For me, the bible is true but not in either way you indicate. It uses ancient cosmology and simply declares that God did it. If it was written today it wouold describe evolutionary process etc but say God's was moving through it. Mistaking the ancient form of ideas of the ancient cosmology with God's word is the problem, have a look at the Babylonian text and Sumerian text for parrallels.
Hey brett, I was under the impression that supernovae are responsible for most of the heavier elements, as in, heavier than oxygen. Could you point me to a source that indicates oxygen is dispersed from most supernovae?
@generosos87 btw, not a creationist, nor am I saying your wrong/lying lol. I'd just like to have a source to see for myself because I have never heard of that
Anyway, why argue out the past wouldn't it be better to cast your focus on the here and now? the Future? Lets here your interpretation on revelation since you're so smart.
Well! all i can say is you guys are so so lost, You will argue your beliefs to your death, THEN you will find out for sure, but guess what YOU WILL BE TO LATE! only have one chance.
@petrolinmavains What if you're worshipping the wrong god? How can you be sure yours is the right one? What if the right god is the Flying Spaghetti Monster? You will have stale beer and strippers with STD's forever, you only have one chance!
Ever heard of relativity? When the universe was young time was short, now it is much much longer as space is bigger. At the point in space where it started the universe is 8000 years old. Where the earth is, it is 13.7 billion. Earth refer to matter, matter came before water Genesis is correct
Hey Brett, this ass hat, baqashchokmahelel....I see right thru his BS front by the way he's trying to belittle you and your video. But he clearly lets it be known that you have gotten to him by systematically dismantling Genesis. You've carefully and concisely demonstrate that the author of Genesis was certainly no god! Of course, when any of us do this, Xians use any angle they can in an attempt to minimize your work and belittle you, which is exactly what this clown tried to do...but failed!!
@Cootabux I could already see his/her game when he/she kept evading my questions. Also, when he/she stated after replying to me twice that I had previously said, "We're done" but he/she kept returning, I realized I was dealing with someone without two oars in the water. But, I must thank him/her for inspiring me to finally get off my backside and commit myself to doing a production on "The Days of Genesis." I'm nearly done with a video I'm currently working on but this one will be next.
I'm only 2 videos into this & rather than being a critical study I just observe how atheists & young earth creationists are strange bedfellows. Both make the same mistake of reading Gen ch 1 too literal. This narrator limits reading scripture to either literal or loose. How about reading it with depth of meaning & understanding as the author intended?
Gen 4:3 And in process of time (yom) it came to pass......
Yom does not exclusively mean a 24 hour days as the verse I shared shows
@baqashchokmahelel I will be doing a future video on "yom" and its use/meaning in the context of Genesis 1. Needless to say, when one ventures away from the text itself so that an interpretation is more compatible with modern and/or personal expectations, one has left the realm of intelligent, honest discussion.
@brettppalmer I don't have to venture any farther than scripture to find the context.
Job 10: 4,5. Does God have eyes of flesh? No. Are God's days as the days of man? No.
The 24h day we experience doesn't even begin visibly until the 4th day of creation. That right there tells the reader there's a difference in scale & scope between creation days & earthly days, Yet people try to drag God down to this limited human level as creator.
@baqashchokmahelel Like I said, I'll address this misperception and mishandling of the biblical text in a future production. Suffice to say, your reference to Job 10 does nothing to change the fact that "days" in Genesis 1 are periods of 24 hours each. You even mishandle THAT scripture. Why do apologists disrespect their Bible so?
@baqashchokmahelel Right. Reading the Bible plainly, in it's own native context, exactly as written is apologist-speak for "spinning scripture." You just keep telling yourself that so you can believe in the fairy tales. But at night, when you don't have to lie to anyone else, what does that voice inside your head really say? Think about it.
@brettppalmer The voice in my head prays for you. God gave you the breath of life & you foolishly spend it trying to bite the hand that feeds you (so to speak). Those who are full of self pride (vanity) will buy what you're say, but it's just the blind leading the blind. Nothing new.
And hey, put up another 100 videos trying to disprove God & the Bible. You'll never accomplish it, but in the bigger picture you sure keep the topic of God alive & well. Spin on Brett.
@baqashchokmahelel My life came via natural processes through a biological union between my parents. Nothing supernatural about it. You've been coughing and sputtering here in the comments section but you haven't once refuted anything I've stated in my video or offered any evidence for your own assertions. Like I said, perform all you like while others are watching. At night, you're only fooling yourself.
@brettppalmer There's really nothing to refute here. You simply spin Genesis 1 & the big bang model. I know you put work into this, but it's not a critical study (no offense) & I doubt any biblical scholar or scientist would consider it one.
That you consider your life came by natural process only just shows how you limit your perception. Again, no offense intended, just sharing my observations with you.
@baqashchokmahelel The scientific references here are from science. No idea why you would assert no scientist would consider it worth anything. Indeed, I've had a number say they enjoyed this series. I read Genesis exactly as it was written. It is you who wants to spin it so "days" become eons. If you don't like the way Genesis was written to suit your fancy, take it up with the author(s), not me. I'm sorry you're so disappointed in the obvious failures of your holy text. Get over it.
@baqashchokmahelel You are the most pompous blowhard there is! You call *me* egotistical but then state how much *you* adore Genesis while it's "over [my] head"! Pfft. We'll just remember who reads, "And there was evening and there was morning, the first day" and thinks this should be "interpreted" (snicker!) as "eons." Hope you'll do some serious self-reflection tonight when you know no one else is watching your performance. Again, you can fool others, but not yourself. We're done here.
@brettppalmer I'm not being pompous at all. Just simple observation. You yourself in the series only give yourself the options to read it literal or loose. It's a beautiful poetic work of depth and meaning. You opt not to read it with as such. And your argument is based on the restriction that you impose on it? I think not.
@baqashchokmahelel I pointed out how you are being pompous. Your denial doesn't make it not so. So, if Genesis 1 is poetic and should not be read literally, how about other parts of the Bible? Is the story of Eden not literal? How about the story of Noah? Abraham? Joseph? Moses? The resurrection? I'm not disagreeing that stories in the Bible aren't factual and therefore should not be taken literally. But how about you? Where do you draw the line?
@brettppalmer You said we're done here and now you throw me a bunch of questions. I've already made my points about your video.
I have no ill will towards you. You're entitled to your opinion about what day means in Genesis 1 as do the YEC. I disagree with you and I've already stated why.
@baqashchokmahelel Also, poetic imagery doesn't mean the author isn't trying to tell you something literally. Bob Enyart tried to get away with that when he argued that the "firmament" of Genesis 1 doesn't refer to a solid domed sky (as I'll wager you do, too). But that's wrong. Consider, "I do wander everywhere, Swifter than the moon's sphere;" from Shakespeare's "A Fairy Song." Isn't the moon a sphere? Or should we not take that literally?
@baqashchokmahelel If you can handle the scripture so much better then you can tell me how killing disobedient teens, selling slaves, killing people that work on Sundays, and murdering and raping people of naboring villages makes you a good person? Or setting living anamals on fire for burnt offerings? Or maybe answer why the same story about jesus is completely different in Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John? Seems like God could get one simple story about his retard child correct?
@baqashchokmahelel Or is that beyond his capabilities? Like how all human life we see today came from Africa 60,000 years ago and not mount Ararat 3 or 4 thousand years ago? Or how one could never build a cruse liner large enough to hold every spices on Earth out of wood alone. It would require a steel frame. Or that if you have counterproductive behavior self mutilation is the answer over counseling. Seems this god fellow is quite the moron and imbecile. Does he get anything correct?
@baqashchokmahelel What about how he will kill anyone immediately that mocks the lord? Mock mockity mock mock mock. Look I must be yet another miracle. I am bitching at someone on you tube after my death. I mocked the lord so I must be dead unless god is really that incompetent? I mean everything he said is wrong. I am not a smart man but I have got something right that I have said in my life. I have not lived as long as god.
@chiefsforpres So if you argue that god is real you are also arguing that he is an incompetent fucking moron and a total ass hole. Who was outsmarted bye a dumb ass on you tube with relative ease. Why would you follow this dip shit to the store let alone out of the cosmos? Just wondering. Bye the way god also said to sell your daughters into slavery. Just wondering if you had any hot daughters? Got some life insurance that I was looking to spend. That would get you in real tight with god.
@chiefsforpres I don't imagine God is going to strike someone for saying, mock mock mock & employing elementary school playground tactics as you've done here lol. I certainly don't take you seriously.
But you do demonstrate what I mentioned about those full of self pride. You're reasoning by way of vanity prevents your understanding of the Bible. And if you want to tempt God to strike you down, well then I agree, you're not a smart man.
Soo...the bible is a manual that gives us some generally info that will give us knowledge of who God is as far as his purpose and will for his creation. Its amazing to me how some of us come together with our pea brain thoughts and philosophy and try to figure out how God did it. We put too much into how he did it instead of requesting the knowledge of the understanding who he.Instinctively, we should realize that this world was made for us live on and to be grateful that he allows us to exist
@PCSLIM55 Ok...so how can you trust what the Bible tells you about things you can't verify (like God) with things you can (like the formation of the earth, its age, evolution, etc.)?
@brettppalmer You trust history books, right? You believe what they say about the life of people and their great discoveries and exploits. So whats the problem with the bible? The bible is a history of books giving us evidence that there is a heavenly creator that has given us valid evidence that we have neither the mind or the tools or the intelligence to do anything other than to be grateful that he allows us to inhabit his world. He doesnt have to prove anything to me,I'm just glad he did it!
@PCSLIM55 I trust history books insofar that they don't invoke the supernatural to explain historical events. So, for example, I'll believe the account that George Washington crossed the Delaware, but I won't believe an account that the Delaware parted down the middle because of divine intervention without an extraordinary amount of evidence. Get the difference? What you are saying is we need to just sit down, shut off (i.e. "just believe") and shut up. No thanks.
@brettppalmer If you think about it, the world was made in a supernatural way. The way the planets are positioned. The seasons and the way the earth revolves on an invisible exile. The sun. Its position is just right that it doesn't collide with the other bodies of planets surrounding it. That is supernatural. The Delaware and the Red Sea are two different situations. The parting of the Red Sea proved to the Hebrews that God was a Deliverer of his people who needed to know he still existed.
@PCSLIM55 1.) Science explains the planets, seasons, sun, etc. just fine without resorting to the supernatural. Please pay attention to this series you are watching. 2.) There is no proof the Red Sea was ever parted or, moreso, that the biblical exodus ever happened.
