@shanedk Im following this debate and am especially pleased to find you admitting that you will "delete " rather than argue against anything you believe to be false. This says a lotp
@cbasallie This is ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE. The ONLY reason posts get deleted is for violating the channel's rules, which are clearly spelled out on the channel page and in TWO videos, and DO NOT IN ANY WAY prevent people from arguing against me.
But you, fucking LYING creationists can't win any other way, apparently, so you HAVE to make it out like I'M the reason you morons can't come up with a decent argument.
Job 26:10 "He has described a circle on the face of the waters" ends with the words: "to where light ends in darkness." At the point just beyond where the suns light become tangent to the earth there isdarkness, and folowing that umbral line around the earth indeed describes a circle. the one where light ends in darkness. That statement in Job would in fact make no sense if the earth were flat. Chuwg can also mean sphere shanedk.
Yes, because they thought the Earth was flat. At the point just beyond the horizon when the Earth ended and light ended in the darkness beyond.
Chug does not also mean sphere. To be right about that you have to find a place in the Bible where it uses the word Chug to talk about a spherical thing besides the Earth.
@xXsakkelaoXx There is also a reference in Isaiah. I'll find it if you like. The earth is a circle. You notice how ''scientists'' respond by demanding that you refer to the Ancient Hebrew?. Again these people who control ALL forms of Media( including journals) are not scientists. They study Linguistics . Who else would even THINK to demand that someone speak in Hebrew (something they don't even do, unless they're posting from Israel). Changing and twisting definitions is their expertise
@cbasallie Yeah, the whole thing is pretty much staged against god, like this shanedk dude, why does he bother so much and give so much energy into trying to debunk creation if it is "stupid" and only "halfbrainers" believe it? Clear indication of "scoffers" as was warned about in the bible, it got it right! again! :D
@xXsakkelaoXx "Clear indication of "scoffers" as was warned about in the bible, it got it right! again! :D"
Yes the Bible made the prediction that its flat Earth nonsense would be refuted. The authors must have been psychic.
Too bad their claim that the Earth was flat, the Sun goes around it, and Jesus would come back in the lifetime of his followers (Matthew 24:34) were proven factually wrong.
@xXsakkelaoXx and ''science so falsely called'' Timothy11 You know Russia fell to a similar fate. Scientific journals are, of course just as much a part of the Corporate Media as anything else. This is like Orwellian ''think -speak''. Have you read Orwell ? Big Brother discredits wrong thinkers ( aka Christians ) and get them out of positions of power. But also, if STATE gives us our rights then STATE can take them away. If God gives us our rights then we may fight to keep them.
@shanedk Just to say : I disagree with you on one point : I don't think that theory is the "why". It would be more accurate to say that it is the "how". Science is not interested in the "why" of things, but philosophy (and religions) are. However, except this little vocabulary point, I totally agree with your video.
@faeleris Wiktionary defines "why" as "For what cause, reason, or purpose." Purpose aside, I think scientific theories explain causes and reasons very well.
and a root word in Job 26:10 describes the encompassment of "waters" -- without further description. There's no basis for connecting the word to a modern "compass", and although LXX translators may have chosen the word for a simple circle, it is irrelevant that they did so, since their choice was governed by their own cosmological views. We may add the "earth" in Is. 40:22 is erets. Isaiah's reference, should be understood to refer to the oikoumene of the day, not the "whole" earth.
@xXsakkelaoXx "We may add the "earth" in Is. 40:22 is erets. Isaiah's reference, should be understood to refer to the oikoumene of the day, not the "whole" earth. "
But that was your quote to claim they thought the Earth was a sphere. The fact that we proved it means flat along with Matthew 4:8 and Revelation 1:7 shows you idol worship a flat Earth text.
I hope you didn't pull a muscle goal post shifting.
All this said, it is not even clear that chuwg refers exclusively to the shape we call a circle. The word indicates boundaries being set, but nothing contextually demands a perfect circular shape. In Job 22:14, it refers to a "circuit" or route walked by God, and there's no particular reason why this should or should not be a circle. Altogether, the word is used only 3 times in the OT, and not once does the context clearly demand a shape of any particular regularity; CONT
@xXsakkelaoXx "In Job 22:14, it refers to a "circuit" or route walked by God, and there's no particular reason why this should or should not be a circle"
Yet it was your claim that it was meant to be a sphere. Job 22:14 also says God walked across the vault of Heaven. Making the sky a solid dome shaped object.
(Hint: It's obvious when you copypaste things you haven't read and don't understand, because your paste uses words and grammar correctly for a change, even if the sentences that they make are still lies due to being from a creationist site.)
@rkyeun Nonono, In the bible the word duwr is used where "sphere" is clearly not the case:
Is. 29:3 And I will camp against thee round about, and will lay siege against thee with a mount, and I will raise forts against thee.
Obviously, the soldiers could not camp in th shape of a shpere around the city. This word apears to be making a statement about a circular pattern rather than giving reference to a special shape.
And if the bible used the word duwr then you could say it was used like in
@rkyeun No, this is where I say that both of them refer to circular shapes, but chuwg is used to describe things that actually appear as a sphere yes? take example the earth!! I repeat: if the bible used the word Duwr, YOU would of said: look at Is. 29:3 here it is used as a circle.
@xXsakkelaoXx "You seem to forget that the other word is used for circular shapes as well."
You seem to forget that the one quote you had to claim the Earth was a sphere never ever means sphere, whereas we have plenty of quotes using different words in different contexts that say your Bible claims the world was flat.
The New Testament was written well after most of the world figured out the Earth was a sphere, your religion is actually behind the science of its own time.
@shanedk It DOESN'T make more sence that the word duwr was used, because clearly duwr also means circle, neither chuwg nor duwr mean sphere, the simple answer is that hebrew didn't have a word for sphere, just like french people have many words for hair but english only have one, you have to define out of the context what the meaning is.
And when you should think that you have me in a corner: If you look at the earth from space, it does in fact look like a circle, from all sides.
So the Bible picked the wrong word on purpose, so nobody would be confused if it was (Dur) a circle or a sphere, and everyone would know it was a (Chug) flat circle.
> if the bible used the word Duwr, YOU would of said: look at Is. 29:3 here it is used as a circle.
Yes. And from that I would have concluded it can either be a sphere, as it is used when talking about round three-dimensional shapes, or a circle like when it is used for committing genocide against your neighbors in the name of God. And I would then say that the word Dur was NOT a basis for translating Earth's shape. If the Bible had ever used it for that purpose.
@xXsakkelaoXx Yes, "duwr" CAN mean circle, and can ALSO mean sphere. Whereas "chuwg"--the actual word used in 40:22--can ONLY mean circle, and NEVER sphere!
