioGirl

          YOU:written by people who thought the flat Earth floated on water

          ME: I disagree..So want is supporting the earth?
          Does the Holy Bible suggest the earth is self-balanced from its center?

          The internals of earth has a molten liquid layer
          (the outer core) and the inner core is solid.

          Crystalline pillars buried deep (more than 3,000 miles down) within this core has been discovered in 1995, some even protruding through the surface of the earth.

          Pillars in architecture engineering is typically part of the building’s internal structure through compression (which is the application of inward balance). The useage of pillars, which are generally made of stone, principally applies to the support of something enormous and round.

          (Job 9:6)
          Which shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble.

        • Michael Neville

          You really are reaching trying to show that your “holy” Bible has anything to do with reality.

          Yes, the Earth’s mantle is liquid, a very viscous liquid under high pressure, but it is not water but silicate rocks rich in magnesium and iron.

          The “crystalline pillars” in the Earth, more commonly called columns, are basalt. While being usually hexagonal in shape, these columns are not crystals. Basalt is igneous (volcanic) rock which is originally a very viscous liquid but cools when exposed to air or to other, cooler rock. Basalt cools quite rapidly and by doing so it starts shrinking. This shrinking process starts at the surface and forms long columns. These can grow to many meters in length, depending on the thickness of the original basalt lava flow. In some cases, such as the Devils Tower in Wyoming, the basalt columns may reach 100 meters or more in length. Basaltic columns, being natural, are not related to man-made architectural pillars.

        • YoOhioGirl

          YOU:You really are reaching trying to show that your “holy” Bible has anything to do with reality.
          ME: That doesn’t even make sense..given that I used science not the Bible in speaking on earth’s self balanced.

        • Michael Neville

          As I’ve said before, the Bible and science are two completely different things. Science is about reality, the Bible is a collection of myths, fables and lies. There’s no connection between reality and the Bible.

        • YoOhioGirl

          YOU:written by people who thought the flat Earth floated on water

          ME: I believe many people who only read the Bible in english get confuse in their understanding. The english word earth can mean planet as well as soil… so seeing a hebrew or greek translation of a word such as earth in one place may not carry the same meaning of the translated word earth in another text.

          For example:Luke 24
          4 And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:

          5 And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the EARTH, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead?

          Do you believe they bowed down towards the planet or the soil/ground?

        • Greg G.

          ME: I believe many people who only read the Bible in english get confuse in their understanding. The english word earth can mean planet as well as soil… so seeing a hebrew or greek translation of a word such as earth in one place may not carry the same meaning of the translated word earth in another text.

          They certainly did not think of the earth as another planet.

          When the Bible says the earth is set on foundations, what are the foundations on?

          Do you believe they bowed down towards the planet or the soil/ground?

          Translators think it means “ground” and I agree with them.

          New International Version
          In their fright the women bowed down with their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, “Why do you look for the living among the dead?

          New Living Translation
          The women were terrified and bowed with their faces to the ground. Then the men asked, “Why are you looking among the dead for someone who is alive?

          English Standard Version
          And as they were frightened and bowed their faces to the ground, the men said to them, “Why do you seek the living among the dead?

          Berean Study Bible
          As the women bowed their faces to the ground in terror, the two men asked them, “Why do you look for the living among the dead?

          Berean Literal Bible
          and of them having become terrified and bowing the faces to the ground, they said to them, “Why do you seek the living among the dead?

          New American Standard Bible
          and as the women were terrified and bowed their faces to the ground, the men said to them, “Why do you seek the living One among the dead?

          King James Bible
          And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead?

          Holman Christian Standard Bible
          So the women were terrified and bowed down to the ground.” Why are you looking for the living among the dead?” asked the men. ”

          International Standard Version
          While the women remained terrified, bowing their faces to the ground, the men asked them, “Why are you looking among the dead for someone who is living?

          NET Bible
          The women were terribly frightened and bowed their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, “Why do you look for the living among the dead?

          New Heart English Bible
          Becoming terrified, they bowed their faces down to the earth. They said to them, “Why do you seek the living among the dead?

          Aramaic Bible in Plain English
          And they were in fear and they bowed their faces to the ground, and they were saying to them, “Why are you seeking The Life among the dead?

          GOD’S WORD® Translation
          The women were terrified and bowed to the ground. The men asked the women, “Why are you looking among the dead for the living one?

          New American Standard 1977
          and as the women were terrified and bowed their faces to the ground, the men said to them, “Why do you seek the living One among the dead?

          Jubilee Bible 2000
          and as they were afraid and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead?

          King James 2000 Bible
          And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the ground, they said unto them, Why seek you the living among the dead?

          American King James Version
          And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said to them, Why seek you the living among the dead?

          American Standard Version
          and as they were affrighted and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead?

          Douay-Rheims Bible
          And as they were afraid, and bowed down their countenance towards the ground, they said unto them: Why seek you the living with the dead?

          Darby Bible Translation
          And as they were filled with fear and bowed their faces to the ground, they said to them, Why seek ye the living one among the dead?

          English Revised Version
          and as they were affrighted, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead?

          Webster’s Bible Translation
          And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said to them, Why seek ye the living among the dead?

          Weymouth New Testament
          The women were terrified; but, as they stood with their faces bowed to the ground, the men said to them, “Why do you search among the dead for Him who is living?

          World English Bible
          Becoming terrified, they bowed their faces down to the earth. They said to them, “Why do you seek the living among the dead?

          Young’s Literal Translation
          and on their having become afraid, and having inclined the face to the earth, they said to them, ‘Why do ye seek the living with the dead?

        • YoOhioGirl

          YOU: They certainly did not think of the earth as another planet. When the Bible says the earth is set on foundations, what are the foundations on?
          ME:So you disagree with the other poster who claimed they believed the earth floated on water huh?

          YOU:Translators think it means “ground” and I agree with them.
          ME:Exactly…as the kjv has earth..clearly..he was talking about the ground and not the planet…but it still stated earth because earth means ground as well.

        • Greg G.

          ME:So you disagree with the other poster who claimed they believed the earth floated on water huh?

          That’s why I pointed out elsewhere that the Bible was written by different people over centuries. Some verses say one thing and other verses disagree.

        • YoOhioGirl

          You made it seem like every writer in the Bible thought one way with this statement: They certainly did not think of the earth as another planet. Are you now admitting that some writers of the Bible indeed believe the earth was a planet?

        • Greg G.

          I doubt anyone on the planet thought the Earth was like the planets they saw in the heavens. What I said in no way implies that all the different thoughts of the Bible authors covered every thought possible.

        • YoOhioGirl

          So let me ask to be clear….Do you believe any writer of the Bible believe earth was a planet?

        • Michael Neville

          Do you believe they bowed down towards the planet or the soil/ground?

          They bowed toward the dirt because they had no concept of “planet”. If you think they did then it’s your job to provide evidence that iron age folk knew that their world was a planet.

        • YoOhioGirl

          YOU:They bowed toward the dirt
          ME:Exactly..because the word earth means both.. So seeing the word earth in one english verse doesn’t mean it means the same in another.

          YOU:If you think they did then it’s your job to provide evidence that iron age folk knew that their world was a planet.
          ME:It would also be your job to provide evidence that the writers of the Bible didn’t know their world was a planet..

        • Michael Neville

          They talked about the “circle of the Earth”. Circles are flat, two-dimensional objects. You’re claiming that circle actually means sphere, which it doesn’t.

        • Wisdom Speak

          “”circle of the Earth” is not the same as “The earth is a circle”
          One phrase describes the shape “circle of the Earth”
          The other describe the dimension “The earth is a circle”

          “circle of the Earth”= round/sphere
          (description of the earth’s shape)
          “The earth is a circle”=flat
          (description of the earth’s dimension).

        • Michael Neville

          “circle of the Earth” = “Earth is a circle.” The only reason you claim otherwise is that you’re straining to make a point that your Bible doesn’t actually support.

        • Wisdom Speak

          No..that’s your opinion. Wording means everything..including every little word…It can change the whole meaning. And whether one accepts it or not “circle of the Earth” is not the same as “Earth is a circle.”. the latter clearly tells you what something “is”… The former is telling you about something “of” is and of do not mean the same thing

          is:
          third person singular present of be.

          of: expressing the relationship between a part and a whole.
          “the sleeve of his coat”
          2.
          expressing the relationship between a scale or measure and a value

        • Michael Neville

          I agree that wording is important (it’s not everything, that’s just too presumptuous). That’s why I keep insisting that circle does not mean sphere, no matter how much you say it does.

          A couple of thousand years ago some of the Hellenized Middle Easterners like Eratosthenes and Aristarchus of Samos knew that the Earth was a sphere. Eratosthenes even determined the circumference of the Earth to within 5% of the actual distance. However Hebrews were not that sophisticated. Hebrew priests, who made up the literate class in that culture, just didn’t care about that sort of thing. The Bible, the Word of God™, described the Earth as a flat circle and that’s what it was.

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU: I agree that wording is important (it’s not everything, that’s just too presumptuous).
          ME: Agree..but it’s important for the honesty of claims..that we do use exactly what others write..

          YOU:That’s why I keep insisting that circle does not mean sphere, no matter how much you say it does.
          ME: I never said circle means sphere (although it can depending upon it’s context)…this goes back to the importance of wording.

          YOU:The Bible, the Word of God™, described the Earth as a flat circle and that’s what it was.
          ME: Isaiah 40:22 states that God “sits above the circle of the earth.”… note it does not say the earth is a circle. Circle “of” the earth describe the shape of it from God’s viewpoint from heaven (location)… So for wherever God looks, He sees a circle.. can only be true for a spherical earth.
          If the earth were a flat circle, then the majority of the angles of the earth would appear as an oval or a straight-line (in some cases).

        • Michael Neville

          Sitting above a circle does not mean sitting above a sphere. And you still haven’t given any reason to accept that “circle of the Earth” does not mean “the Earth is a circle.” You don’t want the Earth to be a circle and, by fiat, have declared so. I don’t accept your mangling of plain language.

          As for the “majority of the angles” bullshit, that’s exactly what it is, bullshit. The Earth is so large that at human scales it appears flat, which is why the ancients (and a few people even today, Flat Earth Society) thought it was flat. Mathematically measured angles are curved (where you got the idea they’re ovals only you might know) but the curvature is so slight that, again, on human scales they appear to be straight lines.

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU: And you still haven’t given any reason to accept that “circle of the Earth” does not mean “the Earth is a circle.”
          ME: The wording/phrase does that.. It’s like saying this:
          curve of a woman (My shape) is the same as I am a curve…See how that works…One is talking about my shape.. The other is claiming i’m actually a curve.

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU: You don’t want the Earth to be a circle and, by fiat, have declared so. I don’t accept your mangling of plain language.
          ME: Wrong…It is you who is mangling language to make something mean the same thing..They simply don’t.
          It’s like claiming grammar isn’t important.
          Like I said earlier…does these two mean the same:
          Curve of a woman
          Woman is a curve
          We have to be respectful of what a person actually wrote and not misquote them in order to make our own personal interpretation of what we think they believe work. That’s dishonest. If you’re going to disagree with someone…do so on actually what their position is (not with any manipulation in an attempt to make your own stronger).

        • Michael Neville

          Obviously you never took basic algebra or you’ve forgotten it. The Law of Identity says that If A=B then B=A. A circle is a circle, the Earth is the Earth. Therefore “the circle of the Earth” is identical to “the Earth’s circle”. An honest debater would acknowledge that, so I am forced to accept that you’re not being honest.

        • Kodie

          While that is true for a sphere, why would god look at a circle of the earth from any other angle than above it and see a circle?

          You are retrofitting your knowledge to pretend the bible people weren’t ignorant of the shape of the earth. I’m not talking about their intellect, I’m talking about their knowledge, so don’t mix them up next time you try to argue for the intellectual capacity of ancient biblical people. You have the same intellectual capacity that they have, but more scientific evidence available to you. Meanwhile, there are people alive today who think the earth is flat because the bible says it is, and deny scientific progress if it offends the bible but conveniently that doesn’t apply to their computers or cell phones, which wouldn’t work if the earth was flat.

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU:While that is true for a sphere, why would god look at a circle of the earth from any other angle than above it and see a circle?
          ME: The earth is a sphere..that is why from any angle in God’s viewpoint…He sees the “circle of the earth”..

          YOU:Meanwhile, there are people alive today who think the earth is flat because the bible says it is, and deny scientific progress if it offends the bible but conveniently that doesn’t apply to their computers or cell phones, which wouldn’t work if the earth was flat.
          ME: The Bible isn’t the basis for all those who believe/d the earth is flat. Many ancient cultures held such a belief..Scientists once believed the Earth was flat as well.
          In fact, during the Medieval era, christian scholars acknowledge sphericity of the earth.

        • epeeist

          Scientists once believed the Earth was flat as well.

          Citation required.

          In fact, during the Medieval era, christian scholars acknowledge sphericity of the earth.

          Well that was jolly good of them, especially as the Ancient Greeks not only knew it was spherical but had estimated its size.

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU:especially as the Ancient Greeks not only knew it was spherical but had estimated its size.
          ME: I mention that in another post. Especially given the Jewish present in Greece..They knew it too

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU:Well that was jolly good of them
          Me*In fact, during the Medieval era, christian scholars acknowledge sphericity of the earth.*
          ME: That was of course in reply to Kodie’s claim that there are people who believe the earth is flat because of the Bible..There are also people who believe the earth is round based on the Bible..very common among christian scholars of the Middle Ages.

        • epeeist

          ME: That was of course in reply to Kodie’s claim that there are people who believe the earth is flat because of the Bible.

          The bible actually refers to two dimensional circles, not three dimensional spheres as both Kodie and Michael Neville have noted. But as I said before, you want to hold science to the highest requirements but are prepared to give the bible a free pass.

          In other words you are showing a complete lack of intellectual integrity.

        • Wisdom Speak

          Showing a lack of intellectual integrity is adding in your own interpretation and claiming it is a fact. You and others are saying the Bible is referring to a two dimensional circle. That’s just your own personal interpretation of “circle of the earth”. I say that phrase is speaking of the shape of the earth…giving that a circle is a shape… and shape speaks to the outline of an object..and the scripture speaks of the “horizon”…

        • Kodie

          Your quoting method is hard to read.

          Section 1: I know the earth is a fucking sphere. You know the earth is a sphere. But if people thought the earth was a flat circle, why would god look at a circle with all the people standing on one side of it from another angle? You supposed that god would see different shapes while looking at a circle, and there is no reason for god to look at a circle of the earth and see another shape because he’s above and it’s always a circle from above. Or could you not follow the hypothetical?

          Section 2: Bullshit.

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU: But if people thought the earth was a flat circle,

          ME: Because they didn’t. You think they did..hence why you’re confused.

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU:You are retrofitting your knowledge to pretend the bible people weren’t ignorant of the shape of the earth.
          ME: They weren’t ignorant to the shape of the earth.
          The earliest known documentation of a spherical earth is approximately dated somewhere between 600 BC – 501 BC among the Greeks. Jews have been present in Greece at least somewhere between 400 BC – 301 BC.

        • http://twitch.tv/gmbigkev/ GMBigKev

          It’s remarkable how limited your god is that it only sees a spherical object as a circle and addresses it as such. An all-knowing god wouldn’t tell their believers that their planet looks like a big ole circle, while knowing it’s a rotating sphere. They wouldn’t use poetic flowery language to describe a big crystal globe over the top of that same spherical object from which the rains of the heavens comes down.
          Your god’s knowledge is, unsurprisingly, almost identical to that of the iron age mystics who wrote their words down in their holy book.

        • Wisdom Speak

          What do you think the author meant in this scripture?
          Isaiah 40:22
          It is He who sits above the circle of the earth…. (Doesn’t sound flat to me)….It also sounds like a planet and not dirt?

          And this scripture goes against the notion that the Bible authors believed the earth was flat and floating on water as you stated earlier..

          Job 26:10
          He drew a circular horizon on the face of the waters,

        • Michael Neville

          Circles are flat, spheres are three dimensional.

        • Wisdom Speak

          But the scripture isn’t talking about dimension…It’s talking about shape..

        • Michael Neville

          And the shape of a circle is a flat disk. As I said before, you’re trying to make a circle into a sphere, which doesn’t work since they’re two different things.

          Just as an aside, I preferred your nom du blog when it was YoOhioGirl. “Wisdom Speak” is just too pretentious.

        • Kodie

          On the other hand, I prefer she contrast her dumb-ass typical Christian dishonesty and haughtiness with as grand a label as she thinks of. She’s a new account, will probably change her name again and another time, disappear, make another account, show up again, think nobody can tell, and pretend to be a philosophy student.

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU:And the shape of a circle is a flat disk. As I said before, you’re trying to make a circle into a sphere, which doesn’t work since they’re two different things.
          ME: But it’s not talking about the shape of a circle.. It’s talking about the shape of the earth. What is the shape of a sphere? A sphere is also in the shape of a circle, but isn’t a flat disk.

          YOU:Just as an aside, I preferred your nom du blog when it was YoOhioGirl. ”
          ME: Really? I may change it back then.

          YOU:Wisdom Speak” is just too pretentious.
          ME: I could see how one can feel that way. But I’m not speaking of myself…It’s in references to what the Bible defines as wisdom (and that is NOT a person).

        • Greg G.

          ME: But it’s not talking about the shape of a circle.. It’s talking about the shape of the earth. What is the shape of a sphere? A sphere is also in the shape of a circle, but isn’t a flat disk.

          I was Googling to find the verses in the Bible that refer to a sphere. I found this page amusing:

          Circle Means CIRCLE – NOT Ball/Sphere/Globe!

          He shows that the Hebrew “chug” is used two other times besides Isaiah 40:22, and that each time, it is about two dimensions. He shows that in Isaiah 22:18, the Hebrew word “dur” is translated as “ball” and it is thrown. In Isaiah 29:3, it is used to mean “surrounded” but in Ezekiel 24:5, it is used for a “pile” or “heap”, which is three dimensional. If Isaiah thought the world was a sphere, it could have been likened to “dur” in Isaiah 40:22.

          At the bottom of the page, this guy says, “Like it or not, believe it or not, accept it or not, your Bible is a flat Earth book! Deal with it however you must, but don’t try and force it to say something it absolutely does not even remotely support.”

          Then he says, “Thus, for the love of all that is Holy, sane and true, please stop sending me Isaiah 40:22 and stop trying to use it to justify your belief in a spinning, heliocentric, globular Earth!

          [I added the bolding but left out his italics.]

          I didn’t stay there long enough to find out for sure if he was serious or satirical, but a link he posted in the comments goes along with it:

          http://www.testingtheglobe.com/conclusions.html

        • Wisdom Speak

          I never claimed circle means sphere.. I know it don’t. And the Bible never claimed the “earth is a circle”. This is a conversation I’m already having with another poster on here and why I cannot stress enough to quote the Bible and other posters verbatim. The Bible says “circle of the earth”….not that the earth is a circle… Both phrases carry totally different meanings.
          “circle of the Earth”= round/sphere
          (description of the earth’s shape)
          “The earth is a circle”=flat
          (description of the earth’s dimension).

          The shape of a sphere is a circle..that doesn’t make a sphere a circle…SEE the point:
          “circle of the sphere = The sphere is a circle”-The change in wording changes the meaning.
          So it’s whether you like it or not..The Bible did not claim the earth is a circle or it would have been worded that way.

        • Greg G.

          The shape of a sphere is a circle..that doesn’t make a sphere a circle…SEE the point:
          “circle of the sphere = The sphere is a circle”-The change in wording changes the meaning.

          The shape of a sphere is a sphere. The shape of a circle is a circle. The shape of the shadow of a sphere is a circle. A shadow is not a sphere.

          So it’s whether you like it or not..The Bible did not claim the earth is a circle or it would have been worded that way.

          If the author meant “sphere of the Earth”, there are words he could have used. He used “circle” whether you like it or not.

        • Kodie

          WS is trying to claim that a sphere looks like a circle when looking at it, which is what god is doing, looking at a circle when he looks at the earth, and she is also claiming that people in the bible knew the earth was a sphere and that god would be looking all over it from every angle and see a circle, not that god is looking overhead of what they imagined was one big flat circle. I don’t know why god only sees two dimensions like a lowly human. It’s my basic understanding of ancient people that they observed and knew some things that turned out to be closer to correct than farther, but still doesn’t explain if those people in the bible knew everything we took thousands of years to develop scientific research over, why they wrote like such crap about it. The bible is at most “poetic” observations, not scientifically accurate ones. Yes, circles abound, the moon and the sun are round like circles. I’m not sure if I care if people in the bible understood the earth to be spherical. So what. They didn’t write or explain clearly, so how is it an exhibit of scientific knowledge? It’s clearly not that.

        • Greg G.

          The Bible authors thought the moon was a lamp, even. They didn’t know the sun and stars were more alike than the sun and moon or the moon and planets. But somehow, they knew for sure the earth was a sphere and the sun was the center of the solar system.