@brettppalmer I've been paying close attention to a lot of things and its not just this series of info. My attention focused on "bible skeptic". That's all I need to know. You are soo busy in finding something wrong, its far from you to find something right. It doesn't really matter. In conclusion, if it wasn't for the exist of an intelligent, thoughtful and loving Creator, "science" could not explained. Science was a made up excuse, by men, who refuse to acknowledge their Creator.
@PCSLIM55 "All you need to know" is to find an excuse to dismiss my arguments before I've made them based upon my channel's name. Nice. Science is not an excuse, it's a path to knowledge. Something you apparently reject in favor of religious belief. Ok.
@brettppalmer Favor of religion? The info in the book of Genesis gives man a platform introducing mankind to the wisdom, the knowledge and his infinite intelligence. Trying to find fault in how the world was created, in meaningless. Anything that was discovered was already here. God made the world in 7 days or 7 thousands years. The bible states a thousands years with the Lord is a day. It really doesnt matter. God did it and you or me cannot add to it or take anything from it. OK!?
@PCSLIM55 I don't find fault in how the world was "created." In fact, I go over that in this video series. I DO find fault in the biblical fairy tale about how the world was created. But that's a totally different thing. And, no, the Bible does not say God made the world in 7,000 years. It says 6 days, and on the 7th he rested. And this doesn't line up, no matter how much you want it to, with what we've discovered thru science. (I really don't think you're watching my videos...this is a rehash.)
The speed of light was faster in the past, dinosaurs lived with man, a circles a sphere!! It's just like you said Brett, when science clashes with the bible it's science that's in error. Maybe in a couple a hundred years this stuff will die out and our children will be free of religious propaganda and dogmatic evangelicals. Great video......part 3.....
I've always understood Genesis 1:1 to be saying in the beginning God created the heavens aka universe first, So Earth was already a created planet from when he created the
heavens. Maybe he created the universe then choose earth afterwards as the prefect location. Then he created the sun at the center for light. This is always how I’ve perceived it. He says that he moved across the waters of the deep. Clearly the planet was already here. This is just my opinion, and how i understand it.
I know this kind of information that you are "accountable" to a Holy God angers you, but the fact is; there is "NO" evidence anywhere in science, nature or space that gives any evidence of evolution; except for what scientist "create" themselves in "controlled" laboratories and that puts "them" in Gods place. There is no vertical evolution anywhere period. Remember also science is observable, measurable and repeatable. It still takes more faith to believe in a big bang "Theory."
You choose: believe God or scientists. Remember you eternal destiny depends on it. Finite, mortal sin filled men or God? "No" discipline of science "has" proved or shown evolution nor the origin of the universe. No fossil transitions & especially "no" living forms exist. A Big bang out of nothing billions of years ago just happens to create life? With words in science books like hypothesis, theory, we believe and even "we hope to" it sounds more like faith to me. You have more faith than me.
@jonasnightingale "You choose: believe God or scientists. Remember you [sic] eternal destiny depends on it." So, belief hinges on a threat. Don't you see what's driving you to choose what you do? It's not rational consideration of the evidence, it's fear. What makes you believe there even IS an "eternal destiny"?
And think about all other religions you dont belive in (you are a athiest, non-beliver to them), you could be following the wrong one. They cant all be right, but all can be wrong!
And please stop beeing ignorant about science, we live in a modern age with google. Evolution is fact (we know more about it then we know about gravity),we have still not found any "nothing", we have the fossils, we know life formed naturally (as everything else) and we learn more.
Religions equal intolerance, paranoia, xenophobia, misogyny, hypocrisy, barbarism, cruelty and mass hysteria. Just listen to the Christian conservatives in the USA.They sound a lot like the Taliban.
Has anyone noticed that more intelligent people gravitate away from religion. Religious people should take a hint.
The only one that can be trusted who was there and created it was the Lord Jesus Christ and I will trust him. As far as fossils over thousands of years of searching and millions of dollars spent shouldn't there be more than 30?
This shows you don't understand evolution. We are a continuum. Transitional species, "halfway points" don't actually exist. It's why I don't look exactly like my parents or my grandparents, but I'm still the same species as them. My grandparents were the same species as their grandparents. You can keep leap frogging like that, back to bacterium. A species changes over time and branches off, which is why we "still have monkeys" because lineage is tree shaped
Personal insults are a typical response and expected. This is poor hermeneutics and interpreting on personal bias, no validity what so ever. But this is to be expected.
@jonasnightingale There are ~30 transitional species found so far in the linage of humans from our common ancestor with chimps. Creationist like to say some are "just apes" as though that would disqualify them as ancestors of humans, who of course are "just apes" as well, and you can thank a creationist for that classification.
I'd like to know how you can say there is no support in the fossil record for evolution? Do you just ignore all of it?
There is no evidence; only gaps. Absolutely "no" fossil record supporting the evolution theory. There are absolutes and your science supports that evolution can only be false.
I'm wondering which one of these scientists were there? Science is still without explanation of the original creation as more and more scientist are abandoning
@jonasnightingale Is it necessary to be present at the commission of a crime in order to convict a suspect? Of course not. It's certainly easier, but if the suspect has left behind enough clues, we have the means to convict him. This happens every day in courts of law around the world.
You require an unreasonable standard of evidence when you insist on eyewitnesses. We already have all the evidence we need to establish the truth of evolution, if you are willing to consider it.
And so... the people who wrote the bible were there at the beginning? Wait, they weren't. They were supposedly "told" it, so they didn't see it so it didn't happen!
@thugthumper1 There was no vast, undifferentiated water mass from out of which the earth rose, no. The oceans came much, much later in earth's history. But then, you wouldn't know that because your Bible didn't tell you so.
@thugthumper1 We have the evidence necessary to understand the earth's origins without "having been there." Oddly, you can't understand that an ancient book written by scientifically ignorant people is the least appropriate place to get your information about origins. But, I suppose putting your assertions in ALL CAPS somehow trumps true science.
pt1 LOL In the Beginning (Time Established) God Created the Heaven (Space) and the Earth (Solid Mass) The waters are the Gasses of the primordial soup. Water is H2O to gasses forming a liquid. Water can be frozen solid (hold able by hand) thawed to liquid (Touchable by hand) then vaporized first into steam and then undefinable without special scientific equipment. Then God said let there be light! Both Bible Believers and Scientist have there Thermal Dynamic Big Bang Theory.
pt2 Read literally then perhaps beyond man's limited understanding of time you would prefer to define God's time and day as he tells it and not how the church tells it. You see God day and night are established on something different then our Day and night. Reminds me of a old joke "God what is a Million years to you?" God replies "But a Second" "What is a million Dollars to you?" God replies "A penny" "Well God while your here can I borrow a penny?" God replies "sure give me a second."
pt3 Elohim in Gen1 is referred to in the plural sense as to mean more then one. The LORD God of Gen 2:4 is referred to as Elohim singular. For much of this book known as the OT/Torah is about the LORD God not God of Genesis 1. It is important that if your going to use the word critical then let's stay critical OK.
@thugthumper1 There is growing evidence that the water which now covers about 70% of our planet came from a number of different sources, including some that was incorporated into the planetary accretion disk as a result of star formation and a great deal from comets that bombarded the earth in the early days of its formation. Enceladus, a moon of Saturn, has a surface that is 91% water, and water is found elsewhere in the galaxy in interstellar clouds.
This video missed a huge point which is that the sun was not even created until the fourth day. So the words Erev (Evening) and Boker (morning) cannot be taken literally. So if Erev and Boker shouldn't be taken literally neither should the word day. As Gerald Schroeder explains scientifically that the first day from the perspective of the big bang was 8 billion years from our view due to time dilation and the stretching of space. 2nd day was 4 billion, 3rd day was 2 billion, and so on...
@Diegel Or to be more clear it is literally a day and billions of years at the same time. Science has shown that the perception of time depends on the observer. So if you were standing from the point of view of the big bang you would see the billions of years till the creation of man on earth pass by in a matter of 6 days.
Why do idiots with no scientific training dispute these incontrovertible facts GAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH SO F&*$ING STUPID IT BURNS IT BURNS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
it is clear in the bible that the following things were here b4 creation , b4 time #1 darkness [singular]#2 wind [singular] #3 water [singular] not waters could be a drop of water doesnt say. #4 earth -later it appears to have multiplied doesnt say how- out of these elements the Lord created the universe- b4 the big bang they were there with God even b4 light , b4 the big bang. Thats the bible
dont talk so sure of yourself man, science itself is still learning you guys change your mind every 5 minutes . While you change your mind as you discover new things the bible remains the same for thousands of years. We dont change the bible just because you made a new discovery that you change your mind tomorow..hahaha talk like youve arrived
Don't confuse a fickled science with one that advances it's knowledge as it learns more from advancing it's technology. The more we learn, the more refined our processes become. That's how we went from a biplane to the Space Shuttle.
The bible can't change, and that's it's downfall. Our scientific knowledge is encroaching on the absurdities of biblical claims, especially the supernatural "slash" superstitious ones.. Watch this series carefully to see how.
What if it is not the origin of the universe but it's creation in our mind from when we are born; there are "primordial" waters in birth. Maybe it is a convoluted poem about the emergence of man into the world; the seven days of birth and consciousness of the world.
To believe that the writers were inspired, one must take these fallible men at their word, and they are by no means the only ones to claim divine inspiration.
"For thus save the lord that created the heavens god himself that formed the earth and made it he had established it he CREATED IT NOT IN VAIN he formed it to be INHABITED iam the lord none else"
HEBREW MEANING OF "VAIN" -wilderness,Desert Worthless thing without form
Answer this.What is genesis? The start of humanity not the earth or the universe.
So i get to my point.
Water was already on earth the earth was already created not on day 1 but in the beginning when was that beginning?
How long had the earth been covered in water when god seperated the water from the waters?
Before human kind (Genesis) didnt dinosaurs exist with water which is roughly 250 million years ago what even before then if the universe exisisted roughly 13 billion years.
But as you say science proves from stars. If god shook the heavens and the earth
That was the end of everything which didnt mean water dissapeared but lay dormant and covered the earth.DAY 1 (Genesis) God started to rejuvenate the earth and bring it back to its former beauty HE DID NOT CREATE EARTH A WILDERNESS.
If you don't believe Genesis 1 is speaking literally about 6, 24-hour periods it definitely does not mean you are 'forcing an interpretation to fit with modern science'.
On the contrary, if you think that Genesis 1 is trying to physically describe the creation of the universe in a scientific way -- a way that no other generation in history would think of doing -- then you, my friend, are the one forcing a modern scientific interpretation on Genesis. Weather you are creationist or atheist.