Isaiah SAID IT WAS A CIRCLE, when there was another word he COULD have used to describe a sphere. The fact that it can also mean circle IS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT!
@shanedk They only do it in the zoo because in nature they are seperated!!! I feel like i'm talking to someone who has nothing left in his right side of the brain and nothing right in the left side!! The FACT that female ligers CAN get children with other lions and tigers is nothing you as an evolutionist can change (although I'm sure you want to, like all the other hypothesese you have changed during the years of lies and "facts")
@johnrainrules " I guess speciation happens real fast if you are a creationist"
haha, lol, it happens fast wether you're a creationist or not, evolutionists can't argue against reality (although they can convince minors through indoctrination...)
Nope, it is not unusual that ligers can get offspring, besides, this is what we expect from speciation after the flood, as we already observe in nature losses of information everywhere would result in dificulty of breeding outside the species.
@xXsakkelaoXx "lol, it happens fast wether you're a creationist or not"
Really, since the difference in DNA between Lions and Tigers between when Noah's Ark allegedly happened and when Lions and Tigers were first written about would require a mutation rate so high every Lion and Tiger would have multiple cancers.
@johnrainrules "would require a mutation rate so high every Lion and Tiger would have multiple cancers."
Who says mutations where the biggest part of the picture, natural selection alone selects for already existing information in specific environments, mutations are in almost all cases either a maintainence of information, or a DEGRADING of information, Opposite of what evolution (molekules to man) needs.
@johnrainrules "Which since such a change would require new information we know that didn't happen."
wait? what was that?!! bwahahahaahaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
@johnrainrules rapid changes have been reported recently for Drosophila fruit flies and sockeye salmon within just nine and thirteen generations respectively. I could name tens more of RAPID speciation due to natural selection, NOT mutations, hit me! I'm enjoying this
@xXsakkelaoXx "rapid changes have been reported recently for Drosophila fruit flies and sockeye salmon within just nine and thirteen generations "
Define rapid. Another vague assertion without facts. We can actually look at the number of DNA base pair differences between Lions and Tigers and know that if these were caused in a 1,000 years it would require a severely carcinogenic mutation rate.
@johnrainrules "Define rapid. Another vague assertion without facts."
Marchant, J., Darwin strikes back—one modern idea about evolution turns out to be wrong, New Scientist 168(2262):11, 2000.
Well this is hilarious.
No you retard! Did you read my last post? It is NOT mutation, it is natural selection picking from already EXISTING information that allows for speciation WITHIN the kinds, get that billions of years LIE out of your head. Helium diffusion in zircons is strong proof of thousands
It is hilarious that you would post a fictional article from creation.com. Did you know that according to the weekly world news BatBoy is out and voting for Rick Santorum?
"No you retard! Did you read my last post?"
Yes, and I refuted it by showing that there were too many traits in both species to come from exactly one male and one female animal.
@xXsakkelaoXx So when the "kinds" that made up the ancestors of Tigers and Lions tried to walk to India and Africa why didn't they fall off the edge of the flat Earth from your bible myths.
@xXsakkelaoXx Funny, when I search NewScientistDOTcom for that article I get "Sorry, there were no results that matched your search." When I Google it, the only results I get are creationist websites.
@xXsakkelaoXx Well, I found the REAL article they were trying to refer to. Here's what it REALLY says (emphasis mine):
"They have shown that natural selection can change the way both fish and flies recognise their prospective mates, a process WHICH CAN LEAD TO two groups rapidly diverging, even when they live together in the same place. This PROCESS OF REPRODUCTIVE ISOLATION only takes a dozen generations or so, making it faster than anyone thought possible."
So this is NOT IN ANY WAY "RAPID speciation due to natural selection, NOT mutations" as you claimed. It's REPRODUCTIVE SEPARATION due to natural selection. Once the separation takes place, THEN speciation begins.
@shanedk Haha, that proves my point though doesn't it? lol jhonrainrules you made an ass of yourself, Selection from already existing information, transitional fossils? oh, you have 5-6 of them? ^^ NO! seriously, get a better theory, evolution survives on idiots.
@xXsakkelaoXx "as we already observe in nature losses of information everywhere would result in dificulty of breeding outside the species."
Yet we observe gains not losses, and the definition of species is organisms that can produce viable offspring.
That is why no matter how many times creationists have sex with livestock they will never end up with a half human half ungulate. Not "loss of information".
@xXsakkelaoXx "evolutionists can't argue against reality (although they can convince minors through indoctrination...)"
I agree: only creationists argue against reality ...like they do when they try to convince themselves (of course they can't convince rational people) that evolution is based on indoctrination, or that reality is consistent with the bogus superstitions they inherited from bronze age miths.
Although you make a statement, you have nothing to back it up, MANY rational people are creationists, in fact I would argue that ALL creation scientists are rational as the diference between evolution/abiogenesis/bigbang and creation is that creation scientists actually observe what we see in reality, E/A/BB form observable facts into already existing theories like they assume that there MUST be an oortcloud because comets don't last billions of years lol
@ThieleM Why is it so that bigbangers make up oort clouds and inflation then? :) I mean, surely they are scientists and follow the scientific method yes?
THings like inflation match what the evidence suggests.
You have no idea how the scientific method works....you get things like oort clouds and inflation when you follow the evidence. You get creationism when you lead the evidence.
@ThieleM WTF?!?! where is the "EVIDENCE" FOR AN OORT CLOUD?! Remember: you critisized me of not using the scientific method therefore you must use it to prove the oort cloud, were is the observable evidence eh? And inflation? wtf? that's made up shit to justify all the problems you have, like waving a wand, it is done by unknown mechanisms, how is that done and HOW IS THAT scientific?!
@xXsakkelaoXx The age of the universe, the scope of the inflationary period, and it even gives us a good indication as to the overall shape of the universe.
@xXsakkelaoXx Myth is Noah's flood, for exemple, which contraddicts everything biologists know about reality. All the crap written in the bible is mythology.
"Creation scientists" don't exist. CREATIONISM IS NOT SCIENCE. And I have many U.S. courts decisions to back it up. Creationism is a faith issue.
If you can't undrstand what science is that's your problem. Get schooled about true science (creationism is not) and you'll stop being a creationist.
@FreeSilio "Noah's flood, for exemple, which contraddicts everything biologists know about reality"
Lol, you have proven your ignorance? Noah's flood can't be disproved by BIOLOGISTS?!?! that would take geologists, and despite the LOAD of evidence and many years only now have geologists started to accept that major landmakrs were in fact carved out by floods, i.e the scablands.
