Lesson 5/16: Geography and Cosmology

[Samura1gamer]

so you're saying me the bible is full of bullshit? no wayyyyyy. that's like saying fox news is not objective media

[Omnitrix12]

I'd like to see him give this much focus to Secular Folk Science.

[fmanh]

@Omnitrix12 The difference being that secular/atheistic folkscience maps more or less 1 to 1 with scientific science...

[Omnitrix12]

@fmanh Not really. The blunders of secular science are quite myriad. Even top-level evolutionists from Harvard and Yale have denounced key tenents of evolution, like life developing by random chance.

[fmanh]

@Omnitrix12 Short answer: No. Long answer; see through the lessons once again to get a basic understanding of the scientific method. In conclusion: theory of evolution is as controversial as theory of gravity, theory of electro magnetism or theory of relativity and quantum mechanics. In short; not at all. It yields practical verifiable and exact results when applied. The hallmarks of a proven theory.

[Omnitrix12]

@fmanh Ah, then why have Nobel Prize Winners like George Wald admit that evolution is scientifically impossible?

You see, unlike you, I am not ready to take the word of a hack who thinks God would bring man into the world through death and then turn around and tell a bold-faced lie, saying that man is the reason for death rather than theproduct of it.

[fmanh]

@Omnitrix12 BEcause you are talking bull shit.

[Omnitrix12]

@fmanh Ah. Is this the point where I'm supposed to crumble before the superior reasoning of someone with a dumpster for a mouth?

[fmanh]

@Omnitrix12 No. Not really. I wouldn't expect you to understand basic science at this stage. You obviously missed that part in school. There are tons of good educational videos on youtube where you can get to the core of things (thunderfoot is recommended for instance), and does one heck of a good job of educating people. This series (glovers) for instance is also very educating (although he burns out a bit in part 16, but he has to defend his position of a supreme being I guess). I enjoyed it.

[Omnitrix12]

@fmanh I learned plenty about basic science in school. Let's see what you know. Can you explain to me the scientific method?

I will grant you this much: you have spoken quite aptly in that glover burns out, but he does it long before video 16. He is attempting the impossible: to reconcile God's word with man's interpretations of a bunch of fossils (which, incidentally, are riddled with wild guesses, misidentifications, and outright frauds). His grasp of theology alone is disappointing.

[fmanh]

@Omnitrix12 Thera are plenty of videos on youtube that can explain the scientific method (thunderfoots among others. They have more space than I have available (with my 500 characters). That aside I understand that you basically boils down your argument to; 'god supposedly wrote this bible and it tells me everything', and that just a crappy stance, and doesn't give any information (see firts few chapter for in depth discussion). Evolution is here to stay. It works. Get over it and move on.

[Omnitrix12]

@fmanh I have seen the first chapter. This guy wouldn't last to minutes against some creationists I could mention.

Your claim that the Bible is mythological has some predictions implied, such as that it will eventually become obsolete. Guess what? Voltaire said that a hundred years from his time the Bible would be gone except as a collectable oddity. Ask any ten people in just about any setting if they've even heard of Voltaire, and if they've heard of the Bible.

[fmanh]

@Omnitrix12 No. No. Creationist has never even approached a working level of understanding for just about anything. And well, Voltaire is quite well known, at least here an europe, and religion, well, people know that the bible exist. But thats about it. Few bothers to read it, even fewer vists the churc. So well, his prediction is coming along nicely (which is a good thing). This bizarre mess about creationism and stuff seems to be a local backward movement in the states.

[Omnitrix12]

@fmanh 1) You're dodging.

2) Galileo was a creationist. And Isaac Newton. So was Descartes, who established the scientific method.

3) If you're so superior, let's see some evidence that you even know how laboratory science works.

[fmanh]

@Omnitrix12 1) No. If Dawkins, glover and thunderfoot cant educate you, I cant either. So why waste my time? 2) Yes. Basically everyone was creationists up until late 19:th century. Science hadn't advanced far enough yet, and it was quite simply dangerous to no adhere to the latest whims from the vatican and local priesthood... 3) I am an engineer. I work in lab environments every single day (in my case mostly software). And yes. I have through my career worked with scientists as well.

[Omnitrix12]

@fmanh Then surely a laboratory scientist like yourself must have some lab example of evolution, something in conformity with the scientific method? On the other hand, if you do, you are greater than Dawkins. He has admitted in his own words that evolution has never been observed while it's actually happening. All scientists have is a bunch of cases where they look at rocks and fossils and say, "this took millions of years," even when in a lab it takes less than a year. Go ahead, prove me wrong.