HI there, I Believe the Bible from cover to cover. What you need to understand is the Bible is NOT a literal book, They is far more information in it than the natural eye could ever read. The Bible Is the Inspired (supernatural influence) word of God, therefore impossible to understand by our natural mind but the understanding can be revealed though the Holy Spirit (Gods mind) who as a christian we can receive, there is MILLIONS of years, a whole RACE between Genesis 1:1 and Gen 1:2 science fits
How do you say Hydrogen in Hebrew? Or, how do you say partials unlike anything we know today? How do you say "primitive partials start to bond together" in Hebrew? How do we say Helium in Hebrew? And if you could say the name of these elements in Hebrew then wouldn't it take a lot bigger book than the Bible to record all this information? Give me a break.
@brettppalmer No! I don't have low expectations for my God and His ability to inspire. I am very inspired by the word of God. However, I have low expectations for the language of Hebrew and the ability of "MAN" to write things down. I'm not quite sure what your point is? Are you just writing something in an attempt to provoke? Or do you want to have some dialog?
@questioneverything2 You have low expectations in "man" to write things down? Have you ever picked up a physics book? You know, those things written without divine inspiration of an omnipotent god? Seems to me you haven't quite questioned enough.
@brettppalmer You said, "You have low expectations in "man" to write things down?" You got that right! Have you ever noticed how history is twisted in favor of the winners of war and conquest or the ones that write it? Or articles written by Journalists who spin the stories to fit their political views? Just ask Hitler what kind of man he was. Come on your not as slow as you seem. There is a huge difference between ancient Hebrew and modern Physics. Believe none of what you read 1/2 of what U C
@questioneverything2 "Believe none of what you read" and yet you believe the Bible which was supposedly "inspired" by an omniscient, omnipotent god who just couldn't seem to break his writers free from their prescientific mindsets. I'll say it agian: You don't question enough.
@brettppalmer I find it interesting, when, I show you your wrong about Human writings, then you bypass your false views of journalistic trust to then again point out what you believe is another shortcoming in what I write. You are wrong to assume anything about me. I don't believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God, however, I do believe there is much wisdom and inspired writings of God that can benefit mankind and I think you would do well to absorb some of that Bible wisdom.
@questioneverything2 I'm glad to know you don't believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God. Do you, or do you not, believe the Hebrew writers knew anything about the true formation of the universe/solar system/earth? Or, did they write Genesis ignorant of modern scientific facts? And, speaking of assuming, you assume I throw out the baby with the biblical bath water. I think you need to spend some time removing the beam from thine eye.
@brettppalmer Sorry if you took what I said personally when l said, "I think you would do well to absorb some of that Bible wisdom" I would say that to anyone even my preacher and it's also good advice for myself and everyone else. If what you said is true about throwing out the baby with the bath water, then you would have to agree with me about the Bible wisdom. I am amazed with how accurate the Genesis story is. Who would of ever thought light would have to be separated from darkness?
@questioneverything2 I indeed think the Bible has some great wisdom to pass along to humankind. But, then I can say the same thing about a good number of other works of ancient literature. The Bible isn't totally unique in that matter. And, no, I don't agree that Genesis is accurate at all. In fact, my entire WGGW series goes through the Genesis creation story line by line detailing how inaccurate it really is. I hope you're speaking tongue in cheek regarding light and darkness! ;)
@questioneverything2 "Who would of (sic) ever thought light would have to be separated from darkness?"
Uh... darkness is what you have if you don't have light. So I think EVERYONE who has their brain switched on would have come to that conclusion. It's like saying "who would have ever thought that up would be separated from down." So I don't think what Genesis says here is profound in any way.
@warren52nz Sorry guy you don't understand. Light traveling in darkness can't be differentiated by observation. The light must land on some matter before it can be seen. EG. holding a flashlight upward toward the sky on a clear night, you would be unable to see any light leaving the flashlight. On the other hand if you did the same thing on a foggy night you would see the light. Light must be separated from darkness by the creation of mater.
@questioneverything2 Yes I understand, I have a degree in Physics. And I agree with you now. Thanks for pointing that out. See how easy it is to change your mind when someone points out your error?
If the bible is an accurate record of the events that have happened during the OT, then I have one question: when Joshua, fought the battle where the sun did not set for the whole day, why don't other civilizations record the fact that the sun did not rise or set in their time zones? Also, if the sun did not set, why didn't those people fly off the earth for without the axial spin of the earth there would be no gravity? Am I wrong or did I get this question right? Please pm and let me know.
I am sorry, but this should be called "What Brett Got Wrong". When I get time, I will write something that will clear up what you have wrong. For instance, do you know anything about the first earth age? If not, then you have a lot to learn.
Genesis, as well as many other parts of the old testament, was rewritten several times. Elohim is actually not a synonym for Yahwe, but a word that means roughly "children of El". The Elohim was a hole pantheon of gods, much like the Olympian gods. Some of the other gods where Baal, Lilith and Azrael. Over time the exclusive worship of Yahwe, their warrior god, became dominant. Slowly over time arose the view that this was the supreme god, and later the only god.
@greyman000 exactly - the heavenly host - very similar to the Sumarian myths. In fact, some think that Yahway is the sumarian god Ishker the storm god.
Seriously, Brett, get a proper Mic or proper recording settings. I like your content but this distortion in your voice all the time is just nasty and I can't see why you couldn't get this simple technical part right. Mics are cheap or can be borrowed and I'm sure you could have figured out the right settings. But you didn't, and it hurts my ears.
@Spziokles Couldn't agree with you more, Sp! But move ahead in the series. I can't remember which episode it was, but I did go out and invest in a better mic.
Just wanted to add that if you want to understand the bible you have to be well versed with Torah from the jews, that s the original version, and with out that ...I mean the hebrew text you cant really understand...Sorry!
@libe200 So how, exactly, does the "Torah from the jews" remove the scientific errors from Genesis? Once you read "the hebrew text" does Genesis suddenly fall into line with modern scientific discoveries?
@libe200 Er... what? You think the Torah is the "original version of the bible"? Do you mean the Tanakh? Even if you do, this is hardly "the bible", but I'll just presume you know that the New Testament is NOT in the Tanakh.
No matter: Your point is false. I studied Hebrew and Greek, and I've met 'many' people who are able to pull out a lexicon, reference older texts, and point out the obvious errors. It's a nice excuse though: "Gotta speak another language to get MY god!"
Am I the only one who heard "In the beginning god created the heaven and the earth" and thought "This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move" ?
@pmack169 "Once u understand H and G and understand NEWTONIAN" yet another attempt at a straw man fallacy. Show me anywhere in my comment that poves I have no understanding of gravity. Try again.
As for gravity causing a cloud of gas to collapse, where is the evidence to show that any cloud has collapsed? All you can point it is, formula ,hypothesis' and theory but no actual star formation. Tisk Tisk
We know by what formulae we can predict the gravitational pull of any mass - whether a mass of solids or a gaseous mass. So far, there is no evidence that gravity would act any differently on the scales we're talking about. So if you're saying that the gravitational pull of a gaseous mass is *not* what our knowledge of gravity predicts it would be, then *you* are speaking against the evidence, and are required to substantiate your claims.
@XGralgrathor Sorry but arguing against theory is not arguing against evidence. Theory cannot stand onlone as evidence of it's self or anything else. There must be tests, as far as I know, no one has created a star in a test. Oh yeah, you hide behind time, what a cop out.
"o if you're saying that the gravitational pull of a gaseous mass...." For one thing this is a straw man argument. Show anywhere in the universe where gravity has overcome a gas cloud and caused it to collapse. Where the beef?
« arguing against theory is not arguing against evidence »
The point is, *everything* we've so far been able to directly observe acts according to the laws of physics we know, and *you* are saying there's stuff that does not obey the law of gravity as we know it. Since your claim contradicts every observation we've so far made, yours is the extraordinary claim - and therefore requires evidence.
@XGralgrathor "The point is, *everything* we've so far been able to directly observe" we haven't observed a star formation, point is mute.
"Since your claim contradicts every observation we've.." It's not a claim, it's a statement of fact. that no one has observed a star formation. Therefore all else is speculation. You nor anyone else has proven otherwise. All you've done is go on rabbit trails with theories and non associated observations pushing them as evidence when they are not.
Ìf you say that that is speculation, you must accept that the existence of the electron is also a speculation, as well as the notion that Pluto orbits the Sun. Neither of these things are observed. They are inferred from observations, and what we understand about physics. Almost all knowledge we have about the world we live in is *not* directly observable, but *inferred* from observation, just as the process of star formation.
"Ìf you say that that is speculation, you must accept that the existence of the electron is also a speculation, as well as the notion that Pluto orbits the Sun" If this isn't a blatant straw man argument I don't know what is.
The effects of electrons can be measured. (straw man)
Pluto Orbit? (straw man). We have images of Pluto, of course no one saw it orbit.
You have not observed an effect from star formation, nor is there an image of a star formation. Your comparison is invalid.
« a blatant straw man argument I don't know what is. »
Then you do probably not know what a 'straw man argument' is. A 'straw man argument' would be me attacking a position that you do not really hold.
But you *do* hold the position that the star formation hypothesis is merely speculation. And therefore it follows that you must also think all similar hypotheses to be speculation. Or are you applying your criteria selectively according to what coincides with your personal beliefs or not?
No. what can be measured is flashes against cardboard covered with photoreactive chemicals. What can be measured is difraction patterns of various materials. What can be measured is the heat radiation intensity curve relative to temperature. Such things can be measured. From such observations is INFERRED that such things as electrons exist, and what properties they might have.
« You have not observed an effect from star formation »
We have observed gravity acting on masses, including gases, so we know how gravity acts on masses. We have observed gases under different conditions, and have codified our observations. We have extrapolated from these codified observations (laws) and compared these extrapolations to new observations, finding they match. The nebular hypothesis is a valid and testable hypothesis, consistent with observations so far.
@XGralgrathor "We have observed gravity acting on masses," So? We've observed lots of things, but we have not observed a star formation. Your trying to draw a comparison where none exist
Bottom line is, all you have to offer is non related observations, equations and theoretical rhetoric.
Sorry but none of these are real evidence for star formation, only wishful thinking.
Why do you keep repeating the same nonsense over and over? It's not true now and it wasn't the first time it was said.
I repeat: we have not observed electrons; we have not observed the hypothesised structure of the atom; we have not observed the curvature of spacetime hypothesised by relativity theory; we have not observed the orbit of Pluto around the sun. All these things are INFERENCES from observations. By your reasoning, none of them is more than speculation, and you should question or reject all of them with the same vehemence you do the star formation model.