@xXsakkelaoXx "Noah's flood can't be disproved by BIOLOGISTS?"
Yep, because you can't repopulate ANY species from just two specimens.
"that would take geologists"
Oh, they disprove it, too! The geologic record shows quite clearly that there was NEVER any global flood! And they've ALWAYS known that certain features were carved out by LOCAL floods, so you're just LYING again!
@shanedk hahahaha always known? it took MANY years before the evidence piled on top of them, liar!! NO biologists can't disprove that a boat floated on a global flood once in the past!
@xXsakkelaoXx "NO biologists can't disprove that a boat floated on a global flood once in the past! "
They can prove one never occurred since the flood would require an addition of 3 times the Earths water supply altering salinity and light and pressure killing every single fish on the planet.
@xXsakkelaoXx A global flood would have left a consistent flood deposit layer (somewhat like the KT boundary) everywhere in the geologic record. THERE IS NO SUCH LAYER.
@shanedk "According to Wild Cats of the World (1975) by C. A. W. Guggisberg, ligers and tiglons were long thought to be sterile: In 1943, a fifteen-year-old hybrid between a lion and an 'Island' tiger was successfully mated with a lion at the Munich Hellabrunn Zoo. The female cub, though of delicate health, was raised to adulthood"
hahaha can't expect much more from you now can I?
Ur nylonase is out of date, ur first cells have huge problems and you call me a liar for stating clear facts!!
@xXsakkelaoXx Hi.. Did you notice how one of these posters asks for the ''reference to peer-related scientific literature''?
Who controls our Media? All Media? TV, Newspaper AND journals (as well as porn magazines)? They're not Scientists.
Linguistic experts change words definitions AND they control ALL Media. Americans need to give this a little thought. In fact one of these ''scientists'' is more likely to debate you are your grammar or punctuation than anything else. Have you noticed?
@FreeSilio "and lots got extincted long before." Like that fish that supposed extinct 65 million years found to not have changed at all? Those you are talking about?
Circular reasoning*
Thats maybe why the bible says kind?
Modern? Speciation happens within 10 generations, OBSERVED FACT!!!
Actually it does in some cases
What do you mean not a single marsupial on the way to Australia? They repopulated the earth like god told them, landbridges could easely get them there.
@xXsakkelaoXx "Modern? Speciation happens within 10 generations, OBSERVED FACT!!!"
According to your tabloid article from creation.com. And if that was true it would require lots of new "information" and for Tigers and Lions to have a common ancestor after 10 generations a mutation rate that would be so high as to be fatal.
But then we've already proved that you can't do simple math.
@xXsakkelaoXx Did your god teach kangaroos the way to Australia? Did he also put a roadmap in their marsupiums? Did they say "thank you, Lord" for the non existing magical landbridge created by ....you superstitious faith? :D
Our debate is useless. My point of view is supported by the overwheelming majority of the worldwide scientific community. Yours by bronze age myths and "biblical" fairy tales.
Please get schooled and come back in a couple of years.
@johnrainrules The formulation could be better put, but due to youtube's 500 character restriction the final product as you see, needed modification and ended up abit bad formulated, the message is still clear.
@xXsakkelaoXx "The formulation could be better put,"
Yes, but your flat Earth myths would still be wrong.
"but due to youtube's 500 character restriction the final product as you see,"
Funny how creationists poor writing skills run into that problem, but people who don't drop out of middle school do just fine with the character limit.
@shanedk lairweb . org . nz/tiger/ligers2 . html and refered to by "scientific American" (it was hard to find about "ligers" and "zedonks" in a science journal, most of them wright about science you see: liger . org/
"How many of those ligers can go on to have children of their own?"
hahaha, moving the goalposts are we? As long as a female liger (a kid) can have a kid again, it can have kids.
Exactly why it occurs yes, but it is really not a new "species" as demonstrated.
"Though it is conceivable that a tiger may cross into lion territory, both species are so rare that it is highly unlikely the two would ever meet...a liger has never been officially documented in the wild and unless that happens they will remain a creature of myth."
This article just says WHAT WE'VE BEEN TELLING YOU!!!
@shanedk ""Though it is conceivable that a tiger may cross into lion territory, both species are so rare that it is highly unlikely the two would ever meet...a liger has never been officially documented in the wild and unless that happens they will remain a creature of myth."
Listen here jackass, not in the WILD, did you spot that? The fact that ligers can fuck tigers and get kids debunks your "fertile (girlish voice)" shit
@xXsakkelaoXx "Listen here jackass, not in the WILD, did you spot that?"
Yes, let's once again look at the definition of species: "The ability to generate FERTILE offspring UNDER NATURAL CONDITIONS." Natural conditions = the wild. MORON!
@shanedk "No fertile male ligers have yet been found and it is assumed all are sterile."
Lets do a test now shall we to see who is actually lying, if you fail this one, you can NEVER, EVER debate some1 EVER again, you are a shame to the name "evolution" if you don't: Where did I say that male ligers can get kids?
@xXsakkelaoXx "Where did I say that male ligers can get kids?"
They HAVE to in order for lions and tigers to be the same species. It's PART OF THE DEFINITION. It's one of the parts of the definition THAT YOU KEEP IGNORING, YOU LIAR!
In the Bible, the word Dur means circle, and sphere is clearly not the case in Is 29.3, so the Bible claims the Earth is a circle and clearly not a sphere! The Bible is making a statement about a circular pattern rather than giving reference to a special shape, and certainly not saying that the Earth is round instead of flat!
Good job disproving yourself, retardo!
Except I have to be honest, and instead remind you that the target word is CHUG, not DUR.
My theory goes like this, gravity is magnetic, life can spontaneously spring forth if the environment will allow it, or it adapts to its new environment, life its self can be transmitted anywhere in the universe at any time, through neutrinos from the sources it passes through downloading and uploading information, after all life is nothing more than information turned into matter evolving systems. Don't jump on me / this is just my opinion
@shanedk Please type in changeling neutrinos into google, any science provider you like, and you will find evidence of what I say, also type in vortex motion of the planets chasing the sun this system doesn't lay horizontal gingerly going around the sun, its an electric universe as well as mental, electromagnetism is a catalyst to ever cell in your body, as above so below, no religious reference. now look it up
Have you heard about this wonderful new discovery? Apparently not only is there a vortex motion of planets, but the Earth spins inside nature's harmonic four sided timecube. Just do a search for timecube and look it up using any search engine to read all about the timecube!