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU:The shape of a sphere is a sphere. The shape of a circle is a circle. The shape of the shadow of a sphere is a circle. A shadow is not a sphere.

          ME: shape
          SHāp/Submit
          noun
          1.
          the EXTERNAL form or appearance characteristic of someone or something; the OUTLINE of an area or figure.

          The shape(EXTERNAL/OUTLINE) of a sphere is a circle
          A sphere’s exterior shape is a circle just like a cube’s exterior shape is a square. Hence why the scripture speaks of the horizon.

        • Michael Neville

          No, you stupid, dishonest twit, the shape of a sphere is not a circle. The shape of a sphere is a sphere. Hence the name.

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU:No, you stupid, dishonest twit

          ME: I guess a proper reply would be: Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never break me.

          YOU:the shape of a sphere is not a circle. The shape of a sphere is a sphere.

          ME: Shape:
          shape
          SHāp/Submit
          noun
          1.
          the EXTERNAL form or appearance characteristic of someone or something; the OUTLINE of an area or figure.

          The (external and outline) shape of a sphere is a circle.
          The (external and outline) shape of a cube is a square.
          The (external and outline) shape of the earth is a square….especially when the text is speaking of the horizon…

        • Michael Neville

          You’re STILL pretending that a sphere is a circle. That’s because you’re want a book written by scientifically-illiterate bronze and iron age priests to have some connection with reality, which it doesn’t. So you’re still a stupid, dishonest twit, emphasis on the dishonest.

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU:You’re STILL pretending that a sphere is a circle

          ME: No you’re just refusing to comprehend that the outline of a sphere is a circle.

        • Michael Neville

          Okay, the outline of a sphere is a circle, but you’re claiming that the SHAPE of a circle (a flat disk) and a sphere (a ball) are identical, which they are not but you are too dishonest to admit.

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU:Okay, the outline of a sphere is a circle

          ME: Exactly what the Bible was saying….the outline of the earth is a circle..hence why the horizon is mention.

          YOU:but you’re claiming that the SHAPE of a circle (a flat disk) and a sphere (a ball) are identical,

          ME:No I didn’t… Some of you just failed in comprehending what I actually wrote because you approached it with preconceived notions.

        • Michael Neville

          I’m not going to respond to you any more. You are being dishonest and trying to make it my fault that you’re dishonest. Please do me a favor, fuck off!

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU: I’m not going to respond to you any more.
          ME: You’re right

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU: You are being dishonest and trying to make it my fault that you’re dishonest.

          ME: I’m not dishonest. I held the same position from the start. You didn’t comprehend it (and since comprehension skills is a personal responsibility ..then it would be your fault).
          This is what you thought (not what I said):
          you’re (That would be me) claiming that the SHAPE of a circle (a flat disk) and a sphere (a ball) are identical,….

          Show me where I ever said that?

        • Michael Neville

          Incidentally I wasn’t insulting you by calling you a stupid, dishonest twit. Rather I was describing you.

        • Wisdom Speak

          No you weren’t.

        • Michael Neville

          That’s what I love about you Christians, you always know atheists’ minds better than we do. Or at least you claim to that knowledge.

        • Wisdom Speak

          huh? My comment “no you weren’t” was in reply to your post:Rather I was describing you.

          you weren’t describing me. You don’t know me. What you really meant was..you were describing what you think of me…

        • Kodie

          We only know what you show us, and if that’s what you choose to show, that’s what we can describe. Nobody thinks you’re an honest person or an intelligent person or a pleasant person. If you are any of those things, we don’t know you at all, but I think it’s hard to fake who you really are, even online, even anonymously. You’re a lying, stupid, asshole, that’s the persona you chose.

        • Wisdom Speak

          None of what you said changes what I said. You’re NOT describing me either. You’re describing your opinion of me…big differences.

        • Kodie

          You chose to display a lying stupid asshole online, so we have nothing to compare it. Maybe you are in denial. I mean, probably.

        • Wisdom Speak

          My statement is still the same. It’s only your opinion.

        • Greg G.

          Those verses defeat your claim. I was going to point them out to show they thought the earth was flat.

          Job 26:10 shows that they didn’t understand perspective either. Every location has a different circle. There is no circle on the face of the waters.

        • Wisdom Speak

          You keep leaving out words…doing so changes the whole meaning of what is actually written to what you are assuming they meant. They did not write that there is a circle on the face of the waters.. They said ” a circular horizon”…… and the location..as you agree that each has a different circle: “on the face of the waters”….. They were saying..if you are overlooking the ocean, the horizon appears as a circle…

          And Job 26:10 shows they indeed understood far more than you’re willing to give them credit…

          “until the day and night come to an end”-Job 26:10….
          That scripture teaches us that where light terminates, darkness begins. That is spheric.

        • Joe

          Circles are two dimensional objects.

        • Wisdom Speak

          We are already having this conversation. you may have to read up…wouldn’t want to have to repeat myself on this. But circles are also shapes.. We’re speaking on shapes.. “Circle of the earth”= “shape of the earth”…

        • Joe

          Yes, and you are still wrong.

          A 2-D shape still only has two dimensions.

        • Wisdom Speak

          ME: shape
          SHāp/Submit
          noun
          1.
          the EXTERNAL form or appearance characteristic of someone or something; the OUTLINE of an area or figure.
          The shape(EXTERNAL/OUTLINE) of a sphere is a circle
          A sphere’s exterior shape is a circle just like a cube’s exterior shape is a square. Hence why the scripture speaks of the horizon.

        • Joe

          The outline of a circle is a circle.

        • Wisdom Speak

          And the outline of a sphere is a circle.
          And the outline of the earth is a circle
          Both these aren’t circles though

        • Joe

          A circle is though.

          Like your reasoning here, perfectly circular. If you assume the authors of the Bible, whoever they were, knew the earth was spherical, your argument makes sense.

          Things is, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, they didn’t use the word for spherical objects.

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU: If you assume the authors of the Bible, whoever they were, knew the earth was spherical, your argument makes sense.

          ME: Exactly… YES I’m asserting that they indeed knew the earth was spherical..that is why my argument makes sense :)
          That’s been my position..this whole time

        • Joe

          Your position has no evidence for it, and plenty against. Its wishful thinking.

        • Wisdom Speak

          I guess that is why this conversation is ongoing.

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU:Things is, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, they didn’t use the word for spherical objects.

          ME: Sphere doesn’t fit with the text in question…as it’s talking about the outline shape of the earth..the horizon

        • Joe

          No it isn’t.

        • Wisdom Speak

          yes it is
          Proverbs 8:27
          When he established the heavens, I was there; when he marked out the horizon over the face of the deep,

          Some translations will have the word circle in the place of horizon.

          Job 26:10
          He marks out the horizon on the face of the waters for a boundary between light and darkness.

          This noticeable horizon is one of the evidences the Greeks used for a spherical globe.

        • Meepestos

          This brings to mind “and hung the earth upon nothing” – an ancient Hebrew conception of the earth in the universe, which is not a spherical earth. It depicts a sky, earth, sheol, and the great deep.

          Also, “Job 9:6 Which shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble.”

          As one can see, the Job character and those that wrote about him were not up to speed as the Greeks were during that era in regards to the Earth, as the Greeks had the concept of a spherical Earth in their philosophy. Centuries later, it was a Greek that was the first known person to calculate the circumference of the Earth and because of this, not what is in the Bible, people started to believe that the earth really was round and that there was much more uncharted ocean and land than they had ever believed.

          As for common folk some didn’t believe it and other’s found it plausible, as not all were skeptics and believed scholars’ assertions about the spherical earth especially from monks and priests especially in the 8th Century and onward. By the 14th Century when literacy was more widespread, skepticism about the world being a sphere was pretty much long gone, as folk like professionals including tradesmen and freeholders began acquiring books and keeping them, For sheeple before the 10th century, some could be convinced it was round by merely stating, “it’s round, God works in mysterious ways” including those illiterate into the beginning of the next millennium.

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU:This brings to mind “and hung the earth upon nothing” – an ancient Hebrew conception of the earth in the universe, which is not a spherical earth. It depicts a sky, earth, sheol, and the great deep.
          Also, “Job 9:6 Which shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble.

          ME: You’re assuming an outward support of pillars. It should be clear that an inner support of pillars is being suggested given the fact that the earth is hanging upon nothing. Pillars in architecture engineering is typically part of the building’s internal structure through compression (which is the application of inward balance). The useage of pillars, which are generally made of stone, principally applies to the support of something enormous and round.

          The internals of earth has a molten liquid layer
          (the outer core) and the inner core is solid.
          Crystalline pillars buried deep (more than 3,000 miles down) within this core has been discovered in 1995, some even protruding through the surface of the earth.

        • Meepestos

          “It should be clear that an inner support of pillars is being suggested given the fact that the earth is hanging upon nothing.”

          A suggestion if a far cry from an assertion let alone a declaration.

          “The useage of pillars, which are generally made of stone, principally applies to the support of something enormous and round.”

          Pillars do not for the most part apply to the support of something round, they are primarily used to support ceilings without the use of solid walls. Also can and have been used for displaying sculptures including spheres, but usually with a base between the sphere and the supporting pillar.

          So the authors of the bible somehow knew of these Crystalline pillars and that they were somehow an inner support. No offence intended, but not astute on your part.

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU:A suggestion if a far cry from an assertion let alone a declaration.

          ME:sug·ges·tion:
          something that implies or INDICATES (which also means point out) a certain FACT

          YOU:So the authors of the bible somehow knew of these Crystalline pillars and that they were somehow an inner support. No offence intended, but not astute on your part.

          ME: The scriptures suggest they knew the earth was supported by inner pillars since they wrote about pillars and an earth that hang on nothing..

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU:Pillars do not for the most part apply to the support of something round, they are primarily used to support ceilings without the use of solid walls. Also can and have been used for displaying sculptures including spheres, but usually with a base between the sphere and the supporting pillar.

          ME: You can’t omit this part….It’s very important to the whole:
          Pillars in architecture engineering is typically part of the building’s internal structure through compression (which is the application of inward balance).

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU:So the authors of the bible somehow knew of these Crystalline pillars and that they were somehow an inner support. No offence intended, but not astute on your part.

          ME:Of course I’m going to have to disagree with you here. It’s just that you’re approaching the subject matter from the viewpoint that they were ignorant on this matter. Let me ask you this…since you stated that they wrote…”The earth hangs on nothing”…when did science discover this about the earth?

        • David Cromie

          Sitting above, or even under, a flat earth would make it appear circular, as a disc.

        • Wisdom Speak

          only from some angles.

        • Greg G.

          It would actually be a circle.

        • Wisdom Speak

          The earth’s shadow is always a circle because the earth is a sphere. If the earth was flat…the shadow would sometimes appear oval,etc. during a lunar eclipse at sunrise /sunset.

        • Kodie

          Why would it tilt in different directions? You are determined to insert your own knowledge and retrofit it. A circle makes the shadow of a circle. Now you’re telling me that people who thought the moon was a lamp like the sun understood that phases of the moon or eclipses were made by the earth’s shadow. The moon doesn’t rotate, so it might as well be totally flat. Probably fuck with the tides, but whatev.

        • Kodie

          Why would god look at a circle from a lot of different angles? I asked you this before, and you didn’t answer me.

          I already know you think the bible authors thought the earth was a sphere – that’s not even what I’m asking about. Let’s suppose they thought it was a circle, and god looking from above would see always a circle. Why would he be looking at the earth from another angle? And if they thought the earth was a sphere, let’s suppose they did, why would god see a circle if he’s looking at it from all sides of it? How can he tell if you’re masturbating from a distance where he can tell what shape the earth is?

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU:I already know you think the bible authors thought the earth was a sphere – that’s not even what I’m asking about. Let’s suppose they thought it was a circle, and god looking from above would see always a circle.

          ME: We cannot suppose they thought it was a circle because they didn’t. And that is where you’re confused. You are assuming they are writing from that perspective.

          YOU: And if they thought the earth was a sphere, let’s suppose they did, why would god see a circle if he’s looking at it from all sides of it?

          ME:We are talking about the horizon … where light terminates, darkness begins, that points to a spherical earth.

        • Kodie

          You didn’t address my question at all. I don’t care what it says in the bible, I care what you keep repeating – that IF THE EARTH WAS A CIRCLE, GOD WOULD LOOK AT THE PEOPLE ON IT FROM EVERY ANGLE AND NOT ALWAYS SEE A FUCKING GODDAMNED CIRCLE.

          Why would god look at a circle from other angles? What is interesting to him to look at the people on a hypothetical flat circle of earth from angles that would distort the shape of that circle?

          Can you just fucking think for a second or are you always going to go back to your pitch? You cannot support your delusion if you answer my question, I know you will keep going back to what you think the authors of the bible believed. THAT ISN”T WHAT I”M FUCKING ASKING YOU TO ADDRESS. I”M ASKING YOU WHY WOULD GOD LOOK AT A CIRCLE FROM AN ANGLE AND DISTORT THE SHAPE SO IT WOULDN”T ALWAYS LOOK LIKE A FUCKING CIRCLE. 3rd fucking time I am asking you this fucking question.

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU: that IF THE EARTH WAS A CIRCLE, GOD WOULD LOOK AT THE PEOPLE ON IT FROM EVERY ANGLE AND NOT ALWAYS SEE A FUCKING GODDAMNED CIRCLE.

          ME: The earth is NOT a circle

        • Greg G.

          ME: The earth is NOT a circle

          The verse says “circle”, not “not-circle”.

        • Wisdom Speak

          It doesn’t say the earth is a circle. It says the “circle >OF< the earth. I don't know how many times I have to explain this..
          It is speaking of the outline of earth (NOT the earth). God is NOT looking at a circle from other angles… He is looking at the outline of the earth. For the outline of the earth to appear as a circle to an omnipresent…the earth would have to be a sphere.. Because during a lunar eclipse at sunrise /sunset the outline of the earth would sometimes appear oval,etc.

        • David Cromie

          Don’t bring Boolean algebra into the conversation as WS is confused enough already!

        • Kodie

          I guess you’re too stupid to answer the actual question.

        • Wisdom Speak

          You cannot comprehend the answer.

        • Wisdom Speak

          Your question has been answered repeatedly. You just cannot understand you’re not comprehending because of your approach and preconceived beliefs. Your inquiry is clouded by you thinking they think the earth is a circle.

          What is hard to understand….The earth’s shadow is always a circle because the earth is a sphere. If the earth was flat…the shadow would sometimes appear oval,etc. during a lunar eclipse at sunrise /sunset.

        • Greg G.

          The author never saw the Earth from space. An omnipresent being would not see the Earth as a circle. The author says “circle”.

        • Wisdom Speak

          The author wrote that omnipresent saw the outline of the earth as a circle. Since the omnipresent is everywhere at every time..it is only possible for the earth to always be seen as a circle if it’s a sphere. If the earth was a flat disc there would be times that the earth would appear as a n oval and other shapes.

        • Kodie

          You and I both know that the earth is a sphere, but you are imposing your knowledge on people who wrote the earth is a circle. You still can’t even comprehend the question I ask, and keep answering some other phantom question I didn’t ask you. Why would god be described as looking at a circle from various angles and not always seeing a circle? He is above, he sees a flat circle as a circle always because that’s the only angle he is looking at the earth – the circle of the earth.

          You couldn’t answer why he would look at a circle from various angles or be described at times to see an oval or a line. You haven’t got the intellectual capacity to fathom what I’m actually asking, you are so stuck on your personal particular apologetic lying interpretation that you are rendered incapable of comprehending what I fucking asked you.

        • Kodie

          No, either you can’t comprehend the question, or you can’t answer it because it would ruin your argument.

          Are you stupid or dishonest?

        • David Cromie

          The answer to your question would be ‘both’.

          Christers are forced to skirt around difficult questions the answers to which would so momentous that they might impinge negatively on their cherished supernatural world view. That must never be allowed!

        • Wisdom Speak

          If you can’t understand the answer then that is an issue on your end.

        • Kodie

          I understand you’re not able to answer the question I asked you to answer. You’re giving an answer to a question I didn’t ask you.

        • epeeist

          “In science if the evidence contradicts the theory then the theory is wrong. In religion if the evidence contradicts the bible then the evidence is wrong.”

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU: Why would god look at a circle from a lot of different angles? I asked you this before, and you didn’t answer me.

          ME: From certain locations a flat disc would look like an oval, line, etc.

        • Kodie

          I’m not asking you what a disc looks like from an angle. I’m asking you why would god look at a flat disc with his people on one side of it from angles so it wouldn’t always look like a circle to him? Why would authors of the bible refer to god looking at any shape as from an angle, it wouldn’t look like that shape? If they thought the earth was flat, god would see a circle, and they wouldn’t talk about its shape distorted from an angle. You keep avoiding that question.

        • BlackMamba44

          You are correct. God was in the Heavens and the Heavens were above the flat disc of the earth. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/de4c55e85f8847f5b3c80025284611f7bbf8790c56ec84ec4f5c820bb7d6b12b.jpg

        • BlackMamba44

          Job 38:12-13
          12 “Have you ever given orders to the morning,
          or shown the dawn its place,
          13 that it might take the earth by the edges
          and shake the wicked out of it?

          Isaiah 13:13
          13 Therefore I will make the heavens tremble;
          and the earth will shake from its place
          at the wrath of the Lord Almighty,
          in the day of his burning anger.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e6858938074e80191d326a7db6530a2433eb6a72e0df9eb751b6c1c81f102dc1.jpg

        • Wisdom Speak

          Even looking at that picture…that flat surface looks like an oval and not a circle.

        • BlackMamba44

          You’re pathetic.

        • Wisdom Speak

          Your opinion.

        • BlackMamba44

          More than just mine.

        • Wisdom Speak

          It’s still just an opinion. I would assume you would be more of an advocate for facts? So why would I care about opinions, regardless of how many people share the same one?

        • David Cromie

          You seem to be more than content with religiot opinions, why then not castigate these also?

        • Wisdom Speak

          Who else gave religious opinions in this discussion?

        • David Cromie

          It is long past time when you should be brushing up on your English comprehension (among other things)!

        • Wisdom Speak

          You didn’t answer the question.
          You claimed I was “content with religiot opinions, why then not castigate these also?”

          Who’s else religious opinions am I content with? I cannot castigate them if there isn’t any given in order to do so.

        • BlackMamba44
        • David Cromie

          Your quote earlier had you supposed ‘god’ sitting above the earth, looking down presumably!

        • Wisdom Speak

          God is omnipresent..

        • adam
        • Wisdom Speak

          We all have opinions…They alone don’t make much of a good debate or conversation, IMHO

        • adam
        • Wisdom Speak

          That could never be proven.

        • adam
        • Wisdom Speak

          If definition can prove or disprove God…then He is proven as well
          God
          ɡäd/
          noun
          1.
          (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
          synonyms: the Lord, the Almighty, the Creator, the Maker, the Godhead; More
          2.
          (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.

        • David Cromie

          The ‘god’ of the gaps? The history of scientific achievement already has!

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU:The ‘god’ of the gaps?
          ME:No.. God the creator.

        • David Cromie

          Where is the irrefutable evidence for the reality of any ‘god’ whatsoever, with any characteristics you care to name?

        • Wisdom Speak

          There is no irrefutable evidence for God’s nonexistence..yet you choose to believe that…so why do you need irrefutable evidence for the reality of God?

        • David Cromie

          It is impossible to prove a negative, but I suppose even this logical imperative is lost on you.

          If anyone proposes the existence of any supernatural entity, then the onus of proving the truth of any such statement lies with the proposer. So where is your falsifiable evidence for the existence of your favourite ‘god’?

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU:It is impossible to prove a negative

          ME: That line of argument is dated.
          “You cannot prove a negative” is a negative.

        • Kodie

          Dated? Please support your fucking idiocy with something more than denial.

          There isn’t any evidence for any god or gods is not the same thing as saying there is no god. You have made a huge Christian mistake. If you have evidence for me, I might change my mind and believe, but you don’t think I need it! I can just decide to believe your ridiculous superstition. Are you ever right about anything? I haven’t seen once that you are.

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU:Dated?

          ME:Yes dated… They argument “You cannot prove a negative” is dated.. We indeed can. The statement “You cannot prove a negative” is a negative…thus just been proven within itself…if we are to believe that.

          YOU:There isn’t any evidence for any god or gods is not the same thing as saying there is no god.

          ME: If one claims there is no God…they are stating their own belief…unless they have evidences there isn’t a God.

          YOU:If you have evidence for me, I might change my mind and believe.

          ME:Belief is your own personal responsibility.

        • Greg G.

          YOU:There isn’t any evidence for any god or gods is not the same thing as saying there is no god.

          ME: If one claims there is no God…they are stating their own belief…unless they have evidences there isn’t a God.

          Read what she said. Respond to what she said, not what you wish she said.

          “There is no evidence for god or gods” does not equal “there is no god or gods.”