The effects of electron can be tested in progress, a star formation. cannot be tested in progress. We are not talking structure, that's ridiculous, your going off on a rabbit trail that has nothing to do with observing "star formation". My reasoning is sound, it's you attempting to draw comparison with things that can be tested by the effects they have on other things, and might I add that it can be tested in progress, not a before and after wishful event like "star formation." Stop repeating
« The effects of electron can be tested in progress »
Irrelevant. Neither can be observed directly, both are inferred from observation, both are tested by asking the question: what should we see here/now if the model is accurate?
@XGralgrathor LOL@Irrelevant Let me enlighten you. Here is how you can test the effects of electrons. Get a weak 9V battery and connect the - and + terminals with your tongue. You will notice a little pain :P, this is the electrons making their way from the neg terminal to the positive terminal. Whether or not we see an electron makes no difference, the thing traveling from - to + is what we call electrons. You have no such observation of the effects of any star formation in progress. No comp
All that establishes is that there's somekind of effect. Perhaps you could even derive the notion that there is a current from that simple experiment. What you have not established is that that effect is due to a current of electrons, or what electrons are, or how they fit into a theory modelling the structure of the matter around us. Again: we don't know with absolute certainty that our models of the atom are correct.
"ll that establishes is that there's somekind of effect." Exactly what I said, there is an effect and we call it electrons. Whether or no we see them, the EFFECT of the thing we call electrons can be measured. There isn't any effect nor anything else that can be measured in support of star formation. Don't try and play your "hide behind time" card, it only confirms the fact that star formation is based on faith not science.
« Exactly what I said, there is an effect and we call it electrons »
We call it electricity. That flowing charged particles cause electricity is an inference based on that observation, and on other observations - none of which is the direct observation of anything like electrons.
« There isn't any effect nor anything else that can be measured in support of star formation »
Yes, there is, and some of them have already been named: the behaviours of gases and effects of gravity due to and on masses.
Again (for the umptieth time): scientific hypotheses are tested by asking the question "what should we see HERE and NOW if the hypothesis is accurate?" But I sense you do not want to accept this fact.
"Yes, there is, and some of them have already been named: the behaviors of gases and effects of gravity due to and on masses." Where? What about gas behaviors? What behavior of gases and gravity has been observed to show star formation? Where is the beef? You keep saying it but you never produce anything but theory.
« What behavior of gases and gravity has been observed to show star formation? »
From gas laws and the laws of gravity you can derive that given a certain mass concentrated within a certain volume, undergoing a certain outward force (as a result of gas pressure), must collapse inward on itself. If it didn't, we'd have to admit that we don't know gas laws, and that we don't understand a thing about gravity. Since there are no conflicting observations, we'll say we do understand them, okay?
"From gas laws and the laws of gravity you can derive"
This is code for "From gas laws and the laws of gravity we can guess" guesses equal hypothesis. You haven't shown that any gas cloud has even attempted to become a star.
How many time must I ask, "Where is the beef?" before you stop going on rabbit trails and just admit you have no factual evidence, it's all nothing but a hypothesis.
Just admit as of now it's nothing more than a hypothesis. It's not so hard to admit the truth. Man Up
And the same goes for quantum physics. According to my definitions, they're scientific hypotheses. You call those selfsame hypotheses "guesses". Fine, then almost all scientific knowledge we have about the world we live in is "guesses". Whatever makes you sleep better.
"almost all scientific knowledge we have about the world we live in is "guesses". " maybe maybe not depends on what your referring to, but IF your referring to real factual science of things that have been tested sure they started with guesses but they ended with testing. Sorry but your still in the guessing stage.
The nebular hypothesis is being tested with every new proto-stellar object, every new proto-planetary disk, every new stellar nebula we find. What about the words "HERE and NOW" do you not understand, boy?
"The nebular hypothesis" is all that needs to be said. LOL at prot-stellar object. It's only proto by biased opinion.
"What about the words " what about them? You've haven't proven anything except that objects have been LABELED. All the rest is built on that house of LABELED cards.
"proto-stellar object" just a stellar object with a new biased prefix
"proto-planetary disk" just another stellar object with a biased prefix
I can't help it that you don't like the fact that scientific knowledge is contained in hypotheses and theories. That's your problem. You should find a nice, safe job in bricklaying or car washing, if you don't want to be bothered with such things. Best of luck with it.
I have no problem with facts nor real scientific knowledge.
"knowledge is contained in hypotheses and theories" wrong, knowledge "can be" gained by hypothesis and theory giving that the hypothesis or theory can be tested, otherwise nothing is gained, your stuck with your hypothesis and nothing else. yet again proving the error of your thinking process.
Try again, maybe you will learn how to use logic sooner or later.
You also do not seem to realise that testability is part of the *definition* of scientific hypothesis and theory, and that the nebular hypothesis is a hypothesis because it *does* yield answers to the question "if the hypothesis is accurate, then what should we see HERE and NOW?"
"Except that you don't seem to realise that most scientific knowledge comes in the form of hypotheses and theories." Wrong again, knowledge is gained by testing, if the tests ultimately fail then the hypothesis ceases.
"testability " implies that there is a way to test the object in question. You cannot test a hypothesis on it's own merit, that's ridiculous. You seem to think that you can test a hypothesis with nothing but more hypothesis. That's circular reasoning brother.
There has been nothing tested, this is your error. You think that a hypothesis can be tested by observing something else, that is false. I don't care how much you twist the information to make it sound like you've taken a scientific approach, unless you've actually tested the object in question your just stuck with a theory. Find a way to test the object or throw out the theory.
Again: hypotheses are tested by matching observations expected in the here and now against actual observations. This is what it means to test a hypothesis. Your assertion that we would require to witness the thing itself (eg. the formation of a star in its entirety, from start to finish) is false.
Again: hypotheses are tested by matching observations expected in the here and now against actual observations.
« Keep telling your self that »
That is the way it is, you dimwitted fucknut. Direct observation is impossible in most cases. Hypotheses are tested "indirectly", by predicting what we should see **HERE** and **NOW** if the hypothesis is accurate, and then comparing what we do see against those predictions.
For me, the bible is true but not in either way you indicate. It uses ancient cosmology and simply declares that God did it. If it was written today it wouold describe evolutionary process etc but say God's was moving through it. Mistaking the ancient form of ideas of the ancient cosmology with God's word is the problem, have a look at the Babylonian text and Sumerian text for parrallels.
Liminalplace1 1 week ago
Hey brett, I was under the impression that supernovae are responsible for most of the heavier elements, as in, heavier than oxygen. Could you point me to a source that indicates oxygen is dispersed from most supernovae?
generosos87 1 week ago
@generosos87 btw, not a creationist, nor am I saying your wrong/lying lol. I'd just like to have a source to see for myself because I have never heard of that
generosos87 1 week ago
Anyway, why argue out the past wouldn't it be better to cast your focus on the here and now? the Future? Lets here your interpretation on revelation since you're so smart.
petrolinmavains 1 week ago
Well! all i can say is you guys are so so lost, You will argue your beliefs to your death, THEN you will find out for sure, but guess what YOU WILL BE TO LATE! only have one chance.
petrolinmavains 1 week ago
@petrolinmavains Yeah...the ol' Kiss Hank's Ass argument. That one always works.
brettppalmer 1 week ago
@petrolinmavains What if you're worshipping the wrong god? How can you be sure yours is the right one? What if the right god is the Flying Spaghetti Monster? You will have stale beer and strippers with STD's forever, you only have one chance!
Alice89chan 4 days ago
Genesis describes the early earth covered in water.
pestmanpat 4 weeks ago
Ever heard of relativity? When the universe was young time was short, now it is much much longer as space is bigger. At the point in space where it started the universe is 8000 years old. Where the earth is, it is 13.7 billion. Earth refer to matter, matter came before water Genesis is correct
heinno777 1 month ago
Hey Brett, this ass hat, baqashchokmahelel....I see right thru his BS front by the way he's trying to belittle you and your video. But he clearly lets it be known that you have gotten to him by systematically dismantling Genesis. You've carefully and concisely demonstrate that the author of Genesis was certainly no god! Of course, when any of us do this, Xians use any angle they can in an attempt to minimize your work and belittle you, which is exactly what this clown tried to do...but failed!!
Cootabux 1 month ago
@Cootabux I could already see his/her game when he/she kept evading my questions. Also, when he/she stated after replying to me twice that I had previously said, "We're done" but he/she kept returning, I realized I was dealing with someone without two oars in the water. But, I must thank him/her for inspiring me to finally get off my backside and commit myself to doing a production on "The Days of Genesis." I'm nearly done with a video I'm currently working on but this one will be next.
brettppalmer 1 month ago
I'm only 2 videos into this & rather than being a critical study I just observe how atheists & young earth creationists are strange bedfellows. Both make the same mistake of reading Gen ch 1 too literal. This narrator limits reading scripture to either literal or loose. How about reading it with depth of meaning & understanding as the author intended?
Gen 4:3 And in process of time (yom) it came to pass......
Yom does not exclusively mean a 24 hour days as the verse I shared shows
baqashchokmahelel 1 month ago
@baqashchokmahelel I will be doing a future video on "yom" and its use/meaning in the context of Genesis 1. Needless to say, when one ventures away from the text itself so that an interpretation is more compatible with modern and/or personal expectations, one has left the realm of intelligent, honest discussion.
brettppalmer 1 month ago
@brettppalmer I don't have to venture any farther than scripture to find the context.
Job 10: 4,5. Does God have eyes of flesh? No. Are God's days as the days of man? No.
The 24h day we experience doesn't even begin visibly until the 4th day of creation. That right there tells the reader there's a difference in scale & scope between creation days & earthly days, Yet people try to drag God down to this limited human level as creator.
baqashchokmahelel 1 month ago
@baqashchokmahelel Like I said, I'll address this misperception and mishandling of the biblical text in a future production. Suffice to say, your reference to Job 10 does nothing to change the fact that "days" in Genesis 1 are periods of 24 hours each. You even mishandle THAT scripture. Why do apologists disrespect their Bible so?
brettppalmer 1 month ago
@brettppalmer You've already demonstrated that you're the last person to handle scripture correctly.