@rkyeun Really, I left you with a way out of your belief, notice I didn't try at all to expand your mental conversion on twisting reality into your personal epitaph, I not here to prove anyone right or wrong, just giving my opinion, I have seen your type before, I cant give you any praise at all for deceptive practices, all I see is opinions in YT land, your untiled to yours as anyone, but that is all, and I stated that was my opinion.
You don't get to just run by, spout nonsense, and leave uncontested as if what you said had merit.
You made statements of fact which were wrong. That is not an opinion. You called your statements a theory. They are not.
Now if you want to make a claim and cite a peer-reviewed scientific publication supporting it, I will consider your claim. Otherwise take your miracle water, planet vortexes, timecubes, crystal energy, and go sit in the corner with the scientologists.
@rkyeun Well any good troll like yourself, would run out and produce positive proof, to disprove or debunk, what ever that bothers you so desperately, the ball was in your court , you failed to produce any evidence to the contrary, your spewing a lot a crap out both holes, to debate the way you do is very easy, do nothing, if your not able to handle yourself any better with this tiny effort, no facts stated means your perverted mind is lost in re-active responses only. THE LAST WORD///////
To everyone (I'll answer you individually later lol,)
another key word-concept that is missing in Hebrew: There was no varying word for a "sphere" - a three-dimensional circle. It is not that the Hebrews or anyone else lacked the concept of sphericity (for obviously, they could conceive of it plainly when, for example, they ate pomegranates for breakfast), but that they simply did not create a second word for it.
@xXsakkelaoXx "another key word-concept that is missing in Hebrew: There was no varying word for a "sphere" - a three-dimensional circle."
Yet rkyeun found one when he said this. "When the Bible wants to talk about a sphere Dur (דור) it does so in those terms and refers to balls, filled sacks, etc"
But then lying is practically a sacrament to you.
Now explain how you can see the entire planet from a very tall mountain.
@rkyeun Modern languages evolve constantly, and one would first have to prove that the modern word evolved with the ancient understanding in mind. Note as well that since it is related, not the same word, this is as much as admitting that duwr itself does not mean (simply or exclusively) "sphere", for otherwise, there would have been no need to "evolve" a modern word.
In the same Book of the Bible written by the same author?
"and one would first have to prove that the modern word evolved with the ancient understanding in mind. "
By giving different quotes from different books all suggesting the Earth was flat. Like Matthew 4:8 and Revelation 1:7 from your New Testament. There are more.
Whereas you had one quote and we proved you were lying.
> one would first have to prove that the modern word evolved with the ancient understanding in mind.
No we don't. Because we have the original language in the Bible. When the Bible talks about balls and spheres, it uses the word Dur. When it talks about coins and the shape of the Earth, it uses the word Chug. None of this comes from any modern translation AT ALL, but from within the Bible itself.
@rkyeun Let me point out: a related modern Hebrew word does mean a "ball". However, this proves little if anything, for modern usage has very little bearing on usage more than two thousand years earlier
@xXsakkelaoXx "Let me point out: a related modern Hebrew word does mean a "ball". "
Which one?
"However, this proves little if anything"
Because it is a lie with no evidence to back it up.
"for modern usage has very little bearing on usage more than two thousand years earlier"
Usage that we have proven from examples always meant flat circle. Your inability to read is not a valid premise to defend your flat Earth myths. Especially given the other examples we gave you.
@rkyeun What it boils down to: While a sphere is a duwr, it is not the only thing that is a duwr, so it would not be sufficient for the absurd precision-demands of modern Skeptics, who would simply assume that the text is saying that the earth is in the shape of a circle, as in Is. 29:3.
There is a difference between merely being skeptical of your claim and demonstrating it to be a lie. We are beyond the former and have reached the latter. Your argument is backward. You should be arguing that Chug, the word used to refer to the Earth's shape, means sphere, rather than that Dur, the word meaning sphere, might also mean flat.
@shanedk "Bullshit! I just gave it to you! The Hebrew word "Duwr"--in fact, Isaiah used it in 22:18!"
Note that it is related, not the same word
What it boils down to: While a sphere is a duwr, it is not the only thing that is a duwr, so it would not be sufficient for the absurd precision-demands of modern Skeptics, who would simply assume that the text is saying that the earth is in the shape of a circle, as in Is. 29:3.
"Despite this need to detect and correct error, formal peer review has serious shortcomings. For example, Callaham et al. (1998) described an experiment in which a manuscript with 23 deliberate flaws was sent to 124 reviewers. Ten of these flaws invalidated the entire study, and thirteen were less severe. The reviewers detected an average of 3.4 of the major flaws and 3.1 of the minor flaws."
@shanedk Im following this debate and am especially pleased to find you admitting that you will "delete " rather than argue against anything you believe to be false. This says a lotp
cbasallie 20 hours ago
@cbasallie This is ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE. The ONLY reason posts get deleted is for violating the channel's rules, which are clearly spelled out on the channel page and in TWO videos, and DO NOT IN ANY WAY prevent people from arguing against me.
But you, fucking LYING creationists can't win any other way, apparently, so you HAVE to make it out like I'M the reason you morons can't come up with a decent argument.
shanedk 20 hours ago
xXsakkelaoXx, false accusations are NOT allowed on this channel. Your comment was deleted. First warning.
shanedk 22 hours ago
Job 26:10 "He has described a circle on the face of the waters" ends with the words: "to where light ends in darkness." At the point just beyond where the suns light become tangent to the earth there isdarkness, and folowing that umbral line around the earth indeed describes a circle. the one where light ends in darkness. That statement in Job would in fact make no sense if the earth were flat. Chuwg can also mean sphere shanedk.
xXsakkelaoXx 3 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx "Chuwg can also mean sphere shanedk."
Show me ONE source on ancient Hebrew that says this.
shanedk 3 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx
> to where light ends in darkness.
Yes, because they thought the Earth was flat. At the point just beyond the horizon when the Earth ended and light ended in the darkness beyond.
Chug does not also mean sphere. To be right about that you have to find a place in the Bible where it uses the word Chug to talk about a spherical thing besides the Earth.
rkyeun 3 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx There is also a reference in Isaiah. I'll find it if you like. The earth is a circle. You notice how ''scientists'' respond by demanding that you refer to the Ancient Hebrew?. Again these people who control ALL forms of Media( including journals) are not scientists. They study Linguistics . Who else would even THINK to demand that someone speak in Hebrew (something they don't even do, unless they're posting from Israel). Changing and twisting definitions is their expertise
cbasallie 2 days ago
@cbasallie Yeah, the whole thing is pretty much staged against god, like this shanedk dude, why does he bother so much and give so much energy into trying to debunk creation if it is "stupid" and only "halfbrainers" believe it? Clear indication of "scoffers" as was warned about in the bible, it got it right! again! :D
xXsakkelaoXx 2 days ago
@xXsakkelaoXx "Clear indication of "scoffers" as was warned about in the bible, it got it right! again! :D"
Yes the Bible made the prediction that its flat Earth nonsense would be refuted. The authors must have been psychic.