          “I don’t believe in god or gods” does not equal “there is no god or gods.”

          YOU:If you have evidence for me, I might change my mind and believe.

          ME:Belief is your own personal responsibility.

          Says the person who has no evidence to back her beliefs or claims.

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU:Read what she said. Respond to what she said, not what you wish she said.
          “There is no evidence for god or gods” does not equal “there is no god or gods.”
          “I don’t believe in god or gods” does not equal “there is no god or gods.”

          ME: I did response to what she said. Nobody said it is one and the same. Let’s be clear that if One says there is no God…they would need evidences for that to be a fact. If one wants to claim they don’t believe there is a God..as long as they are clear..that is only an opinion.

          YOU:Says the person who has no evidence to back her beliefs or claims.

          ME:How many times do I have to write I don’t need to..it’s a belief. Same as atheists having the belief

          a·the·ist
          ˈāTHēəst/
          noun
          a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or god

          Neither one of us have evidences to back up our claim… and as long as it is a belief..we don’t need it.

        • Greg G.

          Suffering is proof that there is no being potent enough to prevent it and caring enough to prevent it. That means the is no omnipotent benevolence. So we have proof that your concept of god does not exist.

        • Wisdom Speak

          Humans are beings potent enough to prevent sufferings..caring enough is another matter..but that would lead to the debate of whether we can be moral without God? Many of you claim we can…yet why is there so much suffering..when we can prevent it?

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU:”There is no evidence for god or gods”
          “there is no god or gods.”

          ME: Both statements are actually inaccurate according to the Bible and other sources that define “gods” similar…
          The Bible calls us gods because we are made in His image…and we can indeed be proven to exist..

        • Greg G.

          Geez… If we want to play the equivocation game we can do that. We can prove Bigfoot exists by defining Bigfoot as anyone wearing size 10 or larger shoes. We can throw small dishes to prove flying saucers exist. We can call circles “spheres” to pretend the Bible authors didn’t think the world was flat.

        • Wisdom Speak

          We’re not arguing language..We’re debating religious ideology…especially when speaking of gods…The Bible speaks of gods..from humans..to satan being the god of this world…to idols being gods of some. gods cannot be limited to myths and when that is pointed out we want to get into “equivocation game”? Not at all…

        • Greg G.

          The Old Testament was written by poets and con artists to exploit honest farmers and tradesmen. If it equivocates gods and men, it is making stuff up.

        • Wisdom Speak

          Our we just talking opinions now? I thought we were discussing the existences of gods?

        • Kodie

          Just because you don’t understand what atheism is is no reason to say such stupid things. You’re incapable of reading comprehension.

        • Wisdom Speak

          This still remains true (note the the word “IF”): If one claims there is no God…they are stating their own belief…unless they have evidences there isn’t a God.
          Not all atheist believe the same..

        • Greg G.

          It is trivially easy for humans to imagine things that do not exist but cannot be proven to not exist. It makes no sense to pick out one of those imagined items and choose to believe it actually exists. We use evidence to distinguish between real things and imaginary things. There are a hundred things in the room I am sitting in and I accept that they are all real, so my standard for accepting that something is real is not unreasonably strict. Yet none of the gods of any religion can meet it.

          OK, there are some primitive tribes who believe a tree frog is a god. I’ll grant that it exists but I don’t think it is a god.

        • Wisdom Speak

          That’s an opinion, but when it comes to facts…God hasn’t been disproven either.. We have all just reached our own personal conclusion on whether we believe He exist or doesn’t.

        • eric

          I love that argument. On behalf of non-believers, I say: please keep using it. Its very revealing, even if you and I might disagree on what it reveals.

        • Wisdom Speak

          I understand that

        • epeeist

          I love that argument.

          We get some fairly unintelligent theists posting here, but I am surprised this one can breathe and write simultaneously (or perhaps she doesn’t, it would explain the short posts).

          Every time she post she increases the posterior probability of Dunning-Kruger.

        • Kodie

          Why is it so important for you to be such a raging asshole to debate this with people who can argue the shit out of you. You are in denial if you think you are winning or convincing anyone that you’re anything but an uneducated, lying idiot. Keep fighting atheism this way, it’s making more atheists every day.

        • Wisdom Speak

          A lot of opinion there….I’ll wait for the facts

        • Kodie

          You don’t know facts.

        • Wisdom Speak

          I said I’ll wait for them…if you know them..post them

        • David Cromie

          By the same token, unicorns, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, have not been proved not to exist. So we are back to the original problem, where is the irrefutable evidence for any supernatural entity that you believe does exist?

        • Wisdom Speak

          A belief doesn’t need evidences.. My belief for His existences doesn’t need anymore evidences than your belief for His non existences. You have no irrefutable evidences for His non-existences yet you still belief He don’t exist..what makes you think I need irrefutable evidences when you don’t?

        • epeeist

          A belief doesn’t need evidences.

          If I could be allowed to paraphrase this – “I can’t produce any evidences (sic) for my beliefs”.

          But to go back to a post I made the other day.

          In IOK-1 there is an unnamed planet on which live a race of free-floating, sentient gasbags. They have been around longer than us and know that their god exists and that all others are simply made up.

          Now since we don’t need “evidences” for beliefs then we have to accept the above as true. Which means that your god does not exist.

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU:If I could be allowed to paraphrase this – “I can’t produce any evidences (sic) for my beliefs”.

          ME:A belief doesn’t need evidences…that is a fact..We can believe whatever we want..Another fact. Especially when you don’t hold yourself to the same standard..You will not produce evidences for your belief in His non existences.

          YOU:Now since we don’t need “evidences” for beliefs then we have to accept the above as true. Which means that your god does not exist.

          ME:It would also apply to God does exist since you refuse to produce any evidence that He doesn’t or you cannot because He does?

        • Greg G.

          A belief needs evidence to distinguish it from an imaginary concept.

          If you had evidence for a god, you would cite it. Since you do not have evidence, you make excuses. You are essentially admitting that you believe your imagination but cannot admit it to yourself.

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU:A belief needs evidence

          ME:No it does not

        • Greg G.

          YOU:A belief needs evidence

          ME:No it does not

          You left off “to distinguish it from an imaginary concept.

          Me: A belief needs evidence to distinguish it from an imaginary concept.
          You: it does

        • Wisdom Speak

          People can believe anything…I don’t know why that isn’t understood.

        • Greg G.

          People can believe anything…I don’t know why that isn’t understood.

          That’s what I am saying. People can imagine many things and believe their imagination. But when they cannot distinguish their belief in imaginary things from their belief in real things that are demonstrable, they are in fantasy land. Religious beliefs are not demonstrable but there is much energy invested in ignoring that fact.

        • Wisdom Speak

          Who gets to define what is demonstrable? As atheist’s belief hasn’t shown any valid evidence…but it wants to be thought of as logical.

        • Kodie

          You don’t need evidence. Nobody said you need evidence, did they? The problem you’re having is expressing your opinion, your unevidenced beliefs, and coping with challenges to your beliefs, which you invited by posting in a public forum of atheists. Nobody cares what you believe, but you think we do.

        • Wisdom Speak

          You:You don’t need evidence.

          ME:That is what I said

          YOU:Nobody said you need evidence, did they?

          ME:That is why that was a statement.

          YOU:The problem you’re having is expressing your opinion, your unevidenced beliefs, and coping with challenges to your beliefs,

          ME:That’s not my problem. It may be a problem you’re having with me..
          There is no irrefutable evidences for God’s non-existence..yet some of you hold that belief and then ask for irrefutable evidences for God’s existence.

        • Kodie

          Your first problem is you misapprehend atheism. Before anyone said one word about any gods, I never thought about it. I didn’t guess or sense or wish a god existed. Someone made the claim that god exists and listed rules and qualities etc. of this god. My response is “I don’t believe you.” Over the years, the claim that god exists has been supported by only the flimsiest, most fallacious and ignorant arguments, so I continue to not believe. If that concept is too difficult for you to understand, it goes even further for me to disbelieve every crock of shit that comes from you. You’re not smart enough or wise enough to discern the “evidence” for god that you perceive, or you think everyone should just believe every outlandish scenario and obey it for your comfort without evidence, just because you do.

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU:There are a hundred things in the room I am sitting in and I accept that they are all real, so my standard for accepting that something is real is not unreasonably strict. Yet none of the gods of any religion can meet it.

          ME: You’re limiting yourself to the five senses: sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell. ..what about those that remain outside of that?

        • Greg G.

          You are counting imagination as a sense. Show how you distinguish the god concept from imagination.

        • Wisdom Speak

          It is argued that we have 9-21 or even more senses. you cannot limit what is real to your experiences with only five of your senses.

        • Greg G.

          Humans are prone to being superstitious. It comes from confirmation bias that is typical in animals. You are trying to count that as a sense.

        • Wisdom Speak

          I didn’t count anything as sense. I said we have more than five…Do you believe we don’t or we do?

        • Greg G.

          I accept that we have more than five senses. I do not count imagination as one of them.

          I didn’t count anything as sense.

          When you said, “You’re limiting yourself to the five senses: sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell. ..what about those that remain outside of that?” you implied that there was a sense that could detect gods.
          ________________

          I was able to retrieve the above when I had a Disqus error on submission of the post. It may have gone through but it doesn’t look like it. Below hits the points I was making.
          _______________

          People long ago believed in imaginary gods making the same mistakes you do, such as jumping to a conclusion and confirmation bias.

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU:I accept that we have more than five senses.

          ME: Good..then you cannot limit the realness of God to the five.

          YOU:People long ago believed in imaginary gods making the same mistakes you do, such as jumping to a conclusion and confirmation bias.

          ME: what confirmation are you speaking of? I was making the point that the realness of such cannot be limited to what we experience from only five of our senses. We cannot ignorant the truth of other senses.

        • Kodie

          OH MY GOD YOU”RE RIGHT I TOTALLY BELIEVE WHAT YOU SAY!!!!!

        • Wisdom Speak

          You don’t believe we have more than five senses?

        • Kodie

          I believe you have to do more than just say stupid things. You have to clarify what you mean and support your assertions.

        • Wisdom Speak

          Do you know see that me saying we have more than five senses is not stupid? Did I not present support for my statement?

        • Kodie

          No, you did not support your statement with those links.

        • Wisdom Speak

          So you’re saying we don’t have more than five senses?

        • Wisdom Speak

          You said you read the links…yet you’re claiming they are all wrong about humans having more than five senses?

        • Kodie

          I’m saying you made an assertion, and you provided links that did not support your assertion.

        • Wisdom Speak

          The assertion was humans have more than five senses.. The links indeed proved we had more than five senses.

        • Greg G.

          But the one you are implying that we have is not among the 9-21 senses. You tried to imply that a god thingie could be detected by other senses. You cited other senses. But you have not shown how the god thingie is detected except through imagination which cannot be distinguished from imagination.

        • Wisdom Speak

          The discussion in the past touched on faith…and knowing faith isn’t limited to religion… Can should be able to agree the concept of faith exist..since we use it daily? When looking at the biblical definition..it tells us :

          Hebrews 11:1
          Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

          We can compare this to neutrino that cannot be detected by the five senses.

          On another note…In the medical field..they witness the act of faith in healing..When patients are given a placebo..

          Or we can discuss “Plato’s Problem”
          “Descartes’ Ontological Argument”
          We can go on and on

        • Wisdom Speak

          We can sense pain outside of the five senses. You cannot ignore the other senses that could give an argument in favor of realities of God.

        • Greg G.

          Yes, we can have emotional pain. It doesn’t even have to be based on a real event. In the news recently, a boy committed suicide because the girl he had a crush on pretended to be a mutual friend and told him she had died. It was just a joke from her imagination but it caused real pain.

          People have believed in imaginary gods for all of recorded history but they did not think their gods were imaginary. You are make the same mental mistakes that they make.

        • Wisdom Speak

          You’re confusing a belief with evidence for a belief. they are separate. We can hold any belief we want because a belief doesn’t require evidence. That doesn’t mean a belief doesn’t hold evidence outside of our five senses because we have more than five. Like emotional pain is very real and exist outside of the five.

        • Kodie

          Emotions are not reliable indications of reality.

        • Wisdom Speak

          This is what I actually said: Like emotional pain is very real and exist outside of the five.

        • Greg G.

          Emotional pain exists outside of the senses because it is not a sense, it is an emotion.

        • Wisdom Speak

          Pain is within the senses…Nociception

        • Greg G.

          Emotional pain is not nociception.

        • Wisdom Speak

          We’re talking about pain not emotions

        • Michael Neville

          From the Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary:

          nociception: the perception of a painful or injurious stimulus

          In reality, [infants] have all the anatomical and functional components required for nociception, and they react appropriately to painful stimuli.—Thomas E. Wiswell, The New England Journal of Medicine, 24 Apr. 1997

        • Wisdom Speak

          Yes?????????????
          perception:
          the ability to see, hear, or become aware of something through the SENSES

          the state of being or process of becoming aware of something through the SENSES

        • Kodie

          What senses are you talking about? Nonsense?

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU: Nonsense isn’t a sense.

        • Wisdom Speak

          If you were stating God doesn’t exist as your opinion then it would be no different than someone who believes in God’s existence. It changes when one claims it is a fact…Facts can be proven.

        • Greg G.

          Some imaginary things might be possible. We can logically deduce how they might exist but we don’t accept it until we see it. Bigfoot, as an ape species, could remain undiscovered somewhere or it may not, but it is difficult to maintain that we still have no evidence for it if it does. So I doubt it exists but will immediately changed my mind when we have solid evidence of it.

          Some imaginary things can be discounted because they are not logically possible. An omnipotent, omnibenevolent being is one that is impossible with the existence of suffering. A benevolent being would wish to prevent it and and omnipotent being could prevent it, but suffering exists, therefore there is no being with both of those properties.

          Now you are imagining imaginary senses to pretend you have reasonable beliefs.

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU:Now you are imagining imaginary senses to pretend you have reasonable beliefs.

          ME: We are addressing senses outside of five. I’m not imagining they exist..They are said to exist.

        • Kodie

          This is at least the 3rd comment I’ve seen from you stating a claim that there are more than five senses, but not what they are, what they sense, how they work, or any citations. You have got to be the most utterly fucking stupid Christian we’ve had in a long while.

        • Wisdom Speak
        • epeeist

          http://www.todayifoundout.c

          http://www.bbc.com/future/s

          http://science.howstuffwork

          All of which are concerned with the natural.

          http://articles.mercola.com

          You want to cite a quack fraudster as an authority? Srsly?

        • Wisdom Speak

          So are there more than five senses or no?

        • Kodie

          I read all of those linked articles, and not one of those describes anything close to any sense that can detect any god.

        • Wisdom Speak

          So are you now agreeing with have more than five senses?

        • Kodie

          You asserted that with one of the more than five senses, people can sense a god being, but you haven’t supported it. Stay on track.

        • Wisdom Speak

          You’re not answering the question.First..you have to admit there are more than five senses…and we cannot limit God to the five traditional ones…You either agree or you don’t?

        • Kodie

          YOU ARE NOT ANSWERING THE QUESTION BITCH.

          You have been dishonest since you got here and pretended you didn’t change your post to Zeta; when caught out, you pretended the argument was all about something else and lied, and continue to lie. I don’t understand how someone can be as fucking ignorant and stupid as you, as to think the question was “do you believe we have more than five senses” – YOU ASSERTED THAT WE HAVE MORE THAN 5 SENSES ONE OF WHICH CAN BE USED TO DETECT GOD, not supported by anything you have posted so far. Shit or get off the goddamned pot, bitch.

          Your inane bullshit is better suited to a street corner god nut than online.

        • Wisdom Speak

          You will be ignored from this point out. I don’t respond to name calling.

        • Kodie

          You aren’t responding to me anyway, bitch. You are rattling off your repeated nonsense without any regard for what I said. That’s how dishonest you are. You’re too stupid to have a conversation, resulting in being called names.

        • Sven2547

          It’s certainly true that humans have more than five senses. It’s certainly untrue that there is any basis for the belief in a ‘god sense’.

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU:It’s certainly true that humans have more than five senses.

          ME:That is an honest start

          YOU:It’s certainly untrue that there is any basis for the belief in a ‘god sense’

          ME: “God sense” isn’t the same as the discussion we are having, can we sense Him in other senses we possess outside of the traditional five.

        • Sven2547

          can we sense Him in other senses we possess outside of the traditional five

          Unless you can propose a real mechanism for detecting God, aside from vague hand-waving about our other senses, then it continues to be insubstantial fluff.

        • adam
        • Greg G.

          We cannot detect God with any senses. You have to use imagination.

        • Wisdom Speak

          That’s just an opinion…. that is why we are having a conversation on senses outside of the traditional five. We have to acknowledge them and what they reveal before we can make a claim on what we can detect or not with them. Do you believe humans are made up with a spirit and/or soul as well? Touching on “imagination” because they is a bit vague and simple. Do you believe in the spirit world..spirits/ghosts/paranormal?

          We can speak on visions… Obviously the Bible makes note of it…But let’s use a references outside of the Bible.

          What about the 1953 vision of Harry Martindale of Roman soldiers dressed in military uniform, holding a round shield on his left arm, and green tunics. Nobody believe him at the time because of believed or known facts about the Romans’ uniforms, shields, and the side they carried their sword wasn’t accurate to their knowledge. In the 1990’s to 2000’s, archaeological diggings of old Roman forts in the area and along Hadrians Wall later confirmed his vision to be historically accurate.

        • epeeist

          That’s just an opinion

          You claim that one has a way that one has a sense which can be use to detect your god.

          Show us how this works or STFU.

        • Wisdom Speak

          If you cannot have a respectful and mature conversation..Then you will be blocked.

        • epeeist

          If you cannot have a respectful and mature conversation.

          Ah, incapable of demonstrating what you claim.

        • adam
        • Kodie

          You are not deserving respect.

        • Greg G.

          Do you believe humans are made up with a spirit and/or soul as well? Touching on “imagination” because they is a bit vague and simple. Do you believe in the spirit world..spirits/ghosts/paranormal?

          No, I do not. Vision is a function of the eyes and the visual center of the brain. Likewise, the mind is a function of other parts of the brain. The spirit or soul is superstition from a time when the heart and kidneys were thought to be the seat of consciousness.

          When I was a young child and heard the house creak at night, I feared that a monster was trying to sneak up on me so I tried to not fall asleep. A few years later, that creak was a ghost as my first thought but I would then realize it was the house creaking due to expansion or contracting from the changing temperature. As an adult, the creaks make me listen for an intruder until my rational mind goes back to the logical explanation. The monsters, ghosts, and intruders are just what the imagination does. But if there was evidence that was inconsistent with just the creaking of the house, I would go back to the intruder theory and try to take an appropriate action.

          As to Martindale, I don’t see anything about him reporting it at the time but nothing until about twenty years later. The description of the bedraggled Roman soldiers marching is apparently similar to part of the narrative of I, Claudius written over 20 years earlier. Please tell me more about how this supports your religion.

        • Wisdom Speak

          We’re not talking about support of a religion. The conversation is of a much wider scope. Touching on Martindale , there had been numerous past incidents involving the ghostly Roman soldiers prior to Martindale if I’m not mistaken. But he reported his experience in the 70s, but His vision wasn’t confirmed until the 90s-2000s.

          Although personal experience is a huge factor in our perception…it begs us to how much we weigh in with other’s personal experiences…and how much of an comparison can we rely on? What about the paranormal reports of others…how can we deny or accept what they claim to sense? And because we have not personal experience what others may have is evidences against them…why doesn’t it work in reverse?

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU: Vision is a function of the eyes and the visual center of the brain. Likewise, the mind is a function of other parts of the brain.

          ME: So are you saying you believe people see “VISIONS”?

          This meaning of the word:
          an experience of seeing someone or something in a dream or trance, or as a supernatural apparition.

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU:The spirit or soul is superstition from a time when the heart and kidneys were thought to be the seat of consciousness.

          ME: So you don’t believe in élan vital?

          https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/%C3%A9lan%20vital

        • adam

          Harry from the ghost storie?

          http://www.northern-ghost-investigations.com/ghost-articles/ghost-stories/the-harry-martindale-story.html

          He didnt see anything that was verified.

          You are being dishonest…

        • Wisdom Speak

          Are you denying we have more than five senses even showing you some links that tell you we do? If so..then why ask for proof of God in senses that you deny?

        • Kodie

          I am saying you made an assertion and none of the links you provided described any sense to sense god with. You are off to do more homework and show up with something more substantial? Or you are here to pretend you are winning with this bullshit?

        • Wisdom Speak

          Why are you avoiding the question? Are there more than five senses ? Yes or no will do

        • Greg G.

          She never disagreed about the number of senses. She was looking for the one that detects god thingies. You didn’t show that one.

        • Wisdom Speak

          I’ll wait for her to agree that we have other senses…I asked her and she can answer for herself. she said:No, you did not support your statement with those links. so either she agrees we have more than five senses or she doesn’t. I’ll need her answer first

        • Kodie

          What you really mean is you want to pretend you won something, because you can’t support your assertion with facts. You can’t, can you.