Spinning scripture as you wish isn't gonna help you in the end.
baqashchokmahelel 1 month ago
@baqashchokmahelel Right. Reading the Bible plainly, in it's own native context, exactly as written is apologist-speak for "spinning scripture." You just keep telling yourself that so you can believe in the fairy tales. But at night, when you don't have to lie to anyone else, what does that voice inside your head really say? Think about it.
brettppalmer 1 month ago
@brettppalmer The voice in my head prays for you. God gave you the breath of life & you foolishly spend it trying to bite the hand that feeds you (so to speak). Those who are full of self pride (vanity) will buy what you're say, but it's just the blind leading the blind. Nothing new.
And hey, put up another 100 videos trying to disprove God & the Bible. You'll never accomplish it, but in the bigger picture you sure keep the topic of God alive & well. Spin on Brett.
baqashchokmahelel 1 month ago
@baqashchokmahelel My life came via natural processes through a biological union between my parents. Nothing supernatural about it. You've been coughing and sputtering here in the comments section but you haven't once refuted anything I've stated in my video or offered any evidence for your own assertions. Like I said, perform all you like while others are watching. At night, you're only fooling yourself.
brettppalmer 1 month ago
@brettppalmer There's really nothing to refute here. You simply spin Genesis 1 & the big bang model. I know you put work into this, but it's not a critical study (no offense) & I doubt any biblical scholar or scientist would consider it one.
That you consider your life came by natural process only just shows how you limit your perception. Again, no offense intended, just sharing my observations with you.
baqashchokmahelel 1 month ago
@baqashchokmahelel The scientific references here are from science. No idea why you would assert no scientist would consider it worth anything. Indeed, I've had a number say they enjoyed this series. I read Genesis exactly as it was written. It is you who wants to spin it so "days" become eons. If you don't like the way Genesis was written to suit your fancy, take it up with the author(s), not me. I'm sorry you're so disappointed in the obvious failures of your holy text. Get over it.
brettppalmer 1 month ago
@brettppalmer Your ego & how you try to inflate it doesn't impress and that some stroke you ego esn't prove or even indicate you're correct
I love the way Genesis is written. Chapter one is the greatest work ever. Too bad it's over your head.
baqashchokmahelel 1 month ago
@baqashchokmahelel You are the most pompous blowhard there is! You call *me* egotistical but then state how much *you* adore Genesis while it's "over [my] head"! Pfft. We'll just remember who reads, "And there was evening and there was morning, the first day" and thinks this should be "interpreted" (snicker!) as "eons." Hope you'll do some serious self-reflection tonight when you know no one else is watching your performance. Again, you can fool others, but not yourself. We're done here.
brettppalmer 1 month ago
@brettppalmer I'm not being pompous at all. Just simple observation. You yourself in the series only give yourself the options to read it literal or loose. It's a beautiful poetic work of depth and meaning. You opt not to read it with as such. And your argument is based on the restriction that you impose on it? I think not.
baqashchokmahelel 1 month ago
@baqashchokmahelel I pointed out how you are being pompous. Your denial doesn't make it not so. So, if Genesis 1 is poetic and should not be read literally, how about other parts of the Bible? Is the story of Eden not literal? How about the story of Noah? Abraham? Joseph? Moses? The resurrection? I'm not disagreeing that stories in the Bible aren't factual and therefore should not be taken literally. But how about you? Where do you draw the line?
brettppalmer 1 month ago
@brettppalmer You said we're done here and now you throw me a bunch of questions. I've already made my points about your video.
I have no ill will towards you. You're entitled to your opinion about what day means in Genesis 1 as do the YEC. I disagree with you and I've already stated why.
Peace & Love
baqashchokmahelel 1 month ago
@baqashchokmahelel Also, poetic imagery doesn't mean the author isn't trying to tell you something literally. Bob Enyart tried to get away with that when he argued that the "firmament" of Genesis 1 doesn't refer to a solid domed sky (as I'll wager you do, too). But that's wrong. Consider, "I do wander everywhere, Swifter than the moon's sphere;" from Shakespeare's "A Fairy Song." Isn't the moon a sphere? Or should we not take that literally?
brettppalmer 1 month ago
@baqashchokmahelel If you can handle the scripture so much better then you can tell me how killing disobedient teens, selling slaves, killing people that work on Sundays, and murdering and raping people of naboring villages makes you a good person? Or setting living anamals on fire for burnt offerings? Or maybe answer why the same story about jesus is completely different in Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John? Seems like God could get one simple story about his retard child correct?
chiefsforpres 1 month ago
@baqashchokmahelel Or is that beyond his capabilities? Like how all human life we see today came from Africa 60,000 years ago and not mount Ararat 3 or 4 thousand years ago? Or how one could never build a cruse liner large enough to hold every spices on Earth out of wood alone. It would require a steel frame. Or that if you have counterproductive behavior self mutilation is the answer over counseling. Seems this god fellow is quite the moron and imbecile. Does he get anything correct?
chiefsforpres 1 month ago
@baqashchokmahelel What about how he will kill anyone immediately that mocks the lord? Mock mockity mock mock mock. Look I must be yet another miracle. I am bitching at someone on you tube after my death. I mocked the lord so I must be dead unless god is really that incompetent? I mean everything he said is wrong. I am not a smart man but I have got something right that I have said in my life. I have not lived as long as god.
chiefsforpres 1 month ago
@chiefsforpres So if you argue that god is real you are also arguing that he is an incompetent fucking moron and a total ass hole. Who was outsmarted bye a dumb ass on you tube with relative ease. Why would you follow this dip shit to the store let alone out of the cosmos? Just wondering. Bye the way god also said to sell your daughters into slavery. Just wondering if you had any hot daughters? Got some life insurance that I was looking to spend. That would get you in real tight with god.
chiefsforpres 1 month ago
@chiefsforpres I don't imagine God is going to strike someone for saying, mock mock mock & employing elementary school playground tactics as you've done here lol. I certainly don't take you seriously.
But you do demonstrate what I mentioned about those full of self pride. You're reasoning by way of vanity prevents your understanding of the Bible. And if you want to tempt God to strike you down, well then I agree, you're not a smart man.
baqashchokmahelel 1 month ago
Soo...the bible is a manual that gives us some generally info that will give us knowledge of who God is as far as his purpose and will for his creation. Its amazing to me how some of us come together with our pea brain thoughts and philosophy and try to figure out how God did it. We put too much into how he did it instead of requesting the knowledge of the understanding who he.Instinctively, we should realize that this world was made for us live on and to be grateful that he allows us to exist
PCSLIM55 1 month ago
@PCSLIM55 Ok...so how can you trust what the Bible tells you about things you can't verify (like God) with things you can (like the formation of the earth, its age, evolution, etc.)?
brettppalmer 1 month ago
@brettppalmer You trust history books, right? You believe what they say about the life of people and their great discoveries and exploits. So whats the problem with the bible? The bible is a history of books giving us evidence that there is a heavenly creator that has given us valid evidence that we have neither the mind or the tools or the intelligence to do anything other than to be grateful that he allows us to inhabit his world. He doesnt have to prove anything to me,I'm just glad he did it!
PCSLIM55 1 month ago
@PCSLIM55 I trust history books insofar that they don't invoke the supernatural to explain historical events. So, for example, I'll believe the account that George Washington crossed the Delaware, but I won't believe an account that the Delaware parted down the middle because of divine intervention without an extraordinary amount of evidence. Get the difference? What you are saying is we need to just sit down, shut off (i.e. "just believe") and shut up. No thanks.
brettppalmer 1 month ago
@brettppalmer If you think about it, the world was made in a supernatural way. The way the planets are positioned. The seasons and the way the earth revolves on an invisible exile. The sun. Its position is just right that it doesn't collide with the other bodies of planets surrounding it. That is supernatural. The Delaware and the Red Sea are two different situations. The parting of the Red Sea proved to the Hebrews that God was a Deliverer of his people who needed to know he still existed.
PCSLIM55 1 month ago
@PCSLIM55 1.) Science explains the planets, seasons, sun, etc. just fine without resorting to the supernatural. Please pay attention to this series you are watching. 2.) There is no proof the Red Sea was ever parted or, moreso, that the biblical exodus ever happened.
brettppalmer 1 month ago
@brettppalmer I've been paying close attention to a lot of things and its not just this series of info. My attention focused on "bible skeptic". That's all I need to know. You are soo busy in finding something wrong, its far from you to find something right. It doesn't really matter. In conclusion, if it wasn't for the exist of an intelligent, thoughtful and loving Creator, "science" could not explained. Science was a made up excuse, by men, who refuse to acknowledge their Creator.
PCSLIM55 1 month ago
@PCSLIM55 "All you need to know" is to find an excuse to dismiss my arguments before I've made them based upon my channel's name. Nice. Science is not an excuse, it's a path to knowledge. Something you apparently reject in favor of religious belief. Ok.
brettppalmer 1 month ago
@brettppalmer Favor of religion? The info in the book of Genesis gives man a platform introducing mankind to the wisdom, the knowledge and his infinite intelligence. Trying to find fault in how the world was created, in meaningless. Anything that was discovered was already here. God made the world in 7 days or 7 thousands years. The bible states a thousands years with the Lord is a day. It really doesnt matter. God did it and you or me cannot add to it or take anything from it. OK!?
PCSLIM55 1 month ago
@PCSLIM55 I don't find fault in how the world was "created." In fact, I go over that in this video series. I DO find fault in the biblical fairy tale about how the world was created. But that's a totally different thing. And, no, the Bible does not say God made the world in 7,000 years. It says 6 days, and on the 7th he rested. And this doesn't line up, no matter how much you want it to, with what we've discovered thru science. (I really don't think you're watching my videos...this is a rehash.)
brettppalmer 1 month ago
The speed of light was faster in the past, dinosaurs lived with man, a circles a sphere!! It's just like you said Brett, when science clashes with the bible it's science that's in error. Maybe in a couple a hundred years this stuff will die out and our children will be free of religious propaganda and dogmatic evangelicals. Great video......part 3.....
RedGiant81 1 month ago
I've always understood Genesis 1:1 to be saying in the beginning God created the heavens aka universe first, So Earth was already a created planet from when he created the
heavens. Maybe he created the universe then choose earth afterwards as the prefect location. Then he created the sun at the center for light. This is always how I’ve perceived it. He says that he moved across the waters of the deep. Clearly the planet was already here. This is just my opinion, and how i understand it.