[fmanh]

@Omnitrix12 As stated; if you fail to understand what they are saying, it would be a waste of time repeating it (but look through their material a couple of times). Some of the concepts can be hard to grasp but they do a great job on explaining it. Especially thunderfoot has quite a bit of material on the topic you are referring to. And by the way, evolution happens every time an organism is born, and that is a *real* growing problem in for example medicin. Bugs simply get immune to medicals.

[Omnitrix12]

@fmanh Ah, but what happens when those immune bugs meet their predecessors in a neutral environment? They lose. The only place they can survive is in an environment with those pharmeceuticals.

As I said, I am pretty sure I've talked to this thunderfoot guy. He has nothing new, only the same old (as in obsolete) arguments.

And no, evolution does not happen every time an animal is born. Not in the species-to-species sense. No chimp has ever produced anything but a chimp.

[fmanh]

@Omnitrix12 Oh, i guess you could try to convice the next generation of bugs that they do niot exists as they could not possibly have evolved... Oh, maybe god almighty was out there creating again... No evolution ise here. And it is a problem. And yes. Youre still wrong. Go thorugh the material thunderfoot and glover has a few times more. Maybe you can understand something.

[Omnitrix12]

@fmanh What I don't understand is what you expect to accomplish by badgering me over this and directing me to people who have already failed to do what you yourself are incapable of doing. There's a number of words for trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Insanity comes readily to mind.

[hugesinker]

@Omnitrix12 The scientific method was established by Aristotle, a pagan polytheist. That fact does not speak to the merits of the Greek pantheon.

[Omnitrix12]

@fmanh You mock my stance because mockery is all you have left. You cannot show me one laboratory experiment that backs evolution which I cannot knock down with sheer logic. Some of the leading "converts" your worldview has won, even from among our own ranks, openly admit that "evolution is, and always has been, a religion."

[fmanh]

@Omnitrix12 Your beyond any help. You clearly has no understanding of science, and not even the intention to learn anything either. There are plenty of resources on the internet where you can get a thorough understanding of these matters. That you choose to turn a blind eye. Well, thats your problem.

[Omnitrix12]

@fmanh I'm asking you to educate me, pal. Tell me one laboratory success of evolution - even one documented case of it that fits with the scientific method.

[Omnitrix12]

@fmanh As for thunderfoot, I believe he was the one who directed me to this sad excuse for a compromise in the first place. If my memory is correct in that regard, his arguments were outdated and overall even less convincing than this guy's.

[Omnitrix12]

@fmanh “I will not accept that (creation) philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution.” ~ George Wald (Nobel Prize Winner) Biochemical Science: An Inquiry into Life.

You see, unlike this pretender, he admits that evolution is diametrically opposed to the notion of a loving God.

[fmanh]

@Omnitrix12 Wald got his prize in 62. He did it from work on the retina, and this was largely performed in the 50:s.Evolution was well established at the time but where still hard to accept for people with a classic Christian upbringing. His stance is not surprising. And in terms of science, well, evolution has just continued to prove it validity since (and it has been evolved, as all science, with improved knowledge). Today genetics for instance clearly demonstrates the theory in all its glory.

[NephilimFree]

Pesonally, I do not believe you are a Christian. I believe you are an evolutionist who is using Christianity as a cover to try to brainwash Christians into believing the bible is not to be believed.

And that is shameful. It is the sickest sort of deceipt.

[glovergj]

That just shows how narrow your view of  Christianity is.

[NephilimFree]

No, it demonstrates how ignorant you are about the Word of God and science. I'm going to refute all of your videos and humiliate you. You need this humiliation so that you can be seen as a sharlatain. Many thousands will see my videos, and you will be exposed. Some of my 860+ YT friends will also make videos refuting you. And their friends may as well. What you are doing is offensive to God.

[glovergj]

Ok, let's get this straight -- you openly believe that the sun revolves around the earth, but you are going to humiliate me with your superior scientific views? I will not waste any more time with you. If you can't even recognize the motion of the earth, which has been confirmed by Foucault's Pendulum and by Stellar Parrallax, then I have nothing to say to you.

[catarrhinegabriel]

dude, the irony is, everything you (wrongly) accuse glover of applies to you in spades.