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU: An omnipotent, omnibenevolent being is one that is impossible with the existence of suffering. A benevolent being would wish to prevent it and and omnipotent being could prevent it, but suffering exists, therefore there is no being with both of those properties.

          ME: The existences of suffering doesn’t speak to the ability to prevent it or not. It is within the human ability to prevent much of the sufferings..yet we don’t. Which also brings us back to the belief that humans can be ethical without God…. And this ties into the fact that God gave us dominion.

        • Greg G.

          The existences of suffering doesn’t speak to the ability to prevent it or not. It is within the human ability to prevent much of the sufferings..yet we don’t. Which also brings us back to the belief that humans can be ethical without God…. And this ties into the fact that God gave us dominion.

          We are talking about the suffering an omnipotent being could prevent, not the suffering that humans can prevent.

          The weak defintion of omnipotence is the ability to do anything that is logically possible. If suffering serves a purpose, then it does something that is logically possible to do. Therefore an omnipotent being could accomplish the same result, with or without the suffering. That makes all suffering unnecessary.

          If an omnipotent being exists, it is choosing to do whatever with the unnecessary suffering gratuitously included. That is sadistic. We could stretch the benefit of the doubt to complete indifference but benevolence is still not part of that being.

          You have to give up benevolence or power. There is no being with both. The omnipotent omnibenevolence is imaginary but impossible.

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU:We are talking about the suffering an omnipotent being could prevent, not the suffering that humans can prevent.

          ME: We are talking about the ability to prevent suffering. What evidences do you have that He doesn’t have it? You presented the argument because suffering still exists.. If that is evidence then it’s true for humans as well..They also have the ability to prevent much of it, but we do not. He have been given dominion.. I’m sure you agree that humans rule over the earth (with or without God)….no/yes? And I’m sure you believe humans can have morals without God…no/yes? So how is it that moral humans who have the ability to prevent much of our own suffering do not?

        • Michael Neville

          Your sadistic bully of a god is supposed to be omnibenevolent (that’s a big word which means “all good”) and omnipotent (another big word meaning “all powerful”). Let’s ignore human caused suffering and just consider “acts of god” like the 2008 Christmas tsunami which killed over 200,000 people. If your god is omnibenevolent and omnipotent then he should have stopped the tsunami from happening. Obviously he didn’t because all those thousands of people are dead. So take your choice, omnibenevolent or omnipotent but not both.

        • Wisdom Speak

          So are you in denial that humans have dominion over the earth? Yet with this “all powerful”..we want to ignore our role in suffering? I guess we would need to argue against free will and freedom to choice as well.

        • Michael Neville

          What about the free will desire of a victim not to be victimized? Despite what certain Catholic bishops said, few if any pre-pubescent children wanted to be raped by priests. Or is the victim of minor consideration to you Christians?

        • Wisdom Speak

          What about the free will of a victim? It still points to the fact we all have free will…does that mean one’s will doesn’t overpower another? Nope..it happens all the time. Despite humans claim they can be moral without God. Yet practices of these moral are becoming less as time goes by.

        • Michael Neville

          What does hundreds of thousands of people being killed by a tsunami have to do with “dominion over the Earth”? Be specific or admit that once again you’re talking about things you know nothing about.

        • Wisdom Speak

          First you have to admit humans have dominion on the earth or not? We both believe we do..yet you want to make the responsibility to what happens on the earth God’s?

        • Kodie

          I wouldn’t call it dominion either, as it denotes control. We have a conscious responsibility. We can’t govern the weather. We can only do what we can to help. I don’t feel humans have a lot of dominion over the earth, in any case. A few humans control resources, and many times, poorly. We are subject to those humans unless we can organize, and organizing a large enough group of people to act is harder than being one rich asshole with political connections (or can buy them). Just saying. It’s easier to organize not enough people to any given cause, because there is so much work to do, and even if everyone is organized toward something “good”, each cause gets too few people to really solve anything… and damn, we can’t fail to acknowledge our day-to-day lives that “steal” time from our abilities to collectively solve all the world’s problems. We try, and there are still so many ignorant people who like to join the “global warming isn’t real” group, or the “gay marriage is the biggest crisis” group, or the “animals aren’t as important as people” group, not to mention the “my personal problems are way too urgent to think of anything else, sorry” group, some of whom are so busted that the nearest thing to god on earth for them is a rich blustering narcissistic liar, like their own fairy godmother who can grant them a job in the old-fashioned ass-backwards model of earth.

          Then the earth throws a tsunami or a hurricane or an earthquake or a tornado or a flood or a fire or a sinkhole or a bridge collapse or a plane crash or a car crash or MS or arthritis or something as simple as a twisted ankle or a migraine headache. …. We may be the only species capable of understanding what’s going on all over the earth and even having a chance of doing something about any of it, but I would never call it dominion.

          Religion is one way out, the coward’s way out. Yes, there’s too much to deal with it, it must be god’s plan. There’s too much to do but it’s such a bummer, I’ll just pray and feel better. There’s too much to deal with, no matter what we do, it’s never enough, so just be grateful. There’s too much to deal with, so spin it so I can feel socially superior to people who should just quit whining and get a job, but not my job, and when I am out of a job, it’s totally different because I’m socially superior via Jesus.

          Yes, there’s a lot to deal with, and so from an atheist point of view, if there were a god, he could and would lighten the load, and maybe humans could accomplish a lot more if we could cut out some of the nonsense that spreads our attention where we don’t need it, but from a Christian perspective, god has his mysterious reasons, suffering is positive, let’s distribute bibles and teach people about Jesus because earthly nutrition is temporary, but Jesus saves souls.

        • Greg G.

          So are you in denial that humans have dominion over the earth?

          Are you in denial about how we cannot control earthquakes, volcanoes, weather, and tsunamis? We have less dominion of the earth than bacteria.

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU:Are you in denial about how we cannot control earthquakes, volcanoes, weather, and tsunamis?

          ME: Yes we can…just like we can cure diseases..and we either don’t or haven’t figured out how YET…

        • Greg G.

          YOU:Are you in denial about how we cannot control earthquakes, volcanoes, weather, and tsunamis?
          ME: Yes we can…just like we can cure diseases..and we either don’t or haven’t figured out how YET…

          If you haven’t noticed, we are not omnipotent. We can attenuate the damage from storm surges with sea walls, but we cannot stop a large tsunami. Maybe we could do it someday, but there will be a lot of suffering until then. An omnipotent being could prevent that suffering which makes it unnecessary and an omnibenevolent being would prevent unnecessary suffering if it could. No being does prevent suffering. An omnipotent, omnibenevolent being does not exist.

          If you want to be a good person, then be a good person. You don’t have to do it because some omnipotent being will kick your ass if you don’t.

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU:If you haven’t noticed, we are not omnipotent

          ME: We don’t need to be

          YOU:We can attenuate the damage from storm surges with sea walls, but we cannot stop a large tsunami. Maybe we could do it someday, but there will be a lot of suffering until then.

          ME:Just by the fact..that you acknowledge the possibility to prevent it some day proves we can indeed prevent it.

          YOU:An omnipotent being could prevent that suffering which makes it unnecessary and an omnibenevolent being would prevent unnecessary suffering if it could No being does prevent suffering. An omnipotent, omnibenevolent being does not exist.

          ME:We can prevent much of human suffering, but we don’t.
          What does that say about us? Or it’s just easier to ignore human responsibility ?

          YOU:If you want to be a good person, then be a good person.

          ME: And that is the question. Do we collectively want to be good? If we did…then much of what we suffer wouldn’t occur. Where is the level of omnibenevolent do we possess and where/why do we lack?

        • Greg G.

          Nit: I believe that happened in 2004. When I heard about it hitting Thailand, I was worried because my wife, then girlfriend, was in SE Asia and I wasn’t sure exactly where.

        • Greg G.

          If that is evidence then it’s true for humans as well..They also have the ability to prevent much of it, but we do not. … So how is it that moral humans who have the ability to prevent much of our own suffering do not?

          Humans are not omnipotent nor omnibenevolent. Humans cannot stop all suffering because we are not omnipotent. Why do you need to make excuses for an omnipotence?

        • Wisdom Speak

          You want me to not focus on humans..Why do you want humans to not be responsible for the earth?..which is kinda of ironic for an atheist..

        • Greg G.

          You want me to not focus on humans..Why do you want humans to not be responsible for the earth?..which is kinda of ironic for an atheist..

          The discussion is about whether an omnipotent benevolence exists. If one did, there would be no suffering.

        • Wisdom Speak

          No..this discussion was about the existence of suffering. And the lack of human accountability for it..strange position for an atheist, in my opinion. If God doesn’t exist…then who is responsible for the suffering? And if we’re responsible for the suffering..then why does the existence of God makes Him a scapegoat? Even with the religion in question..it teaches humans were given dominion upon the earth…The responsibility is ours from a religious and secular position..no way to escape it.

        • Kodie

          You seem to be incapable of keeping up with the topic of the discussion or defending religious beliefs against criticism. You think “wave my hands” is a valid discussion tactic.

        • Greg G.

          Suffering exists. Are you debating that? We were discussing what it means if suffering exists. It means that there is no being that is capable of preventing it that is also benevolent enough to prevent it. An omnipotence would be capable of preventing it, by definition of the word “omnipotent”, so it would be sadistic to not prevent suffering which means it is not benevolent.

          That is how the suffering came into it.

        • Wisdom Speak

          We agree suffering existence..But the discussion is about it’s existence… If you take the position that no omnipotence or benevolent exist.. Then one cannot be responsible for the existences of suffering. Humans are responsible for it.. This is religiously accurate as well as secular.

        • Greg G.

          How are humans responsible for the suffering of a baby deer being torn apart by wolves in North America 100,000 years ago? There’s a lot of suffering going on that you are ignoring.

        • Wisdom Speak

          We’re talking in general about suffering. So if God exist He would be responsible for suffering. One says He doesn’t exist which would equal to Him not being responsible for suffering.. Yet we exist, but we’re not responsible?

        • adam

          ” So if God exist He would be responsible for suffering.”

          “One says He doesn’t exist which would equal to Him not being responsible for suffering.. ”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9fef3e09d4fced201880c6048e47897bc3461d04f1c5de54936408c4560c105b.jpg

        • Wisdom Speak

          So are you saying He exist?
          You would need to believe He exist for Him to create evil. If you don’t believe He exist then how could He create evil?

        • adam

          So are you saying He exist?

          What do think about God bragging about creating evil.

          Personally, I understand that this is merely human politics to deceive and take advantage of others.

        • Greg G.

          He is only reporting what the Bible says. Lamentations 3:37-38 appears to refer to that verse and reinforces the notion that the Lord does bad.

        • Michael Neville

          No, he’s saying what your Bible says. Or are you saying the Bible is wrong?

        • Kodie

          You are the believing idiot who has to explain that. It’s already explained without god.

        • Michael Neville

          Does the word arguendo mean anything to you?

        • Kodie

          Humans aren’t responsible for all suffering, whatever gave you that fucked up idea? Other than politics and crime, most suffering occurs due to something other than humans. And yet, you see some kind of beautiful meaningful reason behind it, and we just see a dangerous planet and try to get along so we can cope together.

        • Kodie

          Theism is just like a numbing drug addiction.

        • epeeist

          There is no irrefutable evidence for God’s nonexistence.

          In IOK-1 there is an unnamed planet on which live a race of free-floating, sentient gasbags. They have been around longer than us and know that their god exists and that all others are simply made up.

          Prove that they, and their god, do not exist.

        • Wisdom Speak

          The rules doesn’t change for me either.

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU:Prove that they, and their god, do not exist.

          ME: Why would I do that? A belief does not require proof or evidence.

        • Kodie

          Who would believe that god is anything but a figment of your imagination without evidence? You misrepresent the atheist position, another dishonest thing only Christians believe and repeat without questioning it. How gullible are you? How gullible do you expect everyone else to be?

        • Wisdom Speak

          A belief does not require proof or evidence.

        • Kodie

          If you want to be gullible, but don’t try to argue that everyone has to adopt your superstition.

        • Wisdom Speak

          Where did I argue that anyone has to believe as I do?

        • Greg G.

          Where did I argue that anyone has to believe as I do?

          Kodie didn’t say you had done it. She just said to not do that. You inferred that she was saying something she didn’t but maybe she inferred something you didn’t actually say from your diligence in making your arguments.

        • Wisdom Speak

          She said this:”but don’t try to argue that everyone has to adopt your superstition”.

          So I had to ask her :
          “Where did I argue that anyone has to believe as I do?”

          Why would she assume I did or would…is the question?

        • Greg G.

          She said this:but don’t try to argue that everyone has to adopt your superstition.
          So I had to ask her :
          Where did I argue that anyone has to believe as I do?
          Why would you assume I did or would…

          If Kodie had said, “Don’t fall off the cliff”, it does not imply that she thought you had fallen off the cliff. She didn’t actually say you had done anything in the past in that statement and neither did I.

        • Wisdom Speak

          That is why I asked her a question on why she would assume I did or would..

        • Greg G.

          That is why I asked her a question on why she would assume I did or would..

          You did not ask a Why question. You asked a Where question.

          From http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2017/04/movie-review-genesis-history/#comment-3277355159

          Wisdom Speak Kodie • 11 days ago
          Where did I argue that anyone has to believe as I do?

        • Wisdom Speak

          You didn’t include this one:Why would you assume I did or would.

        • Kodie

          This is your disqus profile: Pick any comment.
          https://disqus.com/by/WisdomSpeaktruth/

        • Wisdom Speak

          I don’t see any

        • Kodie

          You’re arguing awfully hard for someone who doesn’t care if anyone believes you, takes you seriously, or is convinced of anything you have to say.

        • Wisdom Speak

          We’re having a conversation..nothing more or less..at any given time..people could stop replying..

        • Wisdom Speak

          And why do so many atheists concern themselves with others beliefs?
          Should you take your own advice and not have any topics and conversations about what you deem as gullible and superstitious?

        • Greg G.

          Because religious people try to push their beliefs on others. Many are pushing dangerous agendas in the name of their religions.

          Your freedom to swing your fist ends at the next person’s nose. You are free to practice your religious beliefs as long as you don’t practice them on others.

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU: Because religious people try to push their beliefs on others

          ME: So the argument..is to do the same? To spend a lot of time in trying to discredit a belief..is that somewhat hypocritical?

          YOU:Many are pushing dangerous agendas in the name of their religions.

          ME: And religious intolerances is just as dangerous.

          YOU:Your freedom to swing your fist ends at the next person’s nose. You are free to practice your religious beliefs as long as you don’t practice them on others.

          ME:Which also brings me to the question: .Why do so many atheists focus mostly on the Christian belief? Shouldn’t you put as much effort in dissecting other religious ideology?

        • Greg G.

          YOU: Because religious people try to push their beliefs on others
          ME: So the argument..is to do the same? To spend a lot of time in trying to discredit a belief..is that somewhat hypocritical?

          No, we do not. Stopping a religion from imposing their beliefs on others is not the same as forcing beliefs on them.

          YOU:Many are pushing dangerous agendas in the name of their religions.
          ME: And religious intolerances is just as dangerous.

          Nope. Religion has a problem with compromise.

          YOU:Your freedom to swing your fist ends at the next person’s nose. You are free to practice your religious beliefs as long as you don’t practice them on others.
          ME:Which also brings me to the question is..Why do so many atheists focus mostly on the Christian belief? Shouldn’t you put as much effort in dissecting other religious ideology?

          Because Christianity is causing the most problems in this country. Atheists in other parts of the world fight the religion that oppresses them. But it is not like we do not oppose actions derived from all superstitious beliefs.

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU: No, we do not. Stopping a religion from imposing their beliefs on others is not the same as forcing beliefs on them.

          ME: Debateable.. Secular has in some cases forced beliefs on the religious communities..But it doesn’t answer for why atheists spend so much time trying to discredit a religion.

          YOU:Nope. Religion has a problem with compromise.

          ME:What do you mean nope? You think it’s ok to be religious intolerances? How are you not hypocritical? You don’t think all people should have equal rights..to protection and freedoms regardless of their religion,etc.? And where are you willing to compromise with religion? (See your below statement in connection with this question)

          YOU:Because Christianity is causing the most problems in this country.

          ME: So it’s a religion that is causing most of the country’s problems..how exactly? It’s not crime? It’s not politics? It’s not racism? It’s not sexism? It’s not poverty?

          YOU:Atheists in other parts of the world fight the religion that oppresses them.

          ME: How are atheists being oppress in this country?

        • Greg G.

          ME: Debateable.. Secular has in some cases forced beliefs on the religious communities..

          Give some examples. When you say “secular”, is it not an argument one religious community uses against another sometimes? Isn’t it to keep other religions from being excluded by the tyranny of the majority.

          But it doesn’t answer for why atheists spend so much time trying to discredit a religion.

          It is a worthwhile hobby. Bigfoot chasers aren’t infiltrating politics to try to legislate what they imagine Bigfoot would want.

          ME:What do you mean nope? You think it’s ok to be religious intolerances? How are you not hypocritical? You don’t think all people should have equal rights..to protection and freedoms regardless of their religion,etc.? And where are you willing to compromise with religion? (See your below statement in connection with this question)

          People should be free to believe whatever they want. They should also be responsible with their beliefs lest freedom would become arbitrariness far removed from reality.

          ME: So it’s a religion that is causing most of the country’s problems..how exactly? It’s not crime? It’s not politics? It’s not racism? It’s not sexism? It’s not poverty?

          Yes, Christianity has caused problems in each of those areas, more than any other religion in the Western Hemisphere for many centuries. I’m not going to give an exhaustive list but I’ll give an example of something that pisses me off most.

          Crime: Bilking the elderly for money for worthless prayers.
          Politics: Opponents of environmental protection cite God as the reason we don’t need to worry about that.
          Racism: Southern Baptists split from the Baptists over slavery.
          Sexism: 1 Timothy.
          Poverty: The problems related to poverty are proportional to religiousity on a state by state basis. I have done my own research on that to verify it. I have read that this relationship goes down to the county level, too, but I have not personally verified that. The states that are the worst off happen to be the Bible Belt states where Christianity is the most prevalent, where religion is more important than education.

          ME: How are atheists being oppress in this country?

          Oppression isn’t such a major thing in this country but it is still there. We don’t have as much to complain about as the atheists in other countries. Some countries have laws against blasphemy and are trying to impose those laws on the world at large. But, preachers lie about atheists from the pulpit, making atheists out to be evil. Because of that, atheists have lost jobs because the boss was religious. Atheists are not represented in politics because religion is an issue.

        • Kodie

          Because so many Christians think their superstition should be my law. I concern myself with people getting in my business.

        • Wisdom Speak

          That goes both ways..We have secular people/beliefs pushing for secular beliefs to be made law.

        • Kodie

          You mean scientifically accurate? You mean, you’re against scientific accuracy pushing your superstition out of the way where it doesn’t belong? You can believe your shit at home and your tax-exempt house of worship, or really anywhere you go. What you can’t do is get all pissy and force others to adopt your superstition for your comfort. It’s not that helpful and ignorance is actually dangerous.

        • Wisdom Speak

          “Consent of the governed”

        • Kodie

          You don’t want to live in the real world? Even more reason for you to keep your beliefs as a hobby and not get into politics.

        • Wisdom Speak

          You don’t think the authority of a government should depend on the consent of the people?

        • Kodie

          You don’t consent to live in reality, then you don’t get to govern. You get to go to the bin.

        • Wisdom Speak

          Is that a yes or no to: You don’t think the authority of a government should depend on the consent of the people?

        • Kodie

          I think you are getting sidetracked and spouting non sequiturs. Try sticking with the claims you made and how you’re going to support them. You sound like you are happy enough to try to make up meaningless gotcha games instead of anything substantial. I don’t consent to religious people making up bullshit superstitious laws, so do you think religious people should have more power than everyone else?

        • Greg G.

          There is also “tyranny of the masses”.

        • Wisdom Speak

          Which one does this country have?

        • Greg G.

          A belief should not be any stronger than the evidence can support.

        • Wisdom Speak

          A belief doesn’t rely on evidences, that is what makes it a belief. Now beliefs can be concluded for an individual based upon many factors that qualifies as evidences in some fashion.

        • DrewTwoFish

          Evidence for non-existence? WTF?

        • Wisdom Speak

          “Evidence of absence”
          “Proof of impossibility”
          “Proving a negative”

        • David Cromie

          Only for the deluded deist!

          Please note,”It is He (presumably your favourite supposed ‘god’) who sits above the circle of the earth…”, you claimed above! An omniscient creator ‘god’ would have known that the earth was a sphere/globe.