TheChurchmouse15 2 months ago
I know this kind of information that you are "accountable" to a Holy God angers you, but the fact is; there is "NO" evidence anywhere in science, nature or space that gives any evidence of evolution; except for what scientist "create" themselves in "controlled" laboratories and that puts "them" in Gods place. There is no vertical evolution anywhere period. Remember also science is observable, measurable and repeatable. It still takes more faith to believe in a big bang "Theory."
jonasnightingale 2 months ago
You choose: believe God or scientists. Remember you eternal destiny depends on it. Finite, mortal sin filled men or God? "No" discipline of science "has" proved or shown evolution nor the origin of the universe. No fossil transitions & especially "no" living forms exist. A Big bang out of nothing billions of years ago just happens to create life? With words in science books like hypothesis, theory, we believe and even "we hope to" it sounds more like faith to me. You have more faith than me.
jonasnightingale 2 months ago
@jonasnightingale "You choose: believe God or scientists. Remember you [sic] eternal destiny depends on it." So, belief hinges on a threat. Don't you see what's driving you to choose what you do? It's not rational consideration of the evidence, it's fear. What makes you believe there even IS an "eternal destiny"?
brettppalmer 2 months ago
@jonasnightingale
"You choose: believe God or scientists."
I think it is a matter of deciding what you will believe with you theistic types - ahead of time. Not everyone thinks like that.
revjimbob 2 months ago
@jonasnightingale
And think about all other religions you dont belive in (you are a athiest, non-beliver to them), you could be following the wrong one. They cant all be right, but all can be wrong!
And please stop beeing ignorant about science, we live in a modern age with google. Evolution is fact (we know more about it then we know about gravity),we have still not found any "nothing", we have the fossils, we know life formed naturally (as everything else) and we learn more.
daarco2 2 months ago
Too stupid for science? Try religion.
kriss299 2 months ago 13
Religions equal intolerance, paranoia, xenophobia, misogyny, hypocrisy, barbarism, cruelty and mass hysteria. Just listen to the Christian conservatives in the USA.They sound a lot like the Taliban.
Has anyone noticed that more intelligent people gravitate away from religion. Religious people should take a hint.
kriss299 2 months ago
The only one that can be trusted who was there and created it was the Lord Jesus Christ and I will trust him. As far as fossils over thousands of years of searching and millions of dollars spent shouldn't there be more than 30?
jonasnightingale 2 months ago
@jonasnightingale
This shows you don't understand evolution. We are a continuum. Transitional species, "halfway points" don't actually exist. It's why I don't look exactly like my parents or my grandparents, but I'm still the same species as them. My grandparents were the same species as their grandparents. You can keep leap frogging like that, back to bacterium. A species changes over time and branches off, which is why we "still have monkeys" because lineage is tree shaped
shiariryu 2 months ago
You are not referring to that article in Time magazine are you?
jonasnightingale 2 months ago
Personal insults are a typical response and expected. This is poor hermeneutics and interpreting on personal bias, no validity what so ever. But this is to be expected.
jonasnightingale 3 months ago
@jonasnightingale There are ~30 transitional species found so far in the linage of humans from our common ancestor with chimps. Creationist like to say some are "just apes" as though that would disqualify them as ancestors of humans, who of course are "just apes" as well, and you can thank a creationist for that classification.
I'd like to know how you can say there is no support in the fossil record for evolution? Do you just ignore all of it?
Craigmw45 3 months ago
There is no evidence; only gaps. Absolutely "no" fossil record supporting the evolution theory. There are absolutes and your science supports that evolution can only be false.
jonasnightingale 4 months ago
@jonasnightingale your in grade 4 i see
randallfe 3 months ago
Gen 1:1 In the beginning, God (Heb) BARA the heavens and the earth.
Did it say when? No.
Gen 1:2 And the earth was lay waste...(Heb) TUHU. a one time event. 2Oe 3:6
"And God (Heb) ASAW two great lights... Gen 1:16
From any text of the Bible, LOGICALLY CONCLUDE that the "two great lights" were NOT BARA before they were ASAW...
PrinceWalter 4 months ago
I'm wondering which one of these scientists were there? Science is still without explanation of the original creation as more and more scientist are abandoning
evolution.
jonasnightingale 4 months ago
@jonasnightingale Keep telling yourself that; I'm sure you sleep better at night.
brettppalmer 4 months ago 2
@jonasnightingale Is it necessary to be present at the commission of a crime in order to convict a suspect? Of course not. It's certainly easier, but if the suspect has left behind enough clues, we have the means to convict him. This happens every day in courts of law around the world.
You require an unreasonable standard of evidence when you insist on eyewitnesses. We already have all the evidence we need to establish the truth of evolution, if you are willing to consider it.
maxhardcase 4 months ago
@jonasnightingale So, were you there when God created the universe? How do you know he's telling the truth then? You weren't there!
Sines314 2 months ago
@jonasnightingale
And so... the people who wrote the bible were there at the beginning? Wait, they weren't. They were supposedly "told" it, so they didn't see it so it didn't happen!
shiariryu 2 months ago
So water did not exist at the time the earth formed? I suppose that is your first mistake. That is the evolution belief system.
thugthumper1 4 months ago
@thugthumper1 There was no vast, undifferentiated water mass from out of which the earth rose, no. The oceans came much, much later in earth's history. But then, you wouldn't know that because your Bible didn't tell you so.
brettppalmer 4 months ago 2
@brettppalmer I DON'T RECALL ANY HIGH PRIESTS OF THE MYSTERY RELIGION (EVOLUTION) BEING THERE TO SAY ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.
thugthumper1 4 months ago
@thugthumper1 We have the evidence necessary to understand the earth's origins without "having been there." Oddly, you can't understand that an ancient book written by scientifically ignorant people is the least appropriate place to get your information about origins. But, I suppose putting your assertions in ALL CAPS somehow trumps true science.
brettppalmer 4 months ago 3
pt1 LOL In the Beginning (Time Established) God Created the Heaven (Space) and the Earth (Solid Mass) The waters are the Gasses of the primordial soup. Water is H2O to gasses forming a liquid. Water can be frozen solid (hold able by hand) thawed to liquid (Touchable by hand) then vaporized first into steam and then undefinable without special scientific equipment. Then God said let there be light! Both Bible Believers and Scientist have there Thermal Dynamic Big Bang Theory.
nexxuslord 1 month ago in playlist More videos from brettppalmer
pt2 Read literally then perhaps beyond man's limited understanding of time you would prefer to define God's time and day as he tells it and not how the church tells it. You see God day and night are established on something different then our Day and night. Reminds me of a old joke "God what is a Million years to you?" God replies "But a Second" "What is a million Dollars to you?" God replies "A penny" "Well God while your here can I borrow a penny?" God replies "sure give me a second."
nexxuslord 1 month ago in playlist More videos from brettppalmer
pt3 Elohim in Gen1 is referred to in the plural sense as to mean more then one. The LORD God of Gen 2:4 is referred to as Elohim singular. For much of this book known as the OT/Torah is about the LORD God not God of Genesis 1. It is important that if your going to use the word critical then let's stay critical OK.
nexxuslord 1 month ago in playlist More videos from brettppalmer
@thugthumper1 There is growing evidence that the water which now covers about 70% of our planet came from a number of different sources, including some that was incorporated into the planetary accretion disk as a result of star formation and a great deal from comets that bombarded the earth in the early days of its formation. Enceladus, a moon of Saturn, has a surface that is 91% water, and water is found elsewhere in the galaxy in interstellar clouds.
maxhardcase 4 months ago
This video missed a huge point which is that the sun was not even created until the fourth day. So the words Erev (Evening) and Boker (morning) cannot be taken literally. So if Erev and Boker shouldn't be taken literally neither should the word day. As Gerald Schroeder explains scientifically that the first day from the perspective of the big bang was 8 billion years from our view due to time dilation and the stretching of space. 2nd day was 4 billion, 3rd day was 2 billion, and so on...
Diegel 6 months ago
@Diegel Or to be more clear it is literally a day and billions of years at the same time. Science has shown that the perception of time depends on the observer. So if you were standing from the point of view of the big bang you would see the billions of years till the creation of man on earth pass by in a matter of 6 days.
Diegel 6 months ago
And why does Ken Ham have such ridiculous facial hair?
I guess it's because he wants to look like the village idiot he is.
It's no wonder he had to come here because I lived a year in Australia and never met a single believer. Not one.
I guess it's because I'm a scientist and interacted with mostly sciency types, but the lack of belief I encountered was so refreshing it gave me hope.
Then I came back here. Hope doesn't float when anchored by the weight of millions of superstitious morons.
craniorectalectomist 6 months ago
Why do idiots with no scientific training dispute these incontrovertible facts GAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH SO F&*$ING STUPID IT BURNS IT BURNS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
craniorectalectomist 6 months ago
thanx anyway, well wait to see when you guys will change your mind this..sure it wont be too far away. God bless
ufimounga 7 months ago
it is clear in the bible that the following things were here b4 creation , b4 time #1 darkness [singular]#2 wind [singular] #3 water [singular] not waters could be a drop of water doesnt say. #4 earth -later it appears to have multiplied doesnt say how- out of these elements the Lord created the universe- b4 the big bang they were there with God even b4 light , b4 the big bang. Thats the bible
ufimounga 7 months ago
dont talk so sure of yourself man, science itself is still learning you guys change your mind every 5 minutes . While you change your mind as you discover new things the bible remains the same for thousands of years. We dont change the bible just because you made a new discovery that you change your mind tomorow..hahaha talk like youve arrived
ufimounga 7 months ago
ufimounga
I'm afraid you're the airhead.
Don't confuse a fickled science with one that advances it's knowledge as it learns more from advancing it's technology. The more we learn, the more refined our processes become. That's how we went from a biplane to the Space Shuttle.
The bible can't change, and that's it's downfall. Our scientific knowledge is encroaching on the absurdities of biblical claims, especially the supernatural "slash" superstitious ones.. Watch this series carefully to see how.
Cootabux 6 months ago
What if it is not the origin of the universe but it's creation in our mind from when we are born; there are "primordial" waters in birth. Maybe it is a convoluted poem about the emergence of man into the world; the seven days of birth and consciousness of the world.
osheaad 7 months ago
IT WAS MEN WHO USED THE PEN.
To believe that the writers were inspired, one must take these fallible men at their word, and they are by no means the only ones to claim divine inspiration.
SpaceOdyssey56 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"He created heaven and earth"
Earth was without form and void
Without FORM meaning the same as Vain
jasongals 8 months ago
ISAIAH 45:18
"For thus save the lord that created the heavens god himself that formed the earth and made it he had established it he CREATED IT NOT IN VAIN he formed it to be INHABITED iam the lord none else"
HEBREW MEANING OF "VAIN" -wilderness,Desert Worthless thing without form
jasongals 8 months ago
Ok.
Answer this.What is genesis? The start of humanity not the earth or the universe.
So i get to my point.
Water was already on earth the earth was already created not on day 1 but in the beginning when was that beginning?