Too bad their claim that the Earth was flat, the Sun goes around it, and Jesus would come back in the lifetime of his followers (Matthew 24:34) were proven factually wrong.
johnrainrules 2 days ago
@xXsakkelaoXx and ''science so falsely called'' Timothy11 You know Russia fell to a similar fate. Scientific journals are, of course just as much a part of the Corporate Media as anything else. This is like Orwellian ''think -speak''. Have you read Orwell ? Big Brother discredits wrong thinkers ( aka Christians ) and get them out of positions of power. But also, if STATE gives us our rights then STATE can take them away. If God gives us our rights then we may fight to keep them.
cbasallie 1 day ago
@shanedk Just to say : I disagree with you on one point : I don't think that theory is the "why". It would be more accurate to say that it is the "how". Science is not interested in the "why" of things, but philosophy (and religions) are. However, except this little vocabulary point, I totally agree with your video.
faeleris 3 weeks ago
@faeleris Wiktionary defines "why" as "For what cause, reason, or purpose." Purpose aside, I think scientific theories explain causes and reasons very well.
shanedk 3 weeks ago
and a root word in Job 26:10 describes the encompassment of "waters" -- without further description. There's no basis for connecting the word to a modern "compass", and although LXX translators may have chosen the word for a simple circle, it is irrelevant that they did so, since their choice was governed by their own cosmological views. We may add the "earth" in Is. 40:22 is erets. Isaiah's reference, should be understood to refer to the oikoumene of the day, not the "whole" earth.
xXsakkelaoXx 3 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx "We may add the "earth" in Is. 40:22 is erets. Isaiah's reference, should be understood to refer to the oikoumene of the day, not the "whole" earth. "
But that was your quote to claim they thought the Earth was a sphere. The fact that we proved it means flat along with Matthew 4:8 and Revelation 1:7 shows you idol worship a flat Earth text.
I hope you didn't pull a muscle goal post shifting.
johnrainrules 3 weeks ago
All this said, it is not even clear that chuwg refers exclusively to the shape we call a circle. The word indicates boundaries being set, but nothing contextually demands a perfect circular shape. In Job 22:14, it refers to a "circuit" or route walked by God, and there's no particular reason why this should or should not be a circle. Altogether, the word is used only 3 times in the OT, and not once does the context clearly demand a shape of any particular regularity; CONT
xXsakkelaoXx 3 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx
Job 26:10, Prov. 8:27, to choq a chug, inscribe a circle.
Job 22:14 the chug of the heavens.
Isa. 40:22, the chug of the earth.
Sir. 43:12, the chug of rainbow across the heaven.
Isa. 44:13, drawing a chug with a mechughah (a compass, the geometrical instrument which you use to draw circles on a paper).
rkyeun 3 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx "All this said, it is not even clear that chuwg refers exclusively to the shape we call a circle"
Your the one that claimed it meant a sphere. Nice goal post shifting.
"The word indicates boundaries being set, but nothing contextually demands a perfect circular shape."
Just that it be flat, because your bible claims we live on a flat Earth.
johnrainrules 3 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx
> not once does the context clearly demand a shape of any particular regularity
Job 26:10, Prov 8:27, Sir. 43:12, and Isa 44:13 call the thing you are frantically copypasting from a liar.
rkyeun 3 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx "In Job 22:14, it refers to a "circuit" or route walked by God, and there's no particular reason why this should or should not be a circle"
Yet it was your claim that it was meant to be a sphere. Job 22:14 also says God walked across the vault of Heaven. Making the sky a solid dome shaped object.
johnrainrules 3 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx
(Hint: It's obvious when you copypaste things you haven't read and don't understand, because your paste uses words and grammar correctly for a change, even if the sentences that they make are still lies due to being from a creationist site.)
rkyeun 3 weeks ago
@rkyeun Hey is there a program to copy and paste into respond to this video, so far everyone I have tried YT will not allow it to be done.
freepress666 3 weeks ago
@freepress666
Let's hope it stays that way.
rkyeun 3 weeks ago
@rkyeun Nonono, In the bible the word duwr is used where "sphere" is clearly not the case:
Is. 29:3 And I will camp against thee round about, and will lay siege against thee with a mount, and I will raise forts against thee.
Obviously, the soldiers could not camp in th shape of a shpere around the city. This word apears to be making a statement about a circular pattern rather than giving reference to a special shape.
And if the bible used the word duwr then you could say it was used like in
xXsakkelaoXx 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
rkyeun 3 weeks ago
@rkyeun No, this is where I say that both of them refer to circular shapes, but chuwg is used to describe things that actually appear as a sphere yes? take example the earth!! I repeat: if the bible used the word Duwr, YOU would of said: look at Is. 29:3 here it is used as a circle.
xXsakkelaoXx 3 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx "but chuwg is used to describe things that actually appear as a sphere yes? take example the earth!!"
Circular reasoning--you DON'T get to do that!
shanedk 3 weeks ago
@shanedk
Dear nutthead (copyright by rkyeun)
You seem to forget that the other word is used for circular shapes as well.
Thank you.
xXsakkelaoXx 3 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx "You seem to forget that the other word is used for circular shapes as well."
You seem to forget that the one quote you had to claim the Earth was a sphere never ever means sphere, whereas we have plenty of quotes using different words in different contexts that say your Bible claims the world was flat.
The New Testament was written well after most of the world figured out the Earth was a sphere, your religion is actually behind the science of its own time.
johnrainrules 3 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx No, LIAR, in fact, I SPECIFICALLY SAID OTHERWISE--AND I showed why that point is irrelevant!
YOU ARE A LIAR.
shanedk 3 weeks ago
@shanedk It DOESN'T make more sence that the word duwr was used, because clearly duwr also means circle, neither chuwg nor duwr mean sphere, the simple answer is that hebrew didn't have a word for sphere, just like french people have many words for hair but english only have one, you have to define out of the context what the meaning is.
And when you should think that you have me in a corner: If you look at the earth from space, it does in fact look like a circle, from all sides.
xXsakkelaoXx 3 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx "neither chuwg nor duwr mean sphere, the simple answer is that hebrew didn't have a word for sphere"
LIAR. Duwr CAN mean "sphere." The fact that it can ALSO mean "circle" DOES NOT FUCKING MATTER!
How long are you going to LIE to ignore reality?
shanedk 3 weeks ago
@shanedk "The fact that it can ALSO mean "circle" DOES NOT FUCKING MATTER!"