        • Wisdom Speak

          Of course He know the earth is a sphere/globe..that is why the outline of the earth is described as a circle which is ONLY possible from every location God is sitting and at any given time..as He is omnipresent…

        • Kodie

          That isn’t why the outline of the earth is described as a circle. They thought it was a circle. They thought god sat above it, looking at it from the “above” angle. You still have never answered what I ask – why would they depict god looking at a circle from sideways and report it as an oval or a line at times? The shadow of a circle would be round. The outline of a circle is round like a circle. You keep pretending it’s known to be a sphere, and I don’t disagree a sphere from all angles looks like a circle, but you are using a lot of creative license to read that into the bible. These people did not know what you know. The bible doesn’t describe people knowing things that you now know, whether you like it or not. God would look at a circle from above and see a circle, just like you would. They’re not talking about god looking sideways or around the whole sphere of the earth. They had no concept of that.

        • David Cromie

          In your quote your supposed ‘god’ is static as it looks down on the earth. Thus, for centuries it was held that the earth was flat, as well as being at the centre of the universe.

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU:In your quote your supposed ‘god’ is static as it looks down on the earth

          ME: God is omnipresent..so wherever and whenever he looks down on the silhouette of the earth, the Bible says He sees a circle…This can only be true for a sphere. If the Bible claimed the earth was a flat disc..then when the Omnipresent looked down at the silhouette of the earth during a lunar eclipse at sunrise /sunset the outline of the earth would sometimes appear oval,etc.

          YOU:Thus, for centuries it was held that the earth was flat, as well as being at the centre of the universe.

          ME: By some and not by all.. And that view was shared by many cultures which shows it wasn’t bible-based .

        • David Cromie

          Tell that to the 16th cent. papacy, and the christers that also believed in papal infallibility and a geocentric universe, with Rome at the centre of all wisdom!

          As for your quote, here it is again; “It is He who sits above the circle of the earth…”. No mention there of a sphere, or of jockeying for position, or even of being omnipresent! That is why generations of christers believed in a flat earth!

        • Wisdom Speak

          I’m not interested in other’s opinion (that should have been clear to you by now..it makes no differences if they are believers or not). I’m only interested in what is written in the bible. Why would they mention sphere when that text is speaking about the outline of the earth?

        • David Cromie

          Are your delusions so integral to you that any thought, or evidence, that you might be deceiving yourself would be anathema in your world view?

        • Wisdom Speak

          Are we debating other people’s interpretation or what is actually written in the Bible?

          Here is my question:Why would they mention sphere when that text is speaking about the outline of the earth?

        • Kodie

          You want answers to your questions? How funny. Why the fuck wouldn’t they? You keep insisting god “would see” an oval or a line if he looked at a flat disc from various angles. Why would god look at a circle he sat above at angles that would distort the outline of the shape he saw? Why would the authors of the bible overthink this shit like you do? You won’t answer my question, I think your question is FUCKING RIDICULOUS.

          Oh, those blatantly ignorant bible authors got you fooled, don’t they. You think they knew what you know, and even though you’re the only person here speaking for that garbage, you think anything you say will convince anyone who thinks you’re full of shit. You’re blind, you’re selectively interpreting whatever you want to think is there, when it fucking isn’t.

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU:You keep insisting god “would see” an oval or a line if he looked at a flat disc from various angles. Why would god look at a circle he sat above at angles that would distort the outline of the shape he saw?

          ME: He is Omnipresent

        • Greg G.

          ME: He is Omnipresent

          Which means he would sense the Earth as an oblate spheroid and certainly not as a circle.

        • Wisdom Speak

          And He did/do/does.
          Circle of the earth doesn’t mean the earth is a circle..anymore than a curve of a woman means a woman is a curve..which you keep ignoring.

        • Kodie

          Yeah, that doesn’t answer the fucking question either. God could be omnipresent over a circle. Why would he look at a circle from different angles?

        • Wisdom Speak

          If you’re not going to understand at this point..why do you keep asking the same or similar questions…when the answer isn’t going to change?
          We know He could be omnipresent over a circle, square, sphere, cube, oval…whatever.
          We’re focus on what the scripture actually says.. And “on the surface” of the text…it is speaking to the silhouette of the earth from God’s viewpoint.
          If you refuse to get this..I just cannot help you understand it..

          Because He is omnipresent….the earth would have to be a sphere for Him to always see the outline of the earth as a circle (according to scripture). If the omnipresent looked at the earth at a given time..the earth’s outline could appear as an oval or some other shape.

          YOU:Why would he look at a circle from different angles?

          ME:Because He’s omnipresent

        • Kodie

          No, I understand your fucking point, dummy. You’re the one who insists the bible describes a sphere because the outline of a circle makes it a sphere.

        • David Cromie

          Your post makes no sense!

        • Wisdom Speak

          Here is my question:Why would they mention sphere when that text is speaking about the outline of the earth?

        • Greg G.

          Why would they mention “sphere” when they thought the world was flat? It doesn’t say the outline. It is talking about the Earth and uses the word “circle.”

        • Wisdom Speak

          Why would they use spheres when they aren’t talking about the earth, but it’s outline…as you ignored the comparison..
          would the curve of a woman be the same as a woman is a curve? Of course not..and if someone stated curve of a woman..what are they talking about? You know they are talking about her silhouette..

        • Greg G.

          We can talk about the radius of a sphere, the volume of a sphere, or the surface area of a sphere, but the circle of a sphere makes no sense. The intersection of a sphere and a plane is a circle but there is no the circle of a sphere. There is no triangle of a pyramid. The square of a cube is not a planar figure.

        • Wisdom Speak

          The silhouette of a sphere makes perfect sense…If you were to trace the outline of a sphere…you would be DRAWing a circle.

        • Greg G.

          The silhouette of a sphere makes perfect sense…If you were to trace the outline of a sphere…you would be DRAWing a circle.

          They were writing text, not drawing pictures. It doesn’t say “silhouette” nor “outline”. The shadow of the Earth is not the Earth.

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU:The shadow of the Earth is not the Earth

          ME:Exactly why the spoke of the horizon

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU:They were writing text, not drawing pictures

          ME:Did you not just say :The Old Testament was written by poets?
          Then their writings would indeed be expressed in some poetic form when writing about the profile of the earth?

        • Kodie

          Yes. There have been a lot of Christians along the way who dishonestly keep repeating what they believed before the discussion as though they are immune to feedback, a lot who change the subject entirely when things get tough or skip posts that force them into difficult areas, but very few have had the nerve to just answer as though you’ve asked a completely different question, and added the hostility to blame everyone else for misunderstanding them. This YoOhioGirl aka Wisdom Speak is especially delusional.

        • Kodie

          The outline of a circle is a circle.

        • Wisdom Speak

          We are talking about the outline of the earth, not the outline of a circle.

        • Michael Neville

          No, you’re talking about the outline of the Earth. The Bible is talking about a circle.

        • Wisdom Speak

          No..The Bible is also talking about the outline of the earth.
          Isaiah 40:22
          NET Bible
          He is the one who sits on the earth’s horizon; its inhabitants are like grasshoppers before him. He is the one who stretches out the sky like a thin curtain, and spreads it out like a pitched tent.

          Job 26:10
          Holman Bible
          He laid out the horizon on the surface of the waters at the boundary between light and darkness.

          ho·ri·zon
          həˈrīzən/Submit
          noun
          1.
          the line at which the earth’s surface and the sky appear to meet
          (That is the earth’s outline/silhouette/profile/shadow)

        • Kodie

          If the earth was thought to be a circle, the outline would be described as a ….. circle. You are inventing interpretations to suit your bias, but you also just said a belief doesn’t require proof or evidence. Believe whatever you want, but your stupid story isn’t convincing to me.

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU:If
          ME: That is your keyword

          YOU: You are inventing interpretations to suit your bias,

          ME:I say the same for you. The fact you stated “if” denotes interpretation needed..

        • Kodie

          No, I say “if” because now we know the earth is a sphere. You’re too motherfucking stupid to comprehend what I’m asking you to give a coherent answer. You keep dying on your hill. It’s pathetic.

        • Wisdom Speak

          We’re not talking about what we know.. “If” was in references to what they knew.

        • Kodie

          Why is it so hard for you to focus on a hypothetical so you can have a two-way discussion? You believe what you believe, and all you do is keep asserting it, regardless of any comment anyone has made. You’re very self-absorbed, I noticed.

          (A while ago, and that’s being generous).

        • Wisdom Speak

          You, as well as others believe what you/them believe as well regardless of any comments I made..So what’s the problem? Are you/them also self-absorbed?

        • Kodie

          You are incapable of a 2-way conversation. We’re focused on what you’re saying and you’re just repeating yourself. That’s all that’s happening. You’ve been gone a while and then you reset your assertions when you come back as though nothing even was discussed before. Typical dishonest Christian.

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU:We’re focused on what you’re saying and you’re just repeating yourself.

          ME: And you all are repeating your same position as well..

          YOU: You’ve been gone a while

          ME:You must have missed me..

          YOU:and then you reset your assertions when you come back as though nothing even was discussed before. Typical dishonest Christian.

          ME:That’s actually the opposite definition. It shows that I’m honest.. My beliefs remain consistent

        • Kodie

          No, it shows you have no interest in reading or speaking honestly to people who are giving you the time of day. You are dishonest.

        • Wisdom Speak

          Then why are you replying back? I don’t believe you

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU: If the earth was thought to be a circle, the outline would be described as a ….. circle.

          ME: But that statement wouldn’t be true for a circle/flat earth all the time…because during a lunar eclipse at sunrise /sunset the outline of a circle/flat earth would sometimes appear oval,etc.

          That is why you’re reading your own thoughts into what they thought. They didn’t say they thought the earth was a circle. They only wrote the outline of the earth is a circle. Only a circle outline of a sphere earth can always be a circle.

        • David Cromie

          The so-called ‘bible’ is not referencing a sphere, or an eclipse, and that is your problem

        • Wisdom Speak

          The Bible is making references to the outline of the earth..which is in the shape of a circle. That is only possible at all times to a omnipresent God if the earth is a sphere. If the Bible thought the earth was a circle then during an eclipse at certain times the shadow of the earth would appear as a oval/etc. to the Omnipresent.

        • Greg G.

          From near the Earth, it would not look like a circle. The Earth would only look like a circle from a position between the Earth and Sun. Other angles would look like a crescent. If God was using senses other than vision based on the frequencies of light from the sun, it would not appear as a circle.

          Is our god a sun god?

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU:The Earth would only look like a circle from a position between the Earth and Sun.

          ME:Which brings us back to the horizon

        • epeeist

          From near the Earth, it would not look like a circle.

          A circle viewed from anywhere except perpendicular to its centre would look like an ellipse.

        • Kodie

          Because they had no idea the earth rotated. You never answered why would god even look at different angles? The outline of a circle is a circle, a fact which pains you so much you can’t even comprehend what I’m asking you to answer it. All you do is wave your hands and divert.

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU: Because they had no idea the earth rotated

          ME: That is an assumption

          YOU: You never answered why would god even look at different angles?

          ME: He is omnipresent

          YOU:The outline of a circle is a circle, a fact which pains you so much you can’t even comprehend what I’m asking you to answer it. All you do is wave your hands and divert.

          ME:I’ve stated several times that the outline of a circle is a circle. the outline of the earth is a circle. The outline of a sphere is a circle. But only a circle is a circle.

        • Greg G.

          I just checked Isaiah 40:22. It still does not say the outline of the Earth. It could have said the sphere of the Earth and made sense but it still does not.

          The previous verse is asking questions as if it is speaking to someone ignorant. It should have made sure to get the shape of the Earth correct.

        • Wisdom Speak

          Sphere would not make sense when speaking of the outline of the earth…Can you not see that?

        • Greg G.

          It is not about the outline. You have a belief that you cannot distinguish from your imagination and are trying to convince yourself that your belief is right by trying to spin the meaning by pretending it means “outline”.

        • Wisdom Speak

          It is an outline…the hebrew word shows it’s an outline

          as the hebrew word for circle in this text is chuwg which carries the meaning “compass” with it.
          com·pass
          an instrument for drawing circles and arcs and measuring distances between points, consisting of two arms linked by a movable joint, one arm ending in a point and the other usually carrying a pencil or pen. (OUTLINE)

          You’re denying it because what you used to prove a flat earth doesn’t work.. you need “circle of the earth” to mean the same as “earth is a circle” or else your position doesn’t hold.
          Circle of the earth doesn’t mean the earth is a circle anymore than a curve of a woman means a woman is a curve.

        • Greg G.

          Yes, a compass is used to draw “circles”. You do not make spheres with a compass.

          Psalm 8:27 is about the making of the Earth. The word “chaqaq” is the verb for the compass and it means “inscribe”. It was inscribing the Earth in the face of the deep. That is how they thought their god made the flat Earth.

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU:Psalm 8:27 is about the making of the Earth. The word “chaqaq” is the verb for the compass and it means “inscribe”. It was inscribing the Earth in the face of the deep. That is how they thought their god made the flat Earth.

          ME:There is no Psalm 8:27

          YOU:Yes, a compass is used to draw “circles”. You do not make spheres with a compass.

          ME:
          Your keyword is DRAW….

          produce (a picture or diagram) by making LINES and marks, especially with a pen or pencil, on paper.

          indications of where light terminates, darkness begins, is only a description of the truth of day and night on a spherical earth.

        • Kodie

          That doesn’t mean the shape of the earth is a sphere. The outline of a circle is a circle.

        • Wisdom Speak

          We’re not talking about if it means the earth is a sphere or a circle. The scripture on “it’s surface”….is speaking of the outline of the earth…and the outline of the earth is a circle..
          The outline of a circle and sphere is a circle.

        • Kodie

          The surface of what? You can’t draw a sphere on a surface. It’s a circle.

        • Wisdom Speak

          The surface of the scripture…because the scripture is “multifaceted”.

        • Kodie

          You are just blathering nonsense now. You can believe whatever you want, but don’t try to interest anyone in your bullshit.

        • Wisdom Speak

          You can only speak for yourself. Everyone else has their own voice.

        • Wisdom Speak

          “Circle of the earth” is the outline..same as
          “Curve of a woman” is talking about her silhouette..

        • Greg G.

          If “circle of the Earth” refers to one part of the Earth, then it could be a circle. If one refers to a whole woman, there are lots of curves.

        • Wisdom Speak

          Both are descriptive phrases of the silhouette of an object no?

        • Greg G.

          A circle can be the silhouette of a cylinder, a cone, or an egg. But the verse does not say it is an outline.

        • Wisdom Speak

          You left out that a circle can be an outline of the earth.

        • Kodie

          Assuming you’re in the US (not to say you are if you’re not), the outline of the US is a familiar shape that’s not a square or a circle or a triangle, but as a piece of a sphere, flat enough to think of as a flat shape. Now imagine you think there is nothing else beyond the US. If you live in another country, it works just as well to imagine the shape of it on a map or a globe.

          If you’re standing on top of the US (as opposed to buried underneath it), and god is sitting above the US (omnipresent), what do you call the outline of the land that you assume is all there is?

          You’re assuming when the word outline is used or referred to, they mean shadow or silhouette of a 3-dimensional shape like a sphere, which indeed would cast a shadow in the shape of a circle, but you are ignoring the gaping obviousness of the shape of a fucking circle. Is a circle. On top of a shape, a flat shape, a circle, which has an outline of a circle, a shape above which would never not be a circle, and would not preclude god from being omnipresent, and you still can’t put your brain on the task of why the authors of the bible would describe a god beholding the shape of the earth from any other angle than straight above.

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU:Assuming you’re in the US (not to say you are if you’re not), the outline of the US is a familiar shape that’s not a square or a circle or a triangle, but as a piece of a sphere, flat enough to think of as a flat shape. Now imagine you think there is nothing else beyond the US. If you live in another country, it works just as well to imagine the shape of it on a map or a globe.
          If you’re standing on top of the US (as opposed to buried underneath it), and god is sitting above the US (omnipresent), what do you call the outline of the land that you assume is all there is?

          ME:You’re not understanding omnipresent…He is everywhere..making everything below Him at the same time… (regardless of it’s location) so for the shadow of the earth to appear as a circle to omnipresent is only possible for a sphere.

        • Kodie

          I tried to be patient and explain it very slowly with illustration, but you are just too dense to get this.

        • Wisdom Speak

          You just don’t understand what omnipresent is..One minute you’re using Him in your illustration and the next you claim we’re not talking about the omnipresent.

        • Kodie

          I’m not using him in my illustration because it’s essential. It’s your fucking hobby. God can be omnipresent on top of a flat circle, but you keep ignoring that.

        • Michael Neville

          What’s your evidence that your god is omnipresent? Show us some reason to accept that claim. And remember, the collection of myths, fables and lies called the Bible isn’t evidence of anything.

        • Wisdom Speak

          Why do you think anyone needs to produce evidences for God is omnipresent for your acceptances especially if you don’t have evidences that He is not and you accept that belief?

        • Michael Neville

          Could you repeat that run-on sentence only this time in English?

        • Greg G.

          Usually when they speak in tongues, they don’t use English words.

        • adam
        • Kodie

          Is English not your first language?

        • adam
        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU:You’re assuming when the word outline is used or referred to, they mean shadow or silhouette of a 3-dimensional shape like a sphere, which indeed would cast a shadow in the shape of a circle,

          ME:No..i’m not assuming anything. It is what they wrote. There are other scriptures that speaks of the horizon.

          YOU:but you are ignoring the gaping obviousness of the shape of a fucking circle. Is a circle.

          ME: You seem to just not understand.. We’re Not speaking about the “shape” of a circle ,sphere, or earth. We’re speaking about the shadow of the earth in particularly.. And that shadow will not always be a circle to omnipresent, unless the earth was a sphere. How are you not comprehending? If the earth was a circle…there would be times when the shadow of the earth would appear as an oval,etc to the omnipresent.

          YOU:On top of a shape, a flat shape, a circle, which has an outline
          of a circle, a shape above which would never not be a circle,

          ME: That’s not true.. If the earth was a flat shape circle..then there are times when the shadow of the earth would appear as n oval, etc.

          YOU:and you still can’t put your brain on the task of why the authors of the bible would describe a god beholding the shape of the earth from any other angle than straight above.

          ME:You don’t understand what omnipresent is..From every angle..God is above.

        • Kodie

          We’re not talking about the omnipresent. We’re talking about the shape of the earth as described by the authors of the bible, which is a circle. Always a circle. You are the one reaching and leaping to whatever conclusion you want and ignoring the conversation entirely to keep repeating your conclusion, basically doing whatever you can to misunderstand me and others. You’re not having a discussion, you’re having a lecture. Nobody is interested in your lecture, you’re just a religious crackpot.

        • Wisdom Speak

          We are talking about omnipresent..as the scripture in question is speaking of Him

        • Wisdom Speak

          You’re interested because you’re replying back.

        • Kodie

          You’re just an idiot, that can be entertaining. Are you interested in what I have to say because you keep replying back? Obviously you aren’t. Obviously, you can’t read, don’t want to think, and just posting because your teachermom forgot to log out.

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU:Because they had no idea the earth rotated

          ME: Even with the scripture that is in question..teaches otherwise. Isaiah 40:22…the circle isn’t just speaking to the outline of the earth, but the travel of the earth..as the hebrew word for circle in this text is chuwg which carries the meaning “circuit” and “compass” with it.

          com·pass

          an instrument for drawing circles and arcs and measuring distances between points, consisting of two arms linked by a movable joint, one arm ending in a point and the other usually carrying a pencil or pen. (OUTLINE)

          go around (something) in a circular course. (ROTATION)

        • Greg G.

          Why would an omnipresent being be described as sitting above the earth?

        • Wisdom Speak

          The earth’s shadow is always a circle because the earth is a sphere. If the earth was flat…the shadow would sometimes appear oval,etc. during a lunar eclipse at sunrise /sunset.

        • Greg G.

          See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_cosmology#Earth

          The OT was written over centuries and the ideas changed through time.

          Psalm 104:2b You stretch out the heavens like a tent,

          A tent covers flat ground, not a globe. The heavens are not like a tent.

          3 you set the beams of your chambers on the waters, you make the clouds your chariot, you ride on the wings of the wind 4 you make the winds your messengers fire and flame your ministers.

          The waters do not have beams supporting anything. How could the earth move if it was supporting the heavens? Does God really use clouds as chariots?

          5 You set the earth on its foundations, so that it shall never be shaken.

          Here the thought is that the earth is not floating. The earth is not on foundations. It is floating through space.

          6 You cover it with the deep as with a garment; the waters stood above the mountains. 7 At your rebuke they flee; at the sound of your thunder they take to flight.

          The flood never happened.

          8 They rose up to the mountains, ran down to the valleys to the place that you appointed for them.

          Water runs downhill. They got that right.

          9 You set a boundary that they may not pass, so that they might not again cover the earth.

          Tsunamis don’t know their boundaries.

        • YoOhioGirl

          YOU:
          See https://en.wikipedia.org/wi
          ME:That is not a reliable source. Anyone can edit it.

        • Greg G.