[fmanh]

@NephilimFree He makes a good job. And he has a logic rational brain. Thats a start. He still has this crappy imaginary friend thing going, but give him time and he might come around. The bible, along with other mythological text simply present the knowledge of the writers, i.e. the by comparison primitive tribe around an insignificant stretch of land in the middle east some 3000 years ago... There is really nothing more to it.

[NephilimFree]

The Hebrews did not believe the Earth was flat! Scriptures allude to a round Earth. Even Jesus stated one would be taken at day and another at night at the same time, which is impossible unless the Earth is round.

Ooops! Someone needs to study the Word before claiming to know what it says..

[glovergj]

What verse is that? I can't find it. But I can give you at least 35 references to the earth being flat. Also, why was there a debate in the early church over the shape of the earth if the Bible clearly says it's spherical? Answer: because the bible only references a flat earth and the Greeks had measured its circumference, which put the "literalists" in a difficult position to chose beteen "scripture" and "science".

[NephilimFree]

I said Rev. I meant:

Luke.17

[34] I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.

[35] Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

[36] Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

I know you'll come up with some cockamamey interpretation, but it will be false. Genesis uses qualifiers to denote 24 hr days of creation also.

[NephilimFree]

It is a simple fact that in Genesis, the use of "and the evening and the morning" is clear reference to a 24 hour day. It is qualified. There's simply nothing in Genesis that contradicts it. The word "yom" can mean a literal day or unspecified time. When used with this qualifier, it's context is unarguably a 34 hour day. It cannot be an evening and mmorning of unspecified time!

You value evolutionism more than the Word of God. You have much to RElearn.

[glovergj]

I don't disagree that the Genesis days are 24 hours, and I don't disagree that the fimamant was a solid some with water on top, but those elements of the ancient cosmos don't have any application for modern science.

[adamredwine]

Solid dome with water on top? Oops, there goes your folk-science detector. Bummer. (actually I knew this was coming because I watched the astronomy video first). You actually put Newton's law of gravitation in an earlier video. Why don't you try using it on a solid spherical shell centered on a solid spherical shell and see what you get? Also, if this had been the case, the atmospheric pressure on the ground would be higher than the pressure at the bottom of the ocean. Hmmm... fail.

[glovergj]

You are completely missing the point. There was no solid dome. It was a something that ancient man invented to that the world had a roof.

[adamredwine]

I agree that is was something ancient man invented. I read your comments as agreeing with them. If this was not what you meant, I retract my comment and apologize for the misunderstanding.

[glovergj]

Na, I'm just using this to make a point. You probably read the comments before watching the video. No worries.

But understand that the ancient cosmos made sense considering the limited methods of observation available to ancient man -- just as Ptolemaic theory made sense considering the data available to medieval man, etc...

[adamredwine]

I disagree that it made sense based on the methods of observation available. Aristarchus of Samos calculated the diameter of the Earth to a remarkable degree of accuracy using only a stick and a ruler.

Unfortunately, western civilization developed primarily out of the Aristotelian, Platonic, and Socratic traditions instead of the Epicurean, Democratine, and Aristarchan ones. I personally believe this set human kind back by several thousand years.

[glovergj]

I should have said, "...methods of observation available to the semetic cultures of the ancient Near East."

Eratosthenes of Cyrene was the first to measure the circumference of the earth, and he was much later than the Mesopotamian cultures.

Aristarchus of Samos was the first to propose a heliocentric system. Data to support this didn't exist until the invention of the telescope in 1609. Before that, there was not sufficient evidence to reject the Ptolemaic theory.

[adamredwine]

Sorry, my bad. Either way, some ancient Greek dude did it. It's true that the cultures of the Levant didn't have the established scientific and mathematical principles to perform the same feat.

I'm pretty sure I got the other names correct though. (and we could through Eratosthenes into the second lot as well).

BTW, I believe the Platonic philosophy has played a strong role in the modern Christian conceptualization of morality that underpins the "there must be a law-giver" argument.

[adamredwine]

Sorry, should be "...solid spherical shell centered on a solid sphere..."

Thunderf00t has a nice animation of how ridiculous this notion is on one of his "Why do people laugh at creationists" series, but I forget which video.

[Ammyai]

The doctrine of "Original sin" is of the devil.

There is no such thing no such thing in real and true Christianity.

Adam and Eve are the only persons who have to answer to God for their own sins.

What we do have is an inherited sinful nature. That's it. The other is an invention of the devil, happily passed on by the catholic church.