But ofcourse it does! From space earth looks like a circle anyway.
I repeat: NO hebrew word for sphere.
xXsakkelaoXx 3 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx "I repeat: NO hebrew word for sphere."
Yet it was you who claimed chuwg was the Hebrew word for sphere when you were caught lying for your flat Earth myths.
But then you cannot be honest and a creationist.
johnrainrules 3 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx
Good job. You showed the Bible claims the Earth is flat.
rkyeun 3 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx
> but chuwg is used to describe things that actually appear as a sphere yes?
No! :D That's the point! :D It isn't! :D It means FLAT! :D
rkyeun 3 weeks ago
@rkyeun But so does DUWG!!!!! :O
xXsakkelaoXx 3 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx What's "dwug"?
shanedk 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
rkyeun 3 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx
So the Bible picked the wrong word on purpose, so nobody would be confused if it was (Dur) a circle or a sphere, and everyone would know it was a (Chug) flat circle.
rkyeun 3 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx
> if the bible used the word Duwr, YOU would of said: look at Is. 29:3 here it is used as a circle.
Yes. And from that I would have concluded it can either be a sphere, as it is used when talking about round three-dimensional shapes, or a circle like when it is used for committing genocide against your neighbors in the name of God. And I would then say that the word Dur was NOT a basis for translating Earth's shape. If the Bible had ever used it for that purpose.
rkyeun 3 weeks ago
@rkyeun Dear retard was actually funny though, I laughed.
xXsakkelaoXx 3 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx Yes, "duwr" CAN mean circle, and can ALSO mean sphere. Whereas "chuwg"--the actual word used in 40:22--can ONLY mean circle, and NEVER sphere!
Isaiah SAID IT WAS A CIRCLE, when there was another word he COULD have used to describe a sphere. The fact that it can also mean circle IS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT!
shanedk 3 weeks ago
@shanedk They only do it in the zoo because in nature they are seperated!!! I feel like i'm talking to someone who has nothing left in his right side of the brain and nothing right in the left side!! The FACT that female ligers CAN get children with other lions and tigers is nothing you as an evolutionist can change (although I'm sure you want to, like all the other hypothesese you have changed during the years of lies and "facts")
xXsakkelaoXx 3 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx "They only do it in the zoo because in nature they are seperated!!! "
And how did that happen if they were all on Noah's Ark. I guess speciation happens real fast if you are a creationist.
"The FACT that female ligers CAN get children"
The fact that one did with a lot of human help proves you are a moron.
johnrainrules 3 weeks ago
@johnrainrules " I guess speciation happens real fast if you are a creationist"
haha, lol, it happens fast wether you're a creationist or not, evolutionists can't argue against reality (although they can convince minors through indoctrination...)
Nope, it is not unusual that ligers can get offspring, besides, this is what we expect from speciation after the flood, as we already observe in nature losses of information everywhere would result in dificulty of breeding outside the species.
xXsakkelaoXx 3 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx "lol, it happens fast wether you're a creationist or not"
Really, since the difference in DNA between Lions and Tigers between when Noah's Ark allegedly happened and when Lions and Tigers were first written about would require a mutation rate so high every Lion and Tiger would have multiple cancers.
johnrainrules 3 weeks ago
@johnrainrules "would require a mutation rate so high every Lion and Tiger would have multiple cancers."
Who says mutations where the biggest part of the picture, natural selection alone selects for already existing information in specific environments, mutations are in almost all cases either a maintainence of information, or a DEGRADING of information, Opposite of what evolution (molekules to man) needs.
xXsakkelaoXx 3 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx "Who says mutations where the biggest part of the picture"
Anyone that knows anything about Genetics.
"natural selection alone selects for already existing information in specific environments"
Which since such a change would require new information we know that didn't happen. Because we can map DNA.
But then you have no evidence for this either because you can't be honest and be a creationist.
johnrainrules 3 weeks ago
@johnrainrules "Which since such a change would require new information we know that didn't happen."
wait? what was that?!! bwahahahaahaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Learn about genetics, and then don't come back.
xXsakkelaoXx 3 weeks ago
@johnrainrules rapid changes have been reported recently for Drosophila fruit flies and sockeye salmon within just nine and thirteen generations respectively. I could name tens more of RAPID speciation due to natural selection, NOT mutations, hit me! I'm enjoying this
xXsakkelaoXx 3 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx References to peer-reviewed scientific literature or it didn't happen.
shanedk 3 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx "rapid changes have been reported recently for Drosophila fruit flies and sockeye salmon within just nine and thirteen generations "
Define rapid. Another vague assertion without facts. We can actually look at the number of DNA base pair differences between Lions and Tigers and know that if these were caused in a 1,000 years it would require a severely carcinogenic mutation rate.
So much for your flat Earth myths.
johnrainrules 3 weeks ago
@johnrainrules "Define rapid. Another vague assertion without facts."
Marchant, J., Darwin strikes back—one modern idea about evolution turns out to be wrong, New Scientist 168(2262):11, 2000.
Well this is hilarious.
No you retard! Did you read my last post? It is NOT mutation, it is natural selection picking from already EXISTING information that allows for speciation WITHIN the kinds, get that billions of years LIE out of your head. Helium diffusion in zircons is strong proof of thousands
xXsakkelaoXx 3 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx "Well this is hilarious."
It is hilarious that you would post a fictional article from creation.com. Did you know that according to the weekly world news BatBoy is out and voting for Rick Santorum?
"No you retard! Did you read my last post?"
Yes, and I refuted it by showing that there were too many traits in both species to come from exactly one male and one female animal.
johnrainrules 3 weeks ago
@johnrainrules Heck, there's too much variation WITHIN those species to have come from one male and one female!
shanedk 3 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx "Helium diffusion in zircons is strong proof of thousands"
Really, write up the physics. Oh yeah you can't since you don't actually know anything about "Helium diffusion".
johnrainrules 3 weeks ago
@johnrainrules Stop spamming. Your comments are noise, there is absolutely no information content in your comments, I repeat: NO information
Information content = zero, doesn't exist, try to refer me to something maybe next time, or stop spamming.
xXsakkelaoXx 3 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx So when the "kinds" that made up the ancestors of Tigers and Lions tried to walk to India and Africa why didn't they fall off the edge of the flat Earth from your bible myths.
johnrainrules 3 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx Funny, when I search NewScientistDOTcom for that article I get "Sorry, there were no results that matched your search." When I Google it, the only results I get are creationist websites.