          Are you accusing me of editing it? Is that section not representing its sources properly? Are the footnoted sources wrong?

          Just because it refutes your claims does not make it wrong.

        • YoOhioGirl

          No I’m not saying you edited it. i’m saying that that site isn’t a reliable one because it’s open for editing by anyone. It’s like me giving you a link to a Christian site that refutes your claims. When making a case both sides need to use reliable sources..

        • Greg G.

          Studies have shown that Wikipedia is as reliable as any encyclopedia. You are using an ad hominem toward it. If the argument I linked to is wrong, point out where. That section cites the Bible verses it is based on.

        • YoOhioGirl

          YOU: Studies have shown that Wikipedia is as reliable as any encyclopedia.
          ME: We will have to disagree..The fact that it is open to the public for editing makes it unreliable.

          YOU: If the argument I linked to is wrong, point out where. That section cites the Bible verses it is based on.

          ME: I did

        • Greg G.

          ME: I did

          Post a link then. All I ever saw was an ad hominem directed at it.

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU: Post a link then. All I ever saw was an ad hominem directed at it.

          ME: I see the problem… I posted several times a reply to it, but it is marked as spam each time..maybe it will show up later…I’ll try once more

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU: Psalm 104:2b You stretch out the heavens like a tent,

          ME: That’s a simile obviously and by definition..it fits:
          Simile means a figure of speech involving the comparison of one thing with another thing of a different kind,
          Keyword: different kind

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU:A tent covers flat ground, not a globe. The heavens are not like a tent.

          ME: It didn’t say the heavens are like a tent. That is not what is being compared.. The stretching is..The same way we stretch out our tents on the ground…He stretched out the heavens in space.

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU: Psalm 104:2b You stretch out the heavens like a tent,

          ME: That’s a simile obviously and by definition..it fits:
          Simile means a figure of speech involving the comparison of one thing with another thing of a different kind,
          Keyword: different kind

        • Greg G.

          Disqus says the post I am trying to reply to is not active so I am replying here.

          YOU: Psalm 104:2b You stretch out the heavens like a tent,
          ME: That’s a simile obviously and by definition..it fits:
          Simile means a figure of speech involving the comparison of one thing with another thing of a different kind,
          Keyword: different kind
          YOU:A tent covers flat ground, not a globe. The heavens are not like a tent.
          ME: It didn’t say the heavens are like a tent. That is not what is being compared.. The stretching is..The same way we stretch out our tents on the ground…He stretched out the heavens in space.

          The heavens are not stretched and they are not like a tent. They had no idea where the sun went at night nor the constellations during the year. They thought the stars were very small and could fall to earth.

        • YoOhioGirl

          YOU:9 You set a boundary that they may not pass, so that they might not again cover the earth.
          Tsunamis don’t know their boundaries.
          ME:KEYWORD: not again cover the earth

        • YoOhioGirl

          YOU: 9 You set a boundary that they may not pass, so that they might not again cover the earth.
          Tsunamis don’t know their boundaries.

          ME:KEYWORD: “not again cover the earth”…keeping in mind the Bible claim it was a worldwide flood…Tsunamis do not cover the globe because they know their boundaries.

        • Greg G.

          Tell that to Banda Aceh.

        • YoOhioGirl

          The truth is the truth….none of which covers the whole earth as it did with Noah..

        • Greg G.

          What are those boundaries?

          There was no flood. That is something else the Bible screws up.

        • YoOhioGirl

          YOU: What are those boundaries?
          ME:Not to flood the whole earth again

        • Greg G.

          I doubt the author ever saw a tsunami in the Dead Sea. Nor anywhere else. Nor even pictures of one. You are making stuff up.

        • YoOhioGirl

          How am I making something up? You gave the scripture yourself.. “to not cover the earth again”. Point out one tsunami that covered the earth as it did with Noah?

        • Greg G.

          High tide anywhere covered more beach than Noah’s Flood because it never happened.

        • YoOhioGirl

          The argument isn’t about whether you believe Noah’s flood happen or not. The debate is on the accuracy of the Bible claim…and if the Bible claim it happen and that it will never happen again because the waters know their boundaries..you need to prove the waters don’t know their boundaries and the world can be flooded again. You simply cannot do that. What you assume the Bible stated was there would be no more floods..so you attempted to discredit the Bible by using high tides and tsunami..But they don’t work because the Bible never claimed there would be no more floods. It says there will be no more global floods over the whole earth like it said it was with Noah.

        • Greg G.

          You are claiming that the ancient Bible authors understood cosmology but you are giving them a pass on Noah. I say that they thought Noah was real and they thought the Earth was the center of a three layer universe.

          The oceans are a matter of volumes, quantities, and gravity. There are no boundaries. Water levels are rising because ice and snow are melting at the poles. Tsunamis are when water follows the laws of physics that the Bible authors did not understand.

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU:You are claiming that the ancient Bible authors understood cosmology but you are giving them a pass on Noah.

          ME: A pass on Noah….how so? I don’t recall us speaking on Noah….besides the bible authors believing there was a worldwide flood and that a promise was made that there would never be a worldwide flood again. Are you saying the “pass” is that there never was a worldwide flood? If so…then we never had that discussion for you to claim I’m giving them a pass… Our dialogue was on the actual claims of the scriptures. And the Bible never claim we would never have a flood again. It says we would never have a global flood again.

          YOU:The oceans are a matter of volumes, quantities, and gravity. There are no boundaries. Water levels are rising because ice and snow are melting at the poles. Tsunamis are when water follows the laws of physics that the Bible authors did not understand.

          ME: You speak of boundaries in terms of a “closed-in area”….But the Bible speaks of it as a limitation of its activity (It can only do so much damage). Which should be obvious…if the oceans were created with the type of boundaries you believe the Bible was speaking of..then there wouldn’t have been a worldwide flood..But it’s not speaking of that.. It’s speaking of the promise God made after “Noah’s flood” (Genesis 9:11). Clearly the biblical writers were aware that the ocean had not border that prevented them from flooding areas..that is why they can accept the events of a worldwide flood. But they also believed God’s promise that the earth would never be wiped out by one again…regardless of how many floods there will be..NONE will wipe out the earth….that’s the limitation speaking of in Psalms 104:9.

        • Greg G.

          ME: A pass on Noah….how so? I don’t recall us speaking on Noah….besides the bible authors believing there was a worldwide flood and that a promise was made that there would never be a worldwide flood again. Are you saying the “pass” is that there never was a worldwide flood? If so…then we never had that discussion for you to claim I’m giving them a pass… Our dialogue was on the actual claims of the scriptures. And the Bible never claim we would never have a flood again. It says we would never have a global flood again.

          You brought Noah into the discussion.

          http://disq.us/p/1i1qsb7
          The truth is the truth….none of which covers the whole earth as it did with Noah..

          Then you continue talking about Noah’s imaginary flood. If they thought Noah’s flood was real, why would we think they knew cosmology?

          The word for “boundary” is “gĕbuwl”. Strong’s gives:
          I. border, territory
            A. border
            B. territory (enclosed within boundary)
            C. region, territory (of darkness) (fig.)

          There is no hint of “limitation of its activity”. You are making stuff up. The Bible is wrong and you are being “imaginative” in trying to fix it.

          You are fantasizing that the ancients knew cosmology but could only speak of it with poetic license.

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU:You brought Noah into the discussion.
          ME: I asked you how was noah given a pass?

          YOU:Then you continue talking about Noah’s imaginary flood. If they thought Noah’s flood was real, why would we think they knew cosmology?
          The word for “boundary” is “gĕbuwl”. Strong’s gives:
          I. border, territory
          A. border
          B. territory (enclosed within boundary)
          C. region, territory (of darkness) (fig.)
          There is no hint of “limitation of its activity”. You are making stuff up. The Bible is wrong and you are being “imaginative” in trying to fix it.
          You are fantasizing that the ancients knew cosmology but could only speak of it with poetic license.

          ME: You didn’t copy all of it or the link this time.

          https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=kjv&strongs=h1366

          גְּבוּל gᵉbûwl, gheb-ool’; or גְּבֻל gᵉbul; (shortened) from H1379; properly, a cord (as twisted), i.e. (by implication) a boundary; by extension the territory inclosed:—border, bound, coast, × great, landmark, LIMIT, quarter, space.

          The KJV translates Strong’s H1366 in the following manner: border (158x), coast (69x), bound (5x), landmark (4x), space (2x), LIMIT (1x), quarters (1x), non translated variant (1x).

          Do you not see the word limit?

          lim·it
          ˈlimit/Submit
          noun
          1.
          a point or level beyond which something does not or may not extend or pass.
          “the limits of presidential power”
          2.
          a restriction on the size or amount of something permissible or possible.
          “an age limit”
          synonyms: maximum, ceiling, limitation, upper limit; More
          verb
          1.
          set or serve as a limit to.
          “try to limit the amount you drink”
          synonyms: restrict, curb, cap, check, hold in check, restrain, put a brake on, freeze, regulate, control, govern, delimit
          “the pressure to limit costs”

        • YoOhioGirl

          YOU:Here the thought is that the earth is not floating. The earth is not on foundations. It is floating through space.
          ME:So “everyone” knows what the authors of the Bible meant even though none of us were there or are them huh? You and the other poster offered two conflicting beliefs you both assuming about the writers of the Bible based upon your own personal interpretations of their writings. So did the biblical writers believe the earth is not floating as you first claim or they believed the earth is floating on water?

        • Greg G.

          ME:So “everyone” knows what the authors of the Bible meant even though none of us were there or are them huh?

          I guess you must be right. The verse says “You set the earth on its foundations, so that it shall never be shaken” which totally means “floating”.

        • YoOhioGirl

          You do know what foundation mean? Our planet is securely in its proper place in our solar system.. The foundation of the earth is inward.

        • Greg G.

          That would mean it was founded on itself. You are no longer making any sense.

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU:That would mean it was founded on itself.
          ME:Huh? I have no idea why you would say that.

          Answer me this…do you think foundations can be internal? It seems to me that you think foundations are only external…and thus basing your conclusions on…which is leading you to assume the writers of the Bible believed the earth was flat. Now if you can admit that foundations can also be inner…then one can no longer, argue without doubt, They spoke of a flat earth. They could very well be speaking of a sphere with an interior foundation.

          Job 26:7
          He stretches out the north over empty space;
          He hangs the earth on nothing.

          This text teaches us that they knew the earth is unsupported by any exterior foundation.

        • Kodie

          You’re really reaching to fit what the bible says and interpreting to mean those people were psychic scientific geniuses who wrote in cryptic nonsense to tell you what took another couple thousand years for everyone else to publish in scientific journals. Not so excellent. You’re really a fool, actually.

        • Wisdom Speak

          No..you simply refuse to acknowledge they knew more than you’re willing to give them credit for…which is typical for the “modern” human who likes to believe we are smarter than we actually are…especially when you’ve been lead to believe how primitive they were..

        • Kodie

          I am the last person to think humans are smart. All you are doing is interpreting selectively. If those ancient humans knew stuff we didn’t know for thousands of years again, why did they write so cryptically? If god was telling them stuff that was important, why didn’t it sound like information that we would recognize as information that is currently known? You are really making shit up, we know you lie, so you can’t handle the subject without being a total asshole about it too.

        • Kodie

          The most I would admit is they knew the stars were in different places in the sky night to night. Everything else is you trying to validate your fairy tale. I don’t think anyone is smart today. It is typically Christians who are amazed by human intellect who take credit for those who are actually intelligent. They use their brains like you do, like they did back then – to make conclusions and then try to fit the evidence to it. You have more evidence [edited to add: available to you] than they did, but it does not fit the conclusion any better than it did thousands of years ago. You’re also not smarter than they were.

          Edited to add: Also, this has nothing to do with human intellect. As far as I can tell, you’re alleging that these people took dictation from god, who should have known better. The people didn’t have telescopes, they thought the earth was the center of the universe. Whatever they wrote down came from an alleged intellect far greater than anyone, now or then, who really thought these little oblique references would wow people in the 21st century. You’re both fools!

        • YoOhioGirl

          YOU: Here the thought is that the earth is not floating.

          ME: That’s your personal interpretation….which is a given with “Here the thought”…But that doesn’t mean that the author is saying the earth is not floating. You’re assuming a foundation has to be outward…The earth has it’s own inner-support
          The internals of earth has a molten liquid layer
          (the outer core) and the inner core is solid.
          Crystalline pillars buried deep (more than 3,000 miles down) within this core has been discovered in 1995, some even protruding through the surface of the earth.
          Pillars in architecture engineering is typically part of the building’s internal structure through compression (which is the application of inward balance). The useage of pillars, which are generally made of stone, principally applies to the support of something enormous and round.
          (Job 9:6)
          Which shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble.

        • Dave Griffin

          YOU: BABBLEGABBLEBLAHBLAHBLAH

          You need to fuck off with your ineffectual bullshit, which serves no purpose other than to annoy. I know that is chiefly why you do this, but it’s called trolling, which is not tolerated here. If you reply again, it will be reported.

        • Wisdom Speak

          Then report me. It’s illogical to think one can challenge a whole religion without being opposed. If you cannot handle opposition ..then maybe you shouldn’t engage in criticism of another’s faith.

        • Kodie

          If you have to lie and accuse people of setting you up to throw off the scent of your own dishonesty, who cares what else you’re talking about. You have to lie to represent your “opposition”.

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU:If you have to lie and accuse people of setting you up to throw off the scent of your own dishonesty,
          ME: More of your own personal interpretation. Nowhere did I “accuse Zeta of setting me up”. I requested Zeta to quote me verbatim.. I also request the scriptures to be quoted verbatim… Doing so is what is actually honest.. Misquoting people and scriptures is what is dishonest…it change the whole attended meaning.

        • Dave Griffin

          There you go – when the bullshit, the outright lies, and the psychological manipulation tactics fail, you cannot promote your religion without resorting to intimidation. That may work elsewhere, but you forget where you are.

        • Wisdom Speak

          How am I using intimidation when you’re the one who threat to report me if I reply to back to you?

        • Wisdom Speak

          BTW- I did reply back…so did you report me or was that a lie?

        • Dave Griffin

          I reported this comment too for trolling.

        • Wisdom Speak

          That’s great..We shall see if they think it’s trolling or not.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      Science has never come from the Bible or Christianity or religion. This is no exception.

      • Wisdom Speak

        Come from? That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying science is found in the Bible. Science, like all things created comes from God.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I’m saying science is found in the Bible.

          And I’m saying it’s not. The clue to science being in the Bible is that science would actually come from the Bible–we’d read about a scientific fact in the Bible first and then get confirmation from science. You’re simply reading science back into the Bible. It ain’t there.

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU:The clue to science being in the Bible is that science would actually come from the Bible–we’d read about a scientific fact in the Bible first and then get confirmation from science.

          ME:The Bible is full of scientific facts that has been confirmed by science later. For example, in Psalm 104 verses 5-9 ,written around 1015 BC, is the principle of isostasy. The science community had not discovered it until approximately 1900 AD.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker
        • Wisdom Speak

          Looks interesting. I’ll try to read it through when time permits.

        • adam
        • Wisdom Speak

          opinions…we all have those

        • adam
        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU:You’re simply reading science back into the Bible. It ain’t there.

          ME:I cannot read science into it if it’s NOT there.

        • Kodie

          The most I could say is the bible makes some very broad observations. It makes no scientific discoveries, it reveals no prophetic future knowledge. People had eyes, and they had brains, and in between seeing and thinking, came stories, some of which stumble closer to truth and some farther. In general, the bible is not science because it thinks god made a bunch of stuff happen that we know did not happen or does not happen the way the bible describes it, like breeding animals. You are using the bible like a code book that predicts scientific discoveries but doesn’t make it so obvious that people could have used that knowledge in practice – so why would you think it’s there? You are trying to make verses mean things they don’t mean, or could not have been interpreted to mean at the time to be at all useful. That is, it’s a Big Book of Ignorance.

        • adam
        • Wisdom Speak

          more opinions

        • adam
        • Wisdom Speak

          You need faith in your daily life…be it in yourself, science, family, medicine, relationship, the chair you sit on, the plane you fly in, your eyes, your brain, your own logic and reasoning.. The mental contents of our minds can be manipulated by OUR OWN faculties and deposits. We are constantly taken in new information (both “simple/basic” & “complex”) which needs to be process/interpret through OUR various mental capacities/capabilities. What about human intelligences and how it functions? We do not all perceive, retain, understand,and apply information the same.

        • David Cromie

          We certainly do not need vacuous, uncorroborated, and superstitious, religious ‘faith’, to lead successful, upright, lives!

        • Wisdom Speak

          I said faith…not what “type”.

        • David Cromie

          I am aware of that, which is why I differentiated the two types for your edification!

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU: I am aware of that

          ME: Then why add: We certainly do not need vacuous, uncorroborated, and superstitious, religious ‘faith’, to lead successful, upright, lives!

          When nobody claim you did need religious ‘faith’ to lead successful, upright, lives? The conversation was on us all using faith in our daily live period not what type.

        • adam
        • Wisdom Speak

          You have anything besides opinions?

        • adam
        • Wisdom Speak

          I’m stating more than opinions.

    • Joe

      ME: Scientists believe that it is possible for dark energy to inverse; generating a crunch..buckling repeatedly inward causing everything to become compress:

      You realize there are people here with degrees in the Sciences? You can’t just come here and lie to us.

      • Wisdom Speak

        Then let one with a degree call it a lie. I’ll wait

        • Joe

          Name the scientist that agrees with what you just said.

          The only person here being dishonest is the Christian. Think about how that looks to anyone reading the thread.

        • Wisdom Speak

          You not knowing what I stated is a scientific fact doesn’t make me dishonest. You claim there are people who have degrees in this area here…You can summons them to this conversation and see if they disagree with you. I’ll wait for that.

        • Joe

          I have a degree in Chemistry.

          You made that statement up. It’s bullshit.

        • Wisdom Speak

          That’s great for you. Anyone here that is an expert in astronomy? That would help a lot….besides a quick google sure to know it’s true..

        • epeeist

          Then let one with a degree call it a lie.

          It’s a lie. Prove me wrong.

        • Wisdom Speak

          Do you have a degree in this area?

        • epeeist

          Do you have a degree in this area?

          I’ll reveal my qualifications when you reveal yours.

        • Wisdom Speak

          You called it a lie…I said I was waiting for someone knowledgeable in this area to call it a lie.
          Anyways..I’m surprise any of you are denying it..probably because it’s being stated by a Christian…given the fact it ties into “The Big Crunch”

        • TheNuszAbides

          so your qualifications are irrelevant?

        • Wisdom Speak

          Joe said there are people with degrees in science on here…I believe he is one…But I’m waiting for one who is an expert in this area to call it a lie. I don’t think one will without them admitting the Big Crunch is one too….as that is pretty much what is being talked about.

        • epeeist

          You called it a lie

          Yes I did, but I also asked you to reveal your qualifications. You seem to have avoided the question for some reason…

        • Wisdom Speak

          I asked you first…But it doesn’t matter if you don’t….It’s not really important to the discussion for me. One claim that experts were on the forum and I said i’ll wait for one to call it a lie…and if you’re not an expert in this area..then I’m still waiting…
          Besides..it doesn’t even take an expert ….given the Big Crunch concept…unless that is also a lie?

        • epeeist

          I asked you first.

          If you want to go that route I am still waiting for you to produce the evidence for a global flood that I asked for in this post.

          I note that yet again you have evaded the question. I am going to make an inference, namely that you have no science qualifications whatsoever and proceed on this basis. You could prove me wrong of course, but I don’t think you will.

          Have you looked at my profile by the way.

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU:If you want to go that route

          ME: What route? I did ask you first and you didn’t tell me if you were an expert or not in this area. I also said it doesn’t matter because it doesn’t take an expert. My statement that you called a lie was in line with the Big Crunch…so are you saying the Big Crunch is a lie?

          YOU:I note that yet again you have evaded the question.
          ME: No I haven’t..There are other questions being sent to me you know…don’t take it personal if I didn’t get to yours in a timely fashion.

          YOU: I am going to make an inference, namely that you have no science qualifications whatsoever and proceed on this basis. You could prove me wrong of course, but I don’t think you will.

          ME: Would you believe me if I told you? Answer truthfully..

          YOU:Have you looked at my profile by the way
          ME:Yes, very impressive.

        • epeeist

          ME: Would you believe me if I told you? Answer truthfully..

          Truth matters a great deal to me, unlike bible literalists who attempt to spin anything that undermines their ideology.

          So yes, let’s hear about your qualifications.

          Oh and incidentally – http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v391/n6662/full/391051a0.html

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU:Truth matters a great deal to me, unlike bible literalists who attempt to spin anything that undermines their ideology.
          So yes, let’s hear about your qualifications.

          ME: I have a degree in science (which area is personal)
          But I don’t post from the point of view of faith and religion alone (Although learned in that area as well).

          YOU:Oh and incidentally – http://www.nature.com/natur

          ME: What point are you making?
          And you didn’t answer my question: Are you saying the Big Crunch is a lie?