[dmarvin811]

Also Job 38:13, Jeremiah 16:19, Daniel 4:11

"Ends of the earth" refers to the whole earth. In context we can see this to be true. The Bible has always described Earth's sphericity.

[glovergj]

And we still say "sunrise" and "sunset" -- even though we know it doens't work like that. The Bible speaks of the surface of the earth 35 times. None of these teach a sphereical earth. The early church fathers could not even agree. Some sided with the secular Greek scientists and others with the biblical descriptions. The reason there was a debate is not because the evidence was inconclusive, but becasue you have to really stretch the Bible to make it support a sphereical earth.

[glovergj]

That's your argument for a sphereical earth? I quote: "The tree grew large...and it was visible to the end of the WHOLE earth." (Daniel 4:11-12).

And how does one see Daniel's tree if they are on the other side of the earth? It says the WHOLE earth could see this tall tree... Answer: the earth was assumed to be flat. And the apex of the domed sky was the "top" to which the pagans built their towers (ie: Babylon). That is the ancient cosmology, in a nutshel.

[dmarvin811]

You do understand that in Daniel 4:11-12 Nebuchadnezzar and Daniel were discussing a dream right? Context is key

[glovergj]

Yes, Daniel was interpreting Neb's vision. Context IS key -- and the cosmological context of the Scriptures is the Ancient Near-Eastern view of a flat, circular earth, with a domed or vaulted heavens. Once you understand this, these verses make perfect sense.

[dmarvin811]

"And we still say "sunrise" and "sunset" -- even though we know it doens't (sic) work like that."

Great! Then you agree that figures of speech are used and not everything should be taken in a strict literal way? Fantastic! We are not getting to a place of understanding. Context, context, context.

[glovergj]

Of course, but when the Biblical authors said "sunrise" and "sunset" -- they were reflecting the common science of their day. When we say it, we are using a literary device because we know it's not literal. Context IS key! And heliocentric cosmology was unknow until the 16th-17th centuries.

[glovergj]

My entire hermeneutic when it comes to the science presented to use in the Scriptures is based on context. What was the common cosmological understanding of the human authors and their immediate audience? How would the original audience have understood the scriptures, which don't reject the common thinking, but rather employs it? That is the subject of #15 and #16. I hope you will watch those.

[dmarvin811]

hermeneutic? That may be your problem since by definition its interpretation of the Bible instead of sensitive discernment. I will let you in on a secret. The Bible was written by God and penned by man. Bible is relevant today as it was 3000 years ago. Maybe your faith in it is the problem. What else have you compromised as far as your belief in that Good Book?

[dmarvin811]

Remember arguing about YEC or Old earth will not effect our Salvation, but essential doctrine of Christianity does. Trust in Christ means to trust God's Word since the Word is Christ. (John 1:1,14) You are basically saying that Jesus doesn't matter anymore...

[glovergj]

No, I'm saying that the bible is not a science textbook. You take the same approach when it comes to flat earth or geocentricity. You believe the scientists and reject the literal descriptions given by the Bible. These have nothing to do with the death and resurrection of Christ. Watch #15 and #16 and you'll see what I'm talking about.

[dmarvin811]

correction Hebrew word chuwg (Strong's H2329 )

[dmarvin811]

Complete garbage! You quote a mass of misunderstanding people as the augment? Galileo defended heliocentrism, and claimed it was not contrary to Scripture. I know it's a bold position for me to say this but, I would agree.

Isaiah 40:22 "This verse describes a spherical earth. The Hebrew word is hwg. I believe that this refers to the circular horizon that vaults itself over the earth to form a dome"

[dmarvin811]

As for Isaiah 11:12, Revelation 7:1 "on four corners of the earth"

The four corners of the earth is still used today, we can logically and easily deduce that it means North, South, East, and West, meaning all over the earth.

[glovergj]

Galileo said it was not contrary to Scripture because he said the purpose of Scripture is not to teach celestial mechanics. But clearly, the Bible only references the earth as fixed, and only references the heavens as moving about it. See the next lesson, because there are still Christians who believe the literal teaching of the Bible on this. My position is that of Galileo's -- that the bible is not for teaching science. You will only find ancient science in the bible.

[glovergj]

Isaiah's description of the earth as a disk and the heavens as a vaulted dome is consistent with the popular understanding at the time. The Psalmist and Job even reference the upper waters from Genesis that were thought to float atop the dome above the heavens. No modern science here, only ancient science.