FAIL HARD AGAIN!
shanedk 3 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx Well, I found the REAL article they were trying to refer to. Here's what it REALLY says (emphasis mine):
"They have shown that natural selection can change the way both fish and flies recognise their prospective mates, a process WHICH CAN LEAD TO two groups rapidly diverging, even when they live together in the same place. This PROCESS OF REPRODUCTIVE ISOLATION only takes a dozen generations or so, making it faster than anyone thought possible."
LIAR.
shanedk 3 weeks ago
@shanedk Forgot the link: gooDOTgl/fHJzV
So this is NOT IN ANY WAY "RAPID speciation due to natural selection, NOT mutations" as you claimed. It's REPRODUCTIVE SEPARATION due to natural selection. Once the separation takes place, THEN speciation begins.
shanedk 3 weeks ago
@shanedk "Once the separation takes place, THEN speciation begins."
When did I say otherwise? wow, you are stupid?
xXsakkelaoXx 3 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx In the part I QUOTED, you LIAR! YOU said it was "rapid speciation"--YOUR EXACT WORDS! It is NOTHING OF THE KIND!
LIAR.
shanedk 3 weeks ago
@shanedk Haha, that proves my point though doesn't it? lol jhonrainrules you made an ass of yourself, Selection from already existing information, transitional fossils? oh, you have 5-6 of them? ^^ NO! seriously, get a better theory, evolution survives on idiots.
xXsakkelaoXx 3 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx "transitional fossils? oh, you have 5-6 of them?"
There are THOUSANDS. In just the few years since the discovery of Ardipithecus, we have more fossils of that human transitional than we do of T. rex!
shanedk 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
xXsakkelaoXx 3 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx
The Smithsonian alone has 126 million.
That's a bit more than 5 or 6.
rkyeun 3 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx "as we already observe in nature losses of information everywhere would result in dificulty of breeding outside the species."
Yet we observe gains not losses, and the definition of species is organisms that can produce viable offspring.
That is why no matter how many times creationists have sex with livestock they will never end up with a half human half ungulate. Not "loss of information".
johnrainrules 3 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx "evolutionists can't argue against reality (although they can convince minors through indoctrination...)"
I agree: only creationists argue against reality ...like they do when they try to convince themselves (of course they can't convince rational people) that evolution is based on indoctrination, or that reality is consistent with the bogus superstitions they inherited from bronze age miths.
FreeSilio 3 weeks ago
@FreeSilio Mith? what's that?
Although you make a statement, you have nothing to back it up, MANY rational people are creationists, in fact I would argue that ALL creation scientists are rational as the diference between evolution/abiogenesis/bigbang and creation is that creation scientists actually observe what we see in reality, E/A/BB form observable facts into already existing theories like they assume that there MUST be an oortcloud because comets don't last billions of years lol
xXsakkelaoXx 3 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx
There is no such thing as a creation scientist. Putting creation before science violates the very essence of the scientific method.
ThieleM 3 weeks ago 2
@ThieleM Why is it so that bigbangers make up oort clouds and inflation then? :) I mean, surely they are scientists and follow the scientific method yes?
xXsakkelaoXx 3 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx
THings like inflation match what the evidence suggests.
You have no idea how the scientific method works....you get things like oort clouds and inflation when you follow the evidence. You get creationism when you lead the evidence.
ThieleM 3 weeks ago
@ThieleM WTF?!?! where is the "EVIDENCE" FOR AN OORT CLOUD?! Remember: you critisized me of not using the scientific method therefore you must use it to prove the oort cloud, were is the observable evidence eh? And inflation? wtf? that's made up shit to justify all the problems you have, like waving a wand, it is done by unknown mechanisms, how is that done and HOW IS THAT scientific?!
xXsakkelaoXx 3 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx Read all about it: gooDOTgl/9qcnL
And then stop LYING about it. The cloud's existence IS deduced scientifically. DEAL with it.
shanedk 3 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx We've already answered those, LIAR. Checked out the WMAP survey yet? Seen the PICTURE OF THE EARLY UNIVERSE yet?
shanedk 3 weeks ago
@shanedk What does the WMAP prove exactly?
xXsakkelaoXx 3 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx "What does the WMAP prove exactly?"
It proves the Universe is far too large for light to travel from the stars to Earth in 6,000 years.
But then simple math is too complicated for creationists who believe a bible that claims pi is exactly three.
johnrainrules 3 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx The age of the universe, the scope of the inflationary period, and it even gives us a good indication as to the overall shape of the universe.
shanedk 3 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx Myth is Noah's flood, for exemple, which contraddicts everything biologists know about reality. All the crap written in the bible is mythology.
"Creation scientists" don't exist. CREATIONISM IS NOT SCIENCE. And I have many U.S. courts decisions to back it up. Creationism is a faith issue.
If you can't undrstand what science is that's your problem. Get schooled about true science (creationism is not) and you'll stop being a creationist.
FreeSilio 3 weeks ago 3
@FreeSilio "Noah's flood, for exemple, which contraddicts everything biologists know about reality"
Lol, you have proven your ignorance? Noah's flood can't be disproved by BIOLOGISTS?!?! that would take geologists, and despite the LOAD of evidence and many years only now have geologists started to accept that major landmakrs were in fact carved out by floods, i.e the scablands.
xXsakkelaoXx 3 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx "Noah's flood can't be disproved by BIOLOGISTS?"
Yep, because you can't repopulate ANY species from just two specimens.
"that would take geologists"
Oh, they disprove it, too! The geologic record shows quite clearly that there was NEVER any global flood! And they've ALWAYS known that certain features were carved out by LOCAL floods, so you're just LYING again!
shanedk 3 weeks ago
@shanedk hahahaha always known? it took MANY years before the evidence piled on top of them, liar!! NO biologists can't disprove that a boat floated on a global flood once in the past!
xXsakkelaoXx 3 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx "NO biologists can't disprove that a boat floated on a global flood once in the past! "
They can prove one never occurred since the flood would require an addition of 3 times the Earths water supply altering salinity and light and pressure killing every single fish on the planet.
johnrainrules 3 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx A global flood would have left a consistent flood deposit layer (somewhat like the KT boundary) everywhere in the geologic record. THERE IS NO SUCH LAYER.
shanedk 3 weeks ago
@shanedk "From YOUR LINK: "No fertile male ligers have yet been found and it is assumed all are sterile." YOU ARE A LIAR!"
How is that me lying, where did I say that male ligers could have offspring?
xXsakkelaoXx 3 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx "How is that me lying, where did I say that male ligers could have offspring?"