        • epeeist

          ME: I have a degree in science (which area is personal)

          So more avoidance. For all we know your degree may be in “domestic science”, “sports science” or even homoeopathy.

          ME: What point are you making?

          A “Big Crunch” would happen in matter-dominated universe. The paper suggests we don’t live in one.

          Are you saying the Big Crunch is a lie?

          No, I am suggesting that the evidence does not suggest we live in a matter-dominated universe.

          To follow up on other things that you haven’t bothered to defend. Gamma Ray Burst (GRB) events are extremely rare and are associated with massive stars (or the merging of binary stars). Observed inter-galactic stars outside the Milky Way amount to a few hundred, though there are more associated with other galaxies.

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU:So more avoidance.

          ME: That’s not avoidance. I did answer you.

          YOU: For all we know your degree may be in “domestic science”, “sports science” or even homoeopathy.

          ME: Maybe and Maybe Not

          YOU :A “Big Crunch” would happen in matter-dominated universe. The paper suggests we don’t live in one.
          No, I am suggesting that the evidence does not suggest we live in a matter-dominated universe.

          ME: You can’t agree with them both. If you agree with the paper then you cannot agree with the Big Crunch, if they are in conflict.

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU:To follow up on other things that you haven’t bothered to defend.
          ME: I didn’t know it needed defending…who was attacking it or you are just appearing hostile because that’s the position you’ve learned you must take?

          YOU:Gamma Ray Burst (GRB) events are extremely rare and are associated with massive stars (or the merging of binary stars). Observed inter-galactic stars outside the Milky Way amount to a few hundred, though there are more associated with other galaxies.

          ME:Agree…Nothing to defend against that fact..

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU:A “Big Crunch” would happen in matter-dominated universe. The paper suggests we don’t live in one.

          No, I am suggesting that the evidence does not suggest we live in a matter-dominated universe.

          ME: You cannot agree with that paper and The Big Crunch….because the big crunch concepts leaves that as a possibility for the universe’s fate (as I described earlier which was called a lie)…

        • epeeist

          ME: You cannot agree with that paper and The Big Crunch…

          Do you have reading comprehension problems?

          A Big Crunch is only likely in a matter-dominated universe.

          The paper I referenced suggests that the universe is not matter dominated.

          Conclusion: A Big Crunch is unlikely.

        • David Cromie

          Have you ever come across the Second Law of Thermodynamics?

        • Wisdom Speak

          According to the First Law of Thermodynamics, the universe’s total amount of energy remains constant. The Second Law of Thermodynamics would violate that law at some point (according to this line of argument).

        • David Cromie

          Please explain the ‘violation’ you suppose.

        • Wisdom Speak

          As entropy increase, heat can vanish in the expanding universe.
          At first, everything will remain relatively the same.
          But at some point, heat will have no space to dissipate due to new heat…as well as the previous heat will be condensed. There will be an increase in space’s temperature causing water to heat up..at some point the water would not turn to liquid.

          Keeping in mind that, the universe is said to be a closed system…this means the heat could not be neutralized by energy being emit to another environment.

        • Greg G.

          That makes no sense. Heat is a form of energy that can change into other forms of energy. What is heat being condensed? Space does not have a temperature, only the material in it has kinetic and vibrational energy that could be exchanged as heat. How is hear neutralized?

        • David Cromie

          Heat (energy) does not ‘vanish’!

        • Wisdom Speak

          van·ish

          disappear suddenly and completely.

          synonyms: disappear, be lost to sight/view, become invisible, recede from view, dematerialize

          dis·ap·pear
          ˌdisəˈpir/
          verb
          1.
          cease to be visible.
          “he disappeared into the trees”
          synonyms: vanish, pass from sight, be lost to view/sight, recede from view

        • David Cromie

          I am well aware of the meaning of ‘vanish’, and ,more importantly, of how to use it intelligently. Now explain how your version of heat manages to vanish.

        • Wisdom Speak

          Are you still claiming heat cannot vanish…with the given definition?

        • David Cromie

          Your definition of ‘vanish’ does not mention heat! Nor have you managed to show that, and how, heat vanishes!

        • Wisdom Speak

          You didn’t mention if heat can “vanish” or not? We both know it can..But I said originally “in the expanding universe”…
          From the rest of the post..it should have been clear..it’s still there, but “in the expanding universe” because “at some point, heat will have no space to dissipate due to new heat…as well as the previous heat will be condensed”

        • David Cromie

          You have not managed to show that, and how, heat vanishes, merely claimed that it does. So, answer the question in a scientifically cogent manner.

        • Wisdom Speak

          Why are you avoiding the question of does it vanish or not? You know it does, but to admit it..would mean your first statement that it doesn’t was incorrect

        • Wisdom Speak

          You never heard of The heat death of the universe ?

        • Kodie

          If it would shut you up, it can’t come soon enough.

        • Wisdom Speak

          So have you heard of the heat death of the universe or not?

        • Greg G.

          The heat death of the universe is not about heat vanishing. It means the energy is evenly distributed so no net energy can be transmitted. How could someone think of the heat death of the universe from you mentioning “heat vanishing.” “Heat vanishing” makes no sense.

        • Wisdom Speak

          vanishing
          be lost to sight/view
          recede from view,

          That is why I said “vanish INTO the expanding universe”…and the rest of the post confirmed that, by “at some point, heat will have no space to dissipate due to new heat…as well as the previous heat will be condensed”

        • Greg G.

          That is why I said “vanish INTO the expanding universe”…and the rest of the post confirmed that, by “at some point, heat will have no space to dissipate due to new heat…as well as the previous heat will be condensed”

          What’s wrong with saying “dissipate” instead of “vanish”? If youconflate “vanish” and “dissipate”, it’s no wonder you get confused with circles and spheres.

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU:What’s wrong with saying “dissipate” instead of “vanish”?

          ME: They are synonyms.

        • Greg G.

          YOU:What’s wrong with saying “dissipate” instead of “vanish”?

          ME: They are synonyms.

          No, they aren’t, especially in this context. They don’t even have common synonyms.

          http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/dissipate
          Synonyms for dissipate verb expend, spend
          deplete, use up, blow, consume, dump, lavish, misspend, misuse, squander, waste, be wasteful with, burn up, fritter away, indulge oneself, kiss goodbye, run through, throw away, trifle away

          http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/vanish
          Synonyms for vanish verb disappear
          die, die out, dissolve, evaporate, fade, melt, clear, dematerialize, evanesce, exit, be lost, become invisible, fade away, go away

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU:No, they aren’t

          ME:yes they are

          dis·si·pate
          ˈdisəˌpāt/Submit
          verb
          1.
          (with reference to a feeling or other intangible thing) disappear or cause to disappear.
          “the concern she’d felt for him had wholly dissipated”
          synonyms: disappear, >vanish<, evaporate, dissolve, melt away, melt into thin air, be dispelled; More

        • JustAnotherAtheist2

          Where would apologists be without their beloved equivocations? If “vanished” is supposedly is only being used to describe diffused heat being harder to detect, why smuggle in the actual disappearance aspects of the other definition?

          Something tells me that question has an obvious answer….

        • epeeist

          Something tells me that question has an obvious answer….

          Besides stupidity you mean?

        • JustAnotherAtheist2

          No, that’s pretty much it. :)

          It’s either that or willful misrepresentation, apologists are free to decide which best describes them.

        • epeeist

          That is why I said “vanish INTO the expanding universe”

          You know what your problem is here? You have no fucking idea what you are talking about.

          All that the “heat death of the universe” means is that the universe reaches a state of maximum entropy. It has sweet fuck all to do with heat disappearing.

          Go away and read a fucking book on the subject. If you buy one it will double the size of your library.

        • Kodie

          I have it on my calendar with a big red heart.

        • Wisdom Speak

          So what do you know about the heat death of the universe?

        • Greg G.

          That’s what I was saying. Heat is a form of energy that can be converted into other forms of energy.

          Ice doesn’t vanish, it just melts into water. Water doesn’t vanish, it evaporates into the air. I don’t think she passed her thermodynamics course.

        • epeeist

          Descent into complete gibberish contrary to fact 100% complete.

        • Pofarmer

          I think it was a comment over at “Roll to Disbelieve.”

          You can’t argue with ignorance.

          Immediately thought of this group of “conversations”.

        • epeeist

          Personally I like George Bernard Shaw – “I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it.”

        • eric

          I’m more optimistic. I see things like that and think “twelve-year-old.”

        • BlackMamba44

          It’s funny. I’m not knowledgeable on these subjects at all. I know the bare basics. But when you (and others) explain I can grasp most of it. I can understand your explanations. But WS? Holy Big Crunch, Batman.

        • BlackMamba44
        • Wisdom Speak

          How is it “contrary to fact 100% complete”?

        • epeeist

          Because the 1st law is a statement about energy content while the 2nd law is about energy distribution in phase space. They are two totally different things.

        • Wisdom Speak

          According to the first law: the total amount of energy in a closed system remains constant….everything inside that system must remain at that same, constant level. If the amount increase or decrease, the system isn’t
          closed, or there is a failure in accounting for energy (like heat)
          coming and leaving the system.

        • eric

          Please stop with the physics fails. Your 1st law not being consistent with the 2nd law discussion is falling greatly afoul of St. Augustine’s warning.

        • Wisdom Speak

          You are free to point out how it’s falling?

        • epeeist

          According to the first law:

          The words “Grandma” “suck” and “eggs” come to mind.

          I did all of this in my undergraduate degree. Not only for classical thermodynamics but for statistical mechanics as well.

          Whereas you obviously have no understanding of the subject whatsoever.

          Comet to think of it, I’m not too sure I have come across any subject where you display even a modicum of understanding.

        • Wisdom Speak

          A lot of opinion, but nothing addressing the points made.

        • David Cromie

          ???

        • Wisdom Speak

          What’s your question?

        • David Cromie

          Wittgenstein must have had such as you in mind when he declared, ‘Of that about which we know nothing, we ought to be silent’ (Tractatus).

        • Wisdom Speak

          That’s not much of a counterargument. You are free to point out where it is wrong .

        • David Cromie

          Your ignorance knows no bounds, it seems. Explain the vanishing heat, and I will get back to you.

        • David Cromie

          Do you have a degree in any area?

        • Wisdom Speak

          yes

        • Wisdom Speak

          Is the Big Crunch a lie?

      • Wisdom Speak

        So the Big Crunch is a lie?

        • Joe

          What big crunch?

          You mean the one hypothesis out of several?

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU: What big crunch?

          ME: The one Scientists BELIEVE as I originally stated:
          Scientists believe that it is possible for dark energy to inverse; generating a crunch..buckling repeatedly inward causing everything to become compress:

          YOU:You mean the one hypothesis out of several?

          ME:Yes that would be one of the ones they BELIEVE.
          So they don’t or they do believe it’s possible?

        • epeeist

          Scientists believe that it is possible for dark energy to inverse

          Citation required, otherwise you are making this up.

          And given that I have already given you a reference that indicates that the universe is not mass dominated it looks like you are doing the standard creotard thing, pressing the reset button and reiterating stuff as though nothing had been said.

        • Wisdom Speak

          Unless you don’t believe Scientists believe in the Big Crunch concept..I cannot be making this up and if they indeed believe in the Big Crunch as a possibility for the fate of the universe then either the reference is inaccurate or the concept.

        • epeeist

          .I cannot be making this up and if they indeed believe in the Big Crunch
          as a possibility for the fate of the universe then either the reference
          is inaccurate or the concept.

          I think we have reached peak stupidity.

          Of course you could be making it up. What is obvious is that you have no understanding of the concept of mass and radiation dominated universes or the way science works more generally.

        • Wisdom Speak

          No. You claimed I was making up information connected to the Big Crunch. The originally post involved the theory of the Big Crunch concept. That concept is believed by scientist. So either scientist believe in the Big Crunch or they don’t.. Do they?

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU:What is obvious is that you have no understanding of the concept of mass and radiation dominated universes or the way science works more generally

          ME:According to the First Law of Thermodynamics, the universe’s total amount of energy remains constant. The Second Law of Thermodynamics would violate that law at some point (according to this line of argument).

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU:Of course you could be making it up

          ME: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Astro/expuni3.html

          “We have already entered an era dominated by “dark energy”

          http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Astro/dareng.html#c1

          That is, the universe is very close to the critical density, above which it would slow down and collapse inward toward a future “big crunch”.

        • epeeist

          That is, the universe is very close to the critical density, above which it would slow down and collapse inward toward a future “big crunch”.

          You did note this passage didn’t you:

          Measurement at these great distances provided the first data to suggest that the expansion rate of the universe is actually accelerating. That acceleration implies an energy density that acts in opposition to gravity which would cause the expansion to accelerate.

          Incidentally, I would appreciate it if you could point out which part of the bible contains an exact solution to the Einstein field equations.

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU:Measurement at these great distances provided the first data to suggest that the expansion rate of the universe is actually accelerating. That acceleration implies an energy density that acts in opposition to gravity which would cause the expansion to accelerate.

          ME: And did you see this part after that:
          “Yet extended uniformly throughout the entire universe, this dark energy becomes the dominant influence on the expansion of the universe in this era”…

          That would lead us into a dark-energy-dominated era

        • epeeist

          “Yet extended uniformly throughout the entire universe, this dark energy becomes the dominant influence on the expansion of the universe in this era”…

          FFS, how stupid are you.

          Dark energy (whatever that is) causes an increase in the rate of expansion.

          There is nothing in this that implies a big crunch, in fact exactly the opposite.

          You really ought not to post stuff about which you have no understanding whatsoever.

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU: FFS, how stupid are you.
          You really ought not to post stuff about which you have no understanding whatsoever.

          ME: Not at all. You first insinuated I made up the concept of the Big Crunch..You were wrong of course.

          YOU:Dark energy (whatever that is) causes an increase in the rate of expansion.
          There is nothing in this that implies a big crunch, in fact exactly the opposite.

          ME: What point are you attempting to make…that there is no dark-energy-dominated era?

        • David Cromie

          Your ignorance of both science and English comprehension is culpable, and thus nothing to be proud of. Do yourself a favour, take time out and secure a decent education.

        • Wisdom Speak

          Of course I disagree. I was told I was making up concepts of the Big Crunch…that was obviously untrue. I was told I was lying about DNA information I posted..yet a biologist came an agreed with 90% of the post (and hasn’t been back to answer for the remaining 10%). And of course it’s been ongoing..that many posters are picking and choosing which english definition to use for a given word…when of course they carry many…Just because you don’t comprehend which meaning in its contexts..doesn’t make the proper usage of english my problem.

        • David Cromie

          Take my earlier advice to heart, and then you will be able to answer questions intelligently, even if wrongly, and gain a working understanding of English into the bargain.
          By the way, which meaning of ‘vanish’, in the context of heat (energy) vanishing, do you rely on?

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU: By the way, which meaning of ‘vanish’, in the context of heat (energy) vanishing, do you rely on?

          ME: The one you’re avoiding using in my question. So can heat vanish into the expanding universe or no?

        • Kodie

          What biologist was that?

        • Wisdom Speak

          GubbaBumpkin

          Hi, I have degrees in biology.

          Our ribs are located on the SIDES of our anatomy.

          True.

          CURVED bones forms the
          rib cage.

          True!

          These bones with joints connects to the spinal vertebrae.

          True, but confusing.

          The
          sugars and phosphates makes up the SIDES of double helix dna (curve)
          and they are known as the “backbone” to the structure

          True.

          (similar to the
          “floating” ribs and their relation to the spine).

          False, and confusing.
          You want to compare the deoxyribose-phosphate “backbone” of DNA BOTH to the spine (“backbone”) and to the ribs. Which is it?
          Also, the “side” of the human body is not an especially good analogy to the “backbone” of DNA.

          Conclusion: what a mess.

        • Wisdom Speak

          The expanding universe actually causes the the amount of fixed matter density to drop because the same amount of matter will be spread out over more space. Dark energy is density is continuous…which means at some point matter density will drop below it. That would lead us into a dark-energy-dominated era (the last phrase of the universe).

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU: Incidentally, I would appreciate it if you could point out which part of the bible contains an exact solution to the Einstein field equations.

          ME:Dark energy and dark matter (about 90 plus percent of the universe) was unknown to Einstein when he created his: Einstein field equations.

        • epeeist

          ME:Dark energy and dark matter (about 90 plus percent of the universe) was unknown to Einstein when he created his: Einstein field equations.

          So?

          There seems to be a huge lacuna in your post, namely that there is nothing about which part of the bible contains an exact solution to the field equations.

        • Michael Neville

          Or even the slightest hint of an inexact solution to the equations. It’s almost as if the Iron Age Hebrew priests who wrote the Bible were completely unaware of the existence of relativity and quantum fields.

        • epeeist

          It’s almost as if the Iron Age Hebrew priests who wrote the Bible were completely unaware of the existence of relativity and quantum fields.

          Or kangaroos, or America, or Neptune, or bacteria. Strange, you think their god would have informed them of all this kind of stuff.

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU:So?
          There seems to be a huge lacuna in your post, namely that there is nothing about which part of the bible contains an exact solution to the field equations.

          ME: There is no so…Einstein field equations left out a huge part…it didn’t factor in Dark energy and dark matter which makes up about 95% of the universe. If you don’t see the flaw…I cannot help you understand why the equation needs to be accurate before a solution can be found.

        • epeeist

          ME: There is no so…Einstein field equations left out a huge part..

          To put it bluntly – so fucking what?

          None of this hides the fact that you are desperate to cover up, namely that the bible contains nothing that looks like even the most basic of cosmology. But this is par for the course given contains nothing on geology, chemistry, biology and a myriad other subjects.

          In fact it looks rather like the mythos of a primitive Middle Eastern tribe rather than the product of an omnipotent and omniscient deity. Strange that.

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU:To put it bluntly – so

          ME: Again..there is no so what… You cannot ask for a solution to an incomplete equation. You have to get the equation right…
          how is that not understood by you?

        • epeeist

          You have to get the equation right…
          how is that not understood by you?

          I asked you for the part of the bible that contained the Einstein field equations.You constantly evade the point.

          So let’s cut to the chase. The reason you can’t provide me with a reference to even the most simple piece of cosmology in the bible is that it contains none.

          The bible contains nothing of any value when it comes to any science, physics, chemistry, biology, geography, geology.

          It contains nothing of value when it comes to any branch of mathematics.

          It contains nothing unique when it comes to philosophy, and in particular ethics.

          In other words, to quote Einstein:

          “The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.”

        • Wisdom Speak

          I answered your question a few good times. Why would the Bible contain an incomplete equation?

        • epeeist

          Never mind an “incomplete equation”, the bible contains no equations nor even a description in words of anything related to a “Big Bang” or a “Big Crunch”.

        • Wisdom Speak

          Those are hypothesis..why would it?

        • David Cromie

          ???

        • Michael Neville

          Classic Dunning-Krueger, being absolutely sure while spouting nonsense on subjects she knows nothing about.

        • Wisdom Speak

          What’s the question?

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU: Citation required, otherwise you are making this up.
          ME: I didn’t make up the Big Crunch concept, scientists did

          YOU:And given that I have already given you a reference that indicates that the universe is not mass dominated
          ME:Then you disagree with scientists and The Big Crunch concept and it’s a lie? Earlier, did you not say the theory wasn’t a lie? Which one is it…is it possible for the universe to “crunch” or is not possible because it’s not mass dominated?

        • Joe

          Some do, though even proponents of the theory would be careful not to ascribe belief to an unproven hypothesis.

      • Wisdom Speak

        Are you now claiming Scientists don’t believe in the big crunch? And if they do how am I lying?

        • Joe

          Only a few posit as something that can happen.

  • YoOhioGirl

    The scriptures never claimed that the earth and/or humans (Homo sapiens not Homo erectus or Homo erectus) upon it were only 6,000 years old; in fact it hints toward the opposite. The biblical narrative opens up with telling us who
    created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1)
    (note the plurality of heaven).. then there appears the “gap” (which is theorized to be hundreds of thousands-millions of years…maybe more) before we reach the second verse (Genesis 1:2)…telling us the state of the earth..formless, empty, and there is darkness over “the surface of the deep”…..
    Clearly there appears to have been a universal flood that left the earth void (as no where between those verses has water/deep creation been mention.. This is confirmed in 2 Peter 3:5-6
    5. For when they maintain this, it escapes their
    notice that by the word of God the heavens
    existed long ago (hundreds of thousands-millions years gap?) and the earth was formed out of water and by water,
    6. through which the world at that time was
    destroyed, being flooded with water
    (The world at that time..not ours..and how do we
    know it’s not speaking of Noah’s flood?..read on).
    7 But by His word the present heavens and earth
    are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of
    judgment and destruction of ungodly men.…
    (Keyword:PRESENT).
    Noah’s flood never reached the heavens to destroy it:
    Chapter 7 of Genesis vs:
    20 The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher,
    and the mountains were covered.
    Now that we established that the Bible teaches us
    that there was an extinction of prior inhabitants
    before the creation of Adam and Eve..it brings us
    back to the book of Genesis….
    where the following scriptures begins to inform
    us on how we got to our current state..
    In vs 9 of the first chapter…The Word of God
    tells us..that after there was light and separation
    of the waters from above and below the heavens
    (from the flood)…that the dry land APPEARED (not
    created…since it was already there)..
    Which leads us into the genesis of “OUR” (Homo sapiens) origins of REplenishing with Adam and Eve..
    Genesis 1:28
    And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be
    fruitful, and multiply, and REplenish the earth
    …hence why Eve is named the mother of all
    LIVING (not the dead)…
    Genesis 3:20
    Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living (not Dead)

    • Joe

      then there appears the “gap” (which is theorized to be hundreds of thousands-millions of years…maybe more)

      Where is that theory presented?