How long had the earth been covered in water when god seperated the water from the waters?
Before human kind (Genesis) didnt dinosaurs exist with water which is roughly 250 million years ago what even before then if the universe exisisted roughly 13 billion years.
jasongals 8 months ago
It does not say when or how water was created.
But as you say science proves from stars. If god shook the heavens and the earth
That was the end of everything which didnt mean water dissapeared but lay dormant and covered the earth.DAY 1 (Genesis) God started to rejuvenate the earth and bring it back to its former beauty HE DID NOT CREATE EARTH A WILDERNESS.
jasongals 8 months ago
Comment removed
jasongals 8 months ago
how amazing is it that we can describe what happened 14 billion years ago down to minutes?
kyebean 8 months ago
If you don't believe Genesis 1 is speaking literally about 6, 24-hour periods it definitely does not mean you are 'forcing an interpretation to fit with modern science'.
On the contrary, if you think that Genesis 1 is trying to physically describe the creation of the universe in a scientific way -- a way that no other generation in history would think of doing -- then you, my friend, are the one forcing a modern scientific interpretation on Genesis. Weather you are creationist or atheist.
briceisnotmice 8 months ago
HI there, I Believe the Bible from cover to cover. What you need to understand is the Bible is NOT a literal book, They is far more information in it than the natural eye could ever read. The Bible Is the Inspired (supernatural influence) word of God, therefore impossible to understand by our natural mind but the understanding can be revealed though the Holy Spirit (Gods mind) who as a christian we can receive, there is MILLIONS of years, a whole RACE between Genesis 1:1 and Gen 1:2 science fits
petrolinmavains 9 months ago
Comment removed
Ripley747 9 months ago
Comment removed
Ripley747 9 months ago
@brettppalmer From 8:30 on...
I was under the impression that genius, had undergone revisions to make it more monotheistic.
Craigmw45 9 months ago
you can not have day and night without a sun. the wholly babble fails at the very beginning.
where is this mysterious light that no longer exist?
thesageofohio 9 months ago
How do you say Hydrogen in Hebrew? Or, how do you say partials unlike anything we know today? How do you say "primitive partials start to bond together" in Hebrew? How do we say Helium in Hebrew? And if you could say the name of these elements in Hebrew then wouldn't it take a lot bigger book than the Bible to record all this information? Give me a break.
questioneverything2 11 months ago
@questioneverything2 Wow. You really have low expectations for your god and his ability to inspire. Give me a break.
brettppalmer 10 months ago
@brettppalmer No! I don't have low expectations for my God and His ability to inspire. I am very inspired by the word of God. However, I have low expectations for the language of Hebrew and the ability of "MAN" to write things down. I'm not quite sure what your point is? Are you just writing something in an attempt to provoke? Or do you want to have some dialog?
questioneverything2 10 months ago
@questioneverything2 You have low expectations in "man" to write things down? Have you ever picked up a physics book? You know, those things written without divine inspiration of an omnipotent god? Seems to me you haven't quite questioned enough.
brettppalmer 10 months ago
@brettppalmer You said, "You have low expectations in "man" to write things down?" You got that right! Have you ever noticed how history is twisted in favor of the winners of war and conquest or the ones that write it? Or articles written by Journalists who spin the stories to fit their political views? Just ask Hitler what kind of man he was. Come on your not as slow as you seem. There is a huge difference between ancient Hebrew and modern Physics. Believe none of what you read 1/2 of what U C
questioneverything2 10 months ago
@questioneverything2 "Believe none of what you read" and yet you believe the Bible which was supposedly "inspired" by an omniscient, omnipotent god who just couldn't seem to break his writers free from their prescientific mindsets. I'll say it agian: You don't question enough.
brettppalmer 10 months ago
@brettppalmer I find it interesting, when, I show you your wrong about Human writings, then you bypass your false views of journalistic trust to then again point out what you believe is another shortcoming in what I write. You are wrong to assume anything about me. I don't believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God, however, I do believe there is much wisdom and inspired writings of God that can benefit mankind and I think you would do well to absorb some of that Bible wisdom.
questioneverything2 10 months ago
@questioneverything2 I'm glad to know you don't believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God. Do you, or do you not, believe the Hebrew writers knew anything about the true formation of the universe/solar system/earth? Or, did they write Genesis ignorant of modern scientific facts? And, speaking of assuming, you assume I throw out the baby with the biblical bath water. I think you need to spend some time removing the beam from thine eye.
brettppalmer 10 months ago
@brettppalmer Sorry if you took what I said personally when l said, "I think you would do well to absorb some of that Bible wisdom" I would say that to anyone even my preacher and it's also good advice for myself and everyone else. If what you said is true about throwing out the baby with the bath water, then you would have to agree with me about the Bible wisdom. I am amazed with how accurate the Genesis story is. Who would of ever thought light would have to be separated from darkness?
questioneverything2 10 months ago
@questioneverything2 I indeed think the Bible has some great wisdom to pass along to humankind. But, then I can say the same thing about a good number of other works of ancient literature. The Bible isn't totally unique in that matter. And, no, I don't agree that Genesis is accurate at all. In fact, my entire WGGW series goes through the Genesis creation story line by line detailing how inaccurate it really is. I hope you're speaking tongue in cheek regarding light and darkness! ;)
brettppalmer 10 months ago 2
@questioneverything2 "Who would of (sic) ever thought light would have to be separated from darkness?"
Uh... darkness is what you have if you don't have light. So I think EVERYONE who has their brain switched on would have come to that conclusion. It's like saying "who would have ever thought that up would be separated from down." So I don't think what Genesis says here is profound in any way.
warren52nz 9 months ago
@warren52nz Sorry guy you don't understand. Light traveling in darkness can't be differentiated by observation. The light must land on some matter before it can be seen. EG. holding a flashlight upward toward the sky on a clear night, you would be unable to see any light leaving the flashlight. On the other hand if you did the same thing on a foggy night you would see the light. Light must be separated from darkness by the creation of mater.
questioneverything2 9 months ago
@questioneverything2 Yes I understand, I have a degree in Physics. And I agree with you now. Thanks for pointing that out. See how easy it is to change your mind when someone points out your error?
warren52nz 9 months ago
they say verse one and verse two are billions of years in difference
carbonfconfusion 11 months ago
If the bible is an accurate record of the events that have happened during the OT, then I have one question: when Joshua, fought the battle where the sun did not set for the whole day, why don't other civilizations record the fact that the sun did not rise or set in their time zones? Also, if the sun did not set, why didn't those people fly off the earth for without the axial spin of the earth there would be no gravity? Am I wrong or did I get this question right? Please pm and let me know.
journeyer58 1 year ago
I am sorry, but this should be called "What Brett Got Wrong". When I get time, I will write something that will clear up what you have wrong. For instance, do you know anything about the first earth age? If not, then you have a lot to learn.
jimu57 1 year ago
Its authors not author. There is evidence that this chapter was based off of other near-east world creation myths.
Jonstern1983 1 year ago
Genesis, as well as many other parts of the old testament, was rewritten several times. Elohim is actually not a synonym for Yahwe, but a word that means roughly "children of El". The Elohim was a hole pantheon of gods, much like the Olympian gods. Some of the other gods where Baal, Lilith and Azrael. Over time the exclusive worship of Yahwe, their warrior god, became dominant. Slowly over time arose the view that this was the supreme god, and later the only god.
greyman000 1 year ago
@greyman000 exactly - the heavenly host - very similar to the Sumarian myths. In fact, some think that Yahway is the sumarian god Ishker the storm god.
ccollymore 1 year ago
Seriously, Brett, get a proper Mic or proper recording settings. I like your content but this distortion in your voice all the time is just nasty and I can't see why you couldn't get this simple technical part right. Mics are cheap or can be borrowed and I'm sure you could have figured out the right settings. But you didn't, and it hurts my ears.
Spziokles 1 year ago
@Spziokles Couldn't agree with you more, Sp! But move ahead in the series. I can't remember which episode it was, but I did go out and invest in a better mic.
brettppalmer 1 year ago
Lawrence Krauss! :D he's awesome :)
Kniletiah 1 year ago
Brett, you're criminally undersubscribed.
Check out my video on Genesis Revised. You may find it interesting. : )
rationalmuscle 1 year ago
Just wanted to add that if you want to understand the bible you have to be well versed with Torah from the jews, that s the original version, and with out that ...I mean the hebrew text you cant really understand...Sorry!
libe200 1 year ago
@libe200 So how, exactly, does the "Torah from the jews" remove the scientific errors from Genesis? Once you read "the hebrew text" does Genesis suddenly fall into line with modern scientific discoveries?
brettppalmer 1 year ago 15
@libe200 Er... what? You think the Torah is the "original version of the bible"? Do you mean the Tanakh? Even if you do, this is hardly "the bible", but I'll just presume you know that the New Testament is NOT in the Tanakh.
No matter: Your point is false. I studied Hebrew and Greek, and I've met 'many' people who are able to pull out a lexicon, reference older texts, and point out the obvious errors. It's a nice excuse though: "Gotta speak another language to get MY god!"
rationalmuscle 1 year ago 7
Am I the only one who heard "In the beginning god created the heaven and the earth" and thought "This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move" ?
GabrielPryn 1 year ago
Hydrogen ATOMS; not molecules.
chilimaan 1 year ago
@pmack169 "Once u understand H and G and understand NEWTONIAN" yet another attempt at a straw man fallacy. Show me anywhere in my comment that poves I have no understanding of gravity. Try again.
As for gravity causing a cloud of gas to collapse, where is the evidence to show that any cloud has collapsed? All you can point it is, formula ,hypothesis' and theory but no actual star formation. Tisk Tisk
neoverse 1 year ago
« where is the evidence »
We know by what formulae we can predict the gravitational pull of any mass - whether a mass of solids or a gaseous mass. So far, there is no evidence that gravity would act any differently on the scales we're talking about. So if you're saying that the gravitational pull of a gaseous mass is *not* what our knowledge of gravity predicts it would be, then *you* are speaking against the evidence, and are required to substantiate your claims.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
@XGralgrathor Sorry but arguing against theory is not arguing against evidence. Theory cannot stand onlone as evidence of it's self or anything else. There must be tests, as far as I know, no one has created a star in a test. Oh yeah, you hide behind time, what a cop out.