      (Genesis 1:2)…telling us the state of the earth..formless, empty, and there is darkness over “the surface of the deep”…..

      Which is meaningless nonsense.

      Clearly there appears to have been a universal flood that left the earth void (as no where between those verses has water/deep creation been mention

      Clearly there was no such thing.

      This is confirmed in 2 Peter 3:5-6,/blockquote>

      Affirmed. It has been confirmed precisely nowhere.

      • Wisdom Speak

        YOU:Affirmed. It has been confirmed precisely nowhere.
        ME:No it’s confirmed. Keep in mind..We are talking about what people believe
        con·firmed
        kənˈfərmd/Submit
        adjective
        (of a person) firmly established in a particular habit, BELIEF, or way of life and unlikely to change

        • Joe

          Why would you believe something without evidence?

          Of course, you omit the definition I was inferring:

          establish the truth or correctness of (something previously believed or suspected to be the case).
          “if these fears are confirmed, the outlook for the economy will be dire”
          state with assurance that a report or fact is true.

          Why are you so dishonest?

        • Wisdom Speak

          There is nothing dishonest about what I posted. Your definition didn’t apply to what I was saying..in the same way you didn’t use the definition I posted. That doesn’t make either one of us dishonest.
          The above definition fit for the word confirm as I used it because, in it’s context I was talking about a group of people’s BELIEF.

        • Joe

          It’s completely dishonest.

          Why should I care about what people believe? People belive lots of things that aren’t true.

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU:It’s completely dishonest.

          ME:There is nothing dishonest about you doing the same thing. You used the definition you wanted and so did I..yet you claimed I’m the dishonest one….that sounds hypocritical.

          YOU:Why should I care about what people believe? People belive lots of things that aren’t true.

          ME: It’s not about what you care about. Within the context the word “confirm” was used in references to a group of people’s belief….which is why my definition works and your’s didn’t.

        • David Cromie

          Merely believing something to be true, does not make it so, not even with a large dollop of ‘faith’! You might as well apply your delusions to reading Harry Potter as true.

        • Wisdom Speak

          Faith and belief is not limited to religion…The secular practice it as well..

        • adam
        • Wisdom Speak

          That’s the religion definition..
          Here is the one for the secular:
          faith
          fāTH/Submit
          noun
          1.
          complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

        • adam

          So not at all the same thing.

          So why try and substitute one for the other, except to deceive?

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/130fd73d4d1fb8d44561582f5da3d25a01a3ce6610d72d62008d60c7e7067449.jpg

        • Wisdom Speak

          You’re not making sense. There is no substitution needed. The word faith (like so many words) carry more than one meaning. The act of faith isn’t limited to religion. We use it daily.

        • adam

          So not at all the same thing.

          So why try and substitute one for the other, except to deceive?

        • Wisdom Speak

          There is no substitution and they don’t need to mean the same. Faith means both because it’s not limited to religion. We all have faith.

        • David Cromie

          I was under the impression that we were discussing religious faith and belief.

          I can have faith that the next time I cross the town bridge, I believe it will not crumble beneath my weight, no supposed ‘god’ holding it up, only applied scientific knowledge, via technological knowhow.

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU:I was under the impression that we were discussing religious faith and belief.

          ME: No..we are discussing the concept of faith in general.

        • Greg G.

          That definition applies only to extant someones or somethings. You are trying to equivocate.

        • Wisdom Speak

          That wasn’t the point of the conversation I was having. The point is faith (like many words) have multiple meaning. The concept of faith isn’t limited to religion. We all have faith

  • YoOhioGirl

    Is Genesis History- Adam and Eve ?

    ME:One of the most questionable claims is that which comes from the
    book of Genesis in the Holy Bible concerning the origin of the
    female gender. The Bible statement is straightforward, God put
    The man, Adam,in a deep sleep and removed one of his ribs. He
    used that rib to fashion the woman, Eve (Genesis 2:21 & 22).
    Endless assumption have been made by reading in personal
    interpretations of the text such as men in general have less ribs.

    Let’s ignore the fact that a lost body part is not hereditary.
    A parent with a missing arm or leg will no more past on that feature to
    their offspring, than one with an absent rib. Medical advancement has
    proven that the rib regenerates. Interesting enough, it’s only possible
    when the periosteum remains intact. This brings us to Genesis 2:21,
    “closed up the flesh at that spot” (where the rib was). Periosteum is
    a tissue/membrane (flesh) that coats the exterior of the majority
    of bones. Osteogenic cells (osteoblasts) within, functions in the
    reproduction of bones.

    The biblical narrative of the origination of the modern female gender involves the usage of the male rib (Genesis 2:22).
    The hebrew word used in this text for rib is tsela, it means curve and side. Curve as in double helix dna within the chromosomes. In short, we have a brief description of the formation of the present-day woman. The removal of one rib from the periosteum and leaving it intact in order for a new rib to regenerate (Genesis 2:21). Inside that rib was the genetic information to create life by the utilization of the “curve” or double helix dna and the importance of the “side” of the strand.

    Our ribs are located on the SIDES of our anatomy. CURVED bones forms the rib cage. These bones with joints connects to the spinal vertebrae. The sugars and phosphates makes up the SIDES of double helix dna (curve) and they are known as the “backbone” to the structure (similar to the “floating” ribs and their relation to the spine).

    • Greg G.

      Strong’s Concordance on BlueLetterBible.org says:

      I.side, rib, beam
      A.rib (of man)
      B.rib (of hill, ridge, etc)
      C.side-chambers or cells (of temple structure)
      D.rib, plank, board (of cedar or fir)
      E.leaves (of door)
      F.side (of ark)

      You have confused “tsela`” with “tsala`”:
      צָלַע tsâlaʻ, tsaw-lah’; a primitive root; probably to curve; used only as denominative from H6763, to limp (as if one-sided):—halt.

      You are working very hard to make the Bible a puppet.

      • YoOhioGirl

        tsala is the Pronunciation of the word tsela (according to your own link)..
        and what you posted agrees with me..I said it mean side/curve (as you listed above).. You seem to be the one working overtime to try and find flaws where they don’t exist.

        From your own link: צֵלָע tsêlâʻ, tsay-law’; or (feminine) צַלְעָה tsalʻâh; from H6760; a rib (as curved), literally (of the body)..hence, a side, literally (of a person)

        And as I stated…tsala in it’s biblical content is talking about the usage of the male rib (Genesis 2:22). Inside that rib was the genetic information to create life by the utilization of the “curve” or double helix dna . That is facts.

        • Greg G.


          צָלַע tsala`

          צֵלָע tsela`

          Nope, those are different words. Notice the jots and tittles below the first two letters of each word are different.

        • YoOhioGirl

          I said according to your own link

        • Greg G.

          The word used for rib is צֵלָע tsela`. I listed the ways it is translated. It is never used as “curve”. צָלַע tsala` is not used for rib but it is not certain that it means “curve”.

          You are reaching to connect that with DNA. Quite creatively though.

        • YoOhioGirl

          nah..you must not be reading your own link..From your own link: צֵלָע tsêlâʻ, tsay-law’; or (feminine) צַלְעָה tsalʻâh; from H6760; a rib (as curved),

        • Greg G.

          Click the link. It says, “probably to curve”.

          You should be a little lot more diligent.

        • Wisdom Speak

          How is “probably to curve” even a problem? But I’m not even speaking on that part…This part of the link I’m talking about in the definition of tsela:
          צֵלָע tsêlâʻ, tsay-law’; or (feminine) צַלְעָה tsalʻâh; from H6760;
          >a rib (as curved)<

          No matter how you slice this thing..your own link agrees with my original statement that the word tsela means side and curve..

        • Greg G.

          “Probably to curve” shows that it is not a certain translation. It is related to being lame so it is inferred that it might refer to a misshapen leg. But it is not used for rib. Then you associate “curve” with “spiral”.

        • Wisdom Speak

          You can also see from your own link that they both have the same curve in their definition. It says tsalʻâh is the feminine version.
          tsela:
          צֵלָע tsêlâʻ, tsay-law’; or (feminine) צַלְעָה tsalʻâh; from H6760;
          >a rib (as curved)<

        • Without Malice

          How ridiculous. If God needed to take Adam’s genetic information to create Eve all he had to do was prick his goddamned finger and take a drop of blood you ignorant twit. And if he used Adam’s DNA and then he would have created nothing but a clone of Adam. It’s like the stupidity of the virgin birth, any child born to a woman without the aid of male sperm could not possibly give birth to anything but a clone of herself.

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU: If God needed to take Adam’s genetic information to create Eve all he had to do was prick his goddamned finger and take a drop of blood

          ME:Red blood cells do not have any DNA. DNA is present in white blood cells. Most white blood cells are made in the bone marrow

          YOU:And if he used Adam’s DNA and then he would have created nothing but a clone of Adam

          ME: Your chromosomes has copies that carry possible variants in the genome.

          YOU:It’s like the stupidity of the virgin birth, any child born to a woman without the aid of male sperm could not possibly give birth to anything but a clone of herself.

          ME:”parthenogenesis”

          https://www.britannica.com/science/parthenogenesis

        • Greg G.

          ME:Red blood cells do not have any DNA. DNA is present in white blood cells. Most white blood cells are made in the bone marrow

          If a man can be made from mud, why would God need anything from the man to make a woman. It’s a fairytale from people who didn’t know the world was spherical.

          YOU:And if he used Adam’s DNA and then he would have created nothing but a clone of Adam

          ME: Your chromosomes has copies that carry possible variants in the genome.

          A cell would have two copies of an allele or one copy of two alleles. But the people who made up the story were ignorant of DNA so we cannot blame them.

          ME:”parthenogenesis”

          https://www.britannica.com/science/parthenogenesis

          Are you suggesting that Jesus was a parasitic wasp or something?

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU:If a man can be made from mud, why would God need anything from the man to make a woman.

          ME:The Bible never states God needed to make a woman from a man…just that He did…

          YOU:A cell would have two copies of an allele or one copy of two alleles. But the people who made up the story were ignorant of DNA so we cannot blame them.

          ME:
          Different alleles can produce different phenotypic trait..which speaks against the idea of an exact clone of Adam by using his DNA.

          YOU:Are you suggesting that Jesus was a parasitic wasp or something?

          ME: We’re talking about virgin births…parthenogenesis is scientific proof virgin birth is possible

        • adam
        • Wisdom Speak

          Being privileged to so much information, yet still a lot of these arguments are dated…Which is surprising for those who strongly advocate science at the same time.
          Virgin births are possible and common.
          *IVF treatment

          Pregnancy can also occur if sperm gets on the vagina without penetrative sex.

        • adam
        • adam
        • adam
        • Wisdom Speak

          gene regulation

        • epeeist

          gene regulation

          And this shows the image linked to by adam is false how exactly?

        • Wisdom Speak

          It’s NOT a scientific fact that Adam’s partner would have to be male. Regulation of gene expression can cause influences.

          https://www.revolvy.com/topic/Gene%20regulation&item_type=topic

          In multicellular organisms, gene regulation drives cellular differentiation and morphogenesis in the embryo, leading to the creation of different cell types that possess different gene expression profiles from the same genome sequence. This explains how evolution actually works at a molecular level, and is central to the science of evolutionary developmental biology (“evo-devo”).

        • Without Malice

          Do you have fun piling one stupidity upon another?

    • Joe

      curve as in double helix dna within the chromosomes.

      No. You’ve just failed geometry as well as biology.

      Let’s ignore the fact that a lost body part is not hereditary.

      Right. Because, of all that’s written in Genesis, that’s what we should focus on.

      • Wisdom Speak

        YOU:No. You’ve just failed geometry as well as biology.
        ME: I hope we have some degreed biologists here too

        YOU:Right. Because, of all that’s written in Genesis, that’s what we should focus on.
        ME: A lost body part isn’t hereditary..so males or anyone wouldn’t be missing a rib because God took from Adam to create Eve. Adam wouldn’t even be missing a rib for too long. I know it goes against any claims against the story, but truth is truth.

        • Joe

          ME: I hope we have some degreed biologists here too

          Why, you like being proven wrong?

          A lost body part isn’t hereditary

          Neither is sin.

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU:Neither is sin
          ME: Can you prove that or that’s just your belief? We can prove a lost body part isn’t hereditary.

        • Giauz Ragnarock

          I can show that we have no source of the concept of “sin” outside of human confidence men. God, tell us what sin is… waited long enough, but I’m sure our resident believer will be happy to talk instead of whatever a “God” is.

        • Wisdom Speak

          But can you prove that sin isn’t hereditary…that was what was in question. But on another note…IF God tells us what sin is then how did we get the concept from human confidence men?

        • Kodie

          IF the authors of the bible thought the earth was a circle, why would they depict god as looking at it from various angles? You know you never heard of god except from other people. If I say something is ok, and you say no my god says it’s a sin, you’re just a person telling me their invisible friend is going to punish me for doing something to hurt his feelings. Exactly who the fuck are you? You’re someone who can’t make the case, you have to threaten me with your bogeyman to stop doing something you, a person, don’t like. God doesn’t judge, people do. God doesn’t tell anyone what’s sin, people do. You’re a pawn.

        • Giauz Ragnarock

          :Facepalm: I made a falsifiable statement to establish a baseline. If the concept of “sin” is tied up with “God”, then we currently have no source of the concept outside of manipulative bastards and their marks who predictably spread essentially a chain letter. I gave more than adequate time to answer. There has to be a metric whereby we can say “God” is a human invention with some certainty if that is so. “Sin” therefore can not be a concept from that source.

        • adam
        • adam
        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU:Why, you like being proven wrong?
          ME:I didn’t see it disproven…so how can I like it?

        • TheNuszAbides

          I hope we have some degreed biologists here too

          why, will it be your first time taking them to task? or got any links handy to where such a showdown has already occurred?

        • Wisdom Speak

          Why would I take them to task?

        • GubbaBumpkin

          Hi, I have degrees in biology.

          Our ribs are located on the SIDES of our anatomy.

          True.

          CURVED bones forms the
          rib cage.

          True!

          These bones with joints connects to the spinal vertebrae.

          True, but confusing.

          The
          sugars and phosphates makes up the SIDES of double helix dna (curve)
          and they are known as the “backbone” to the structure

          True.

          (similar to the
          “floating” ribs and their relation to the spine).

          False, and confusing.
          You want to compare the deoxyribose-phosphate “backbone” of DNA BOTH to the spine (“backbone”) and to the ribs. Which is it?
          Also, the “side” of the human body is not an especially good analogy to the “backbone” of DNA.

          Conclusion: what a mess.

        • Wisdom Speak

          YOU:False, and confusing.
          You want to compare the deoxyribose-phosphate “backbone” of DNA BOTH to the spine (“backbone”)
          and to the ribs. Which is it?

          ME:I compared the “floating” ribs RELATION to the spine.

          YOU:Also, the “side” of the human body is not an especially good
          analogy to the “backbone” of DNA.

          ME: I disagree. The “backbone” of DNA is the sugar-phosphate, which
          are located on the sides of DNA.

          YOU: Conclusion: what a mess.

          ME:That’s not much a fair verdict, since you agreed (With your true statements)
          with the majority of the post.

    • Cryny

      So…what about Genesis 1?

      • Wisdom Speak

        What is your question about the chapter?

    • adam
      • Wisdom Speak

        Gene expression and regulation

        • epeeist

          Gene expression and regulation

          Colourless green ideas sleep furiously.

          Frankly your sentence is as much gibberish as mine.

        • Wisdom Speak

          I didn’t write a sentence.

        • epeeist

          I didn’t write a sentence.

          No, you wrote meaningless nonsense.

        • Wisdom Speak

          Then why are you replying to it?

        • epeeist

          Then why are you replying to it?

          I dunno, why did you write meaningless gibberish in the first place?

        • Joe

          Why are you replying to Bob’s post?

    • adam
  • MR

    It gets worse when you remember that these layers contain fossils that are distinct to that layer. It’s not something simple like the animals were graded by size—the biggest falling out of the turbulent flood first and becoming part of the lowest layer, and so on. Why are there trilobite fossils in the Tapeats sandstone layer but none in the Hermit shale above, and why are there fossils of dragonflies with an eight-inch wingspan in the Hermit shale but none in the Tapeats sandstone?

    Plants always get the short shrift in these discussions. Plant and animal fossils go hand in hand. You’ll find certain plant fossils in one layer, but not in others. Certaim plant fossils are related to certain animal fossils. Terrestrial plants with terrestrial animals. Aquatic plants with aquatic animals. Another layer of complication that creationists ignore.

    • Pofarmer

      There’s a shale layer on our farm with a ton of either Fern Fossils or some kind of water plant in it. It’s cool as heck.

      • Michael Neville

        So heck is as cool as a ton of fern fossils. I learn something new every day.

        • Pofarmer

          It’s not an exact measurement.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Hell Calculus is a refined art. It’s not for the dilettante but only the serious student.

        • Michael Neville

          Shuckens, now I’ll never know how cool heck is. I don’t even know whether the measurement is in short tons (2000 lbs), long tons (2240 tons) or tonnes (1000 kg or 2,204.6 lbs, 1.10 short tons or 0.984 long tons). I’ll have to remain ignorant.

          /snivel

        • Greg G.

          According to Revelation 21:8, there is a lake in heck that burns with fire and brimstone. Brimstone is liquid sulphur, so the temperature is above the melting point but below the boiling point of liquid suphur. So it’s somewhere between 115.2 °C and 444.6 °C. I am willing to stake Pofarmer’s reputation on that.

        • Michael Neville

          I am willing to stake Pofarmer’s reputation on that.

          If you’re going to go so far as to put Pofarmer’s reputation on the line then of course I accept your reasoning.

    • Michael Neville
    • Greg G.

      But the plants that are associated with certain animals were just the ones that were fast enough and smart enough to run to a certain level of higher ground but no higher.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      Yes, great point.

  • Without Malice

    Good article, Bob, I guess, I’m not sure such nonsense is even deserving of a response.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      A valid concern. Since Creationism isn’t going away, I do want to touch on this occasionally.

  • JGC

    RE: the formation of the Grand Canyon:

    The physical evidence of the grand canyon is completely inconsistent with formation by a lot of water over a short period of time:. We know what physical features are created by catastrophic global flooding and the Grand Canyons features are completely incompatible with this mode of creation. They are, to the contrary, completely consistent with gradual formation through hydraulic erosion and uplift.

    An area called the Scablands in Washington state was created about 15,000 years ago when a glacial ice damn forming a lake at high elevation (Lake Missoula, at ~ 4000 feet above sea level) gave way and caused a catastrophic flood. The Scablands demonstrates what we’d expect to see if the Grand Canyon had also been created by catastrophic flooding–streamlined hills; giant ripple marks with wavelengths of 100 plus feet and heights of 30 plus feet; multiple wide canyons (called coolee canyons) with vertical walls, massive potholes, plunge pools and wide, and relatively shallow beds; a “braided” river system with anastamosing channels; coarse grained sediments including boulders and gravel on the floors of these canyons; streamlined relict islands.

    We don’t find these ripple marks, relict islands, coarse sediments, gravel and boulders, etc. that are seen in the Scablands associated with the Grand Canyon.
    What we find instead is a single sinuous river channel, and instead of a braided river system we find tributary rivers and streams roughly perpendicular to the main canyon which are as deep as the canyon itself. Unlike tbe Scablands river systems both the Grand Canyon’s main river and tributaries exhibit major meanders. We also find the canyon is carved in consolidated sediments, not the unconsolidated sediments the Scablands coolee canyons were carved from.

    In short the Grand Canyon looks exactly as it should if carved as the result of a “little water over a very long time” and not at all as it would if carved by a “lot of water over a little time”.

    • Guy Fawkes

      My first thought when confronted with the “Grand Canyon was a result of the Biblical Flood” argument was, “OK. So why isn’t the entire planet covered with huge canyons, then?”

  • JKS

    Was going to watch it, because I was interested in the science aspect. Thanks for saving me a couple hours of my life. I’m not interested in alternative science. I want the facts, as science has explained them.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      it’s interesting to see what passes for science within the Creationist community.