"o if you're saying that the gravitational pull of a gaseous mass...." For one thing this is a straw man argument. Show anywhere in the universe where gravity has overcome a gas cloud and caused it to collapse. Where the beef?
neoverse 1 year ago
« arguing against theory is not arguing against evidence »
The point is, *everything* we've so far been able to directly observe acts according to the laws of physics we know, and *you* are saying there's stuff that does not obey the law of gravity as we know it. Since your claim contradicts every observation we've so far made, yours is the extraordinary claim - and therefore requires evidence.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
@XGralgrathor "The point is, *everything* we've so far been able to directly observe" we haven't observed a star formation, point is mute.
"Since your claim contradicts every observation we've.." It's not a claim, it's a statement of fact. that no one has observed a star formation. Therefore all else is speculation. You nor anyone else has proven otherwise. All you've done is go on rabbit trails with theories and non associated observations pushing them as evidence when they are not.
neoverse 1 year ago
« Therefore all else is speculation »
Ìf you say that that is speculation, you must accept that the existence of the electron is also a speculation, as well as the notion that Pluto orbits the Sun. Neither of these things are observed. They are inferred from observations, and what we understand about physics. Almost all knowledge we have about the world we live in is *not* directly observable, but *inferred* from observation, just as the process of star formation.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
"Ìf you say that that is speculation, you must accept that the existence of the electron is also a speculation, as well as the notion that Pluto orbits the Sun" If this isn't a blatant straw man argument I don't know what is.
The effects of electrons can be measured. (straw man)
Pluto Orbit? (straw man). We have images of Pluto, of course no one saw it orbit.
You have not observed an effect from star formation, nor is there an image of a star formation. Your comparison is invalid.
neoverse 1 year ago
« a blatant straw man argument I don't know what is. »
Then you do probably not know what a 'straw man argument' is. A 'straw man argument' would be me attacking a position that you do not really hold.
But you *do* hold the position that the star formation hypothesis is merely speculation. And therefore it follows that you must also think all similar hypotheses to be speculation. Or are you applying your criteria selectively according to what coincides with your personal beliefs or not?
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
« The effects of electrons can be measured »
No. what can be measured is flashes against cardboard covered with photoreactive chemicals. What can be measured is difraction patterns of various materials. What can be measured is the heat radiation intensity curve relative to temperature. Such things can be measured. From such observations is INFERRED that such things as electrons exist, and what properties they might have.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
« We have images of Pluto, of course no one saw it orbit. »
There you go. We never saw Pluto orbiting the sun. Is it therefore "mere speculation" that Pluto orbits the sun?
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
« You have not observed an effect from star formation »
We have observed gravity acting on masses, including gases, so we know how gravity acts on masses. We have observed gases under different conditions, and have codified our observations. We have extrapolated from these codified observations (laws) and compared these extrapolations to new observations, finding they match. The nebular hypothesis is a valid and testable hypothesis, consistent with observations so far.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
@XGralgrathor "We have observed gravity acting on masses," So? We've observed lots of things, but we have not observed a star formation. Your trying to draw a comparison where none exist
Bottom line is, all you have to offer is non related observations, equations and theoretical rhetoric.
Sorry but none of these are real evidence for star formation, only wishful thinking.
Why do you keep repeating the same nonsense over and over? It's not true now and it wasn't the first time it was said.
neoverse 1 year ago
"we have not observed a star formation"
I repeat: we have not observed electrons; we have not observed the hypothesised structure of the atom; we have not observed the curvature of spacetime hypothesised by relativity theory; we have not observed the orbit of Pluto around the sun. All these things are INFERENCES from observations. By your reasoning, none of them is more than speculation, and you should question or reject all of them with the same vehemence you do the star formation model.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
The effects of electron can be tested in progress, a star formation. cannot be tested in progress. We are not talking structure, that's ridiculous, your going off on a rabbit trail that has nothing to do with observing "star formation". My reasoning is sound, it's you attempting to draw comparison with things that can be tested by the effects they have on other things, and might I add that it can be tested in progress, not a before and after wishful event like "star formation." Stop repeating
neoverse 1 year ago
« The effects of electron can be tested in progress »
Irrelevant. Neither can be observed directly, both are inferred from observation, both are tested by asking the question: what should we see here/now if the model is accurate?
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
@XGralgrathor LOL@Irrelevant Let me enlighten you. Here is how you can test the effects of electrons. Get a weak 9V battery and connect the - and + terminals with your tongue. You will notice a little pain :P, this is the electrons making their way from the neg terminal to the positive terminal. Whether or not we see an electron makes no difference, the thing traveling from - to + is what we call electrons. You have no such observation of the effects of any star formation in progress. No comp
neoverse 1 year ago
« You will notice a little pain »
All that establishes is that there's somekind of effect. Perhaps you could even derive the notion that there is a current from that simple experiment. What you have not established is that that effect is due to a current of electrons, or what electrons are, or how they fit into a theory modelling the structure of the matter around us. Again: we don't know with absolute certainty that our models of the atom are correct.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
"ll that establishes is that there's somekind of effect." Exactly what I said, there is an effect and we call it electrons. Whether or no we see them, the EFFECT of the thing we call electrons can be measured. There isn't any effect nor anything else that can be measured in support of star formation. Don't try and play your "hide behind time" card, it only confirms the fact that star formation is based on faith not science.
neoverse 1 year ago
« Exactly what I said, there is an effect and we call it electrons »
We call it electricity. That flowing charged particles cause electricity is an inference based on that observation, and on other observations - none of which is the direct observation of anything like electrons.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
« There isn't any effect nor anything else that can be measured in support of star formation »
Yes, there is, and some of them have already been named: the behaviours of gases and effects of gravity due to and on masses.
Again (for the umptieth time): scientific hypotheses are tested by asking the question "what should we see HERE and NOW if the hypothesis is accurate?" But I sense you do not want to accept this fact.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
"Yes, there is, and some of them have already been named: the behaviors of gases and effects of gravity due to and on masses." Where? What about gas behaviors? What behavior of gases and gravity has been observed to show star formation? Where is the beef? You keep saying it but you never produce anything but theory.
neoverse 1 year ago
« What behavior of gases and gravity has been observed to show star formation? »
From gas laws and the laws of gravity you can derive that given a certain mass concentrated within a certain volume, undergoing a certain outward force (as a result of gas pressure), must collapse inward on itself. If it didn't, we'd have to admit that we don't know gas laws, and that we don't understand a thing about gravity. Since there are no conflicting observations, we'll say we do understand them, okay?
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
"From gas laws and the laws of gravity you can derive"
This is code for "From gas laws and the laws of gravity we can guess" guesses equal hypothesis. You haven't shown that any gas cloud has even attempted to become a star.
How many time must I ask, "Where is the beef?" before you stop going on rabbit trails and just admit you have no factual evidence, it's all nothing but a hypothesis.
Just admit as of now it's nothing more than a hypothesis. It's not so hard to admit the truth. Man Up
neoverse 1 year ago
« we can guess »
And the same goes for quantum physics. According to my definitions, they're scientific hypotheses. You call those selfsame hypotheses "guesses". Fine, then almost all scientific knowledge we have about the world we live in is "guesses". Whatever makes you sleep better.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
"almost all scientific knowledge we have about the world we live in is "guesses". " maybe maybe not depends on what your referring to, but IF your referring to real factual science of things that have been tested sure they started with guesses but they ended with testing. Sorry but your still in the guessing stage.
neoverse 1 year ago
« things that have been tested »
The nebular hypothesis is being tested with every new proto-stellar object, every new proto-planetary disk, every new stellar nebula we find. What about the words "HERE and NOW" do you not understand, boy?
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
"The nebular hypothesis" is all that needs to be said. LOL at prot-stellar object. It's only proto by biased opinion.
"What about the words " what about them? You've haven't proven anything except that objects have been LABELED. All the rest is built on that house of LABELED cards.
"proto-stellar object" just a stellar object with a new biased prefix
"proto-planetary disk" just another stellar object with a biased prefix
Keep posting and I'll keep point the assumptions.
neoverse 1 year ago
« is all that needs to be said »
I can't help it that you don't like the fact that scientific knowledge is contained in hypotheses and theories. That's your problem. You should find a nice, safe job in bricklaying or car washing, if you don't want to be bothered with such things. Best of luck with it.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
"I can't help it that you don't like the fact"
I have no problem with facts nor real scientific knowledge.
"knowledge is contained in hypotheses and theories" wrong, knowledge "can be" gained by hypothesis and theory giving that the hypothesis or theory can be tested, otherwise nothing is gained, your stuck with your hypothesis and nothing else. yet again proving the error of your thinking process.
Try again, maybe you will learn how to use logic sooner or later.
neoverse 1 year ago
« I have no problem with facts nor real scientific knowledge. »
Except that you don't seem to realise that most scientific knowledge comes in the form of hypotheses and theories.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
« I have no problem with facts nor real scientific knowledge. »
Except that you don't seem to realise that most scientific knowledge comes in the form of hypotheses and theories.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
« hypothesis or theory can be tested »
You also do not seem to realise that testability is part of the *definition* of scientific hypothesis and theory, and that the nebular hypothesis is a hypothesis because it *does* yield answers to the question "if the hypothesis is accurate, then what should we see HERE and NOW?"
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
"Except that you don't seem to realise that most scientific knowledge comes in the form of hypotheses and theories." Wrong again, knowledge is gained by testing, if the tests ultimately fail then the hypothesis ceases.
"testability " implies that there is a way to test the object in question. You cannot test a hypothesis on it's own merit, that's ridiculous. You seem to think that you can test a hypothesis with nothing but more hypothesis. That's circular reasoning brother.
neoverse 1 year ago
« implies that there is a way to test the object in question »
Testability implies that the question "what should we see HERE and NOW if the hypothesis is accurate" can be answered.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
There has been nothing tested, this is your error. You think that a hypothesis can be tested by observing something else, that is false. I don't care how much you twist the information to make it sound like you've taken a scientific approach, unless you've actually tested the object in question your just stuck with a theory. Find a way to test the object or throw out the theory.
neoverse 1 year ago
« There has been nothing tested »
Again: hypotheses are tested by matching observations expected in the here and now against actual observations. This is what it means to test a hypothesis. Your assertion that we would require to witness the thing itself (eg. the formation of a star in its entirety, from start to finish) is false.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
@XGralgrathor Keep telling your self that, you may even truly believe it one day.
neoverse 1 year ago
« There has been nothing tested »
Again: hypotheses are tested by matching observations expected in the here and now against actual observations.
« Keep telling your self that »
That is the way it is, you dimwitted fucknut. Direct observation is impossible in most cases. Hypotheses are tested "indirectly", by predicting what we should see **HERE** and **NOW** if the hypothesis is accurate, and then comparing what we do see against those predictions.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago 2