When you said all Ligers could have offspring, but then you can't be a creationist without being a moron.
johnrainrules 3 weeks ago
@johnrainrules "When you said all Ligers could have offspring"
Well I never said that though did I? lol retard.
xXsakkelaoXx 2 days ago
@xXsakkelaoXx You said precisely that, but then you can't claim a book of flat Earth myths is a science textbook without being a liar.
johnrainrules 2 days ago
@johnrainrules No I didn't, I said ligers can have kids, where did I say "ALL" ligers can have kids?
way to make an ass of yourself! (y) ^^
xXsakkelaoXx 1 day ago
@xXsakkelaoXx When you said: "As long as a female liger (a kid) can have a kid again, it can have kids."
LIAR.
shanedk 1 day ago
@shanedk "According to Wild Cats of the World (1975) by C. A. W. Guggisberg, ligers and tiglons were long thought to be sterile: In 1943, a fifteen-year-old hybrid between a lion and an 'Island' tiger was successfully mated with a lion at the Munich Hellabrunn Zoo. The female cub, though of delicate health, was raised to adulthood"
hahaha can't expect much more from you now can I?
Ur nylonase is out of date, ur first cells have huge problems and you call me a liar for stating clear facts!!
xXsakkelaoXx 23 hours ago
@xXsakkelaoXx "a fifteen-year-old hybrid between a lion and an 'Island' tiger was successfully mated WITH A LION"
Bully for it. Can you find a cub of TWO hybrids?
shanedk 22 hours ago
@xXsakkelaoXx "Ur nylonase is out of date,"
Uh it still exists and proves new information is added to genomes recorded by humans. What's out of date is your book of flat Earth myths.
johnrainrules 21 hours ago
@xXsakkelaoXx Hi.. Did you notice how one of these posters asks for the ''reference to peer-related scientific literature''?
Who controls our Media? All Media? TV, Newspaper AND journals (as well as porn magazines)? They're not Scientists.
Linguistic experts change words definitions AND they control ALL Media. Americans need to give this a little thought. In fact one of these ''scientists'' is more likely to debate you are your grammar or punctuation than anything else. Have you noticed?
cbasallie 2 days ago
@xXsakkelaoXx
Yes they can.
And they disprove it by noting all the things that never died in a global flood in the past.
rkyeun 3 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx A global flood contraddicts geology, of course, but also biology.
A few exemples:
- Living species are much more ancient than a few thousand years (and lots got extincted long before).
- Too many species (and too far) to collect in an ark
- Too many modern races to come from the few species in the "ark"
- DNA worldwide distribution doesn't point to middle east.
- Not a single marsupial on the way to Australia
- etc.
Once more: get schooled (and don't be arrogant).
FreeSilio 3 weeks ago
@FreeSilio "and lots got extincted long before." Like that fish that supposed extinct 65 million years found to not have changed at all? Those you are talking about?
Circular reasoning*
Thats maybe why the bible says kind?
Modern? Speciation happens within 10 generations, OBSERVED FACT!!!
Actually it does in some cases
What do you mean not a single marsupial on the way to Australia? They repopulated the earth like god told them, landbridges could easely get them there.
xXsakkelaoXx 3 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx "Modern? Speciation happens within 10 generations, OBSERVED FACT!!!"
According to your tabloid article from creation.com. And if that was true it would require lots of new "information" and for Tigers and Lions to have a common ancestor after 10 generations a mutation rate that would be so high as to be fatal.
But then we've already proved that you can't do simple math.
johnrainrules 3 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx "Like that fish that supposed extinct 65 million years found to not have changed at all?"
WTF does that have to do with anything?
shanedk 3 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx Did your god teach kangaroos the way to Australia? Did he also put a roadmap in their marsupiums? Did they say "thank you, Lord" for the non existing magical landbridge created by ....you superstitious faith? :D
Our debate is useless. My point of view is supported by the overwheelming majority of the worldwide scientific community. Yours by bronze age myths and "biblical" fairy tales.
Please get schooled and come back in a couple of years.
FreeSilio 3 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx "it is not unusual that ligers can get offspring"
Reference to peer-reviewed scientific literature or it didn't happen.
shanedk 3 weeks ago
@shanedk Guess it didn't happen then...
shanedk 3 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx
> as we already observe in nature losses of information
You don't know what the word means.
rkyeun 3 weeks ago
@johnrainrules The formulation could be better put, but due to youtube's 500 character restriction the final product as you see, needed modification and ended up abit bad formulated, the message is still clear.
xXsakkelaoXx 3 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx "The formulation could be better put,"
Yes, but your flat Earth myths would still be wrong.
"but due to youtube's 500 character restriction the final product as you see,"
Funny how creationists poor writing skills run into that problem, but people who don't drop out of middle school do just fine with the character limit.
"the message is still clear."
As are its errors.
johnrainrules 3 weeks ago
@johnrainrules "species"
xXsakkelaoXx 3 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx "They only do it in the zoo because in nature they are seperated!"
Yes, that was the whole point! Do you not understand that this is a FUNDAMENTAL ASPECT of what causes species to diverge???
MORON.
How many of those ligers can go on to have children of their own?
shanedk 3 weeks ago 2
@shanedk lairweb . org . nz/tiger/ligers2 . html and refered to by "scientific American" (it was hard to find about "ligers" and "zedonks" in a science journal, most of them wright about science you see: liger . org/
"How many of those ligers can go on to have children of their own?"
hahaha, moving the goalposts are we? As long as a female liger (a kid) can have a kid again, it can have kids.
Exactly why it occurs yes, but it is really not a new "species" as demonstrated.
xXsakkelaoXx 3 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx HAHAHAHAHA!!! YOU FAIL HARD!!!
"Though it is conceivable that a tiger may cross into lion territory, both species are so rare that it is highly unlikely the two would ever meet...a liger has never been officially documented in the wild and unless that happens they will remain a creature of myth."
This article just says WHAT WE'VE BEEN TELLING YOU!!!
shanedk 3 weeks ago
@shanedk ""Though it is conceivable that a tiger may cross into lion territory, both species are so rare that it is highly unlikely the two would ever meet...a liger has never been officially documented in the wild and unless that happens they will remain a creature of myth."
Listen here jackass, not in the WILD, did you spot that? The fact that ligers can fuck tigers and get kids debunks your "fertile (girlish voice)" shit
xXsakkelaoXx 3 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx "Listen here jackass, not in the WILD, did you spot that?"
Yes, let's once again look at the definition of species: "The ability to generate FERTILE offspring UNDER NATURAL CONDITIONS." Natural conditions = the wild. MORON!
shanedk 3 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx ""How many of those ligers can go on to have children of their own?"
"hahaha, moving the goalposts are we?"
No, LIAR, because that's ALWAYS been the definition of species! I've told you that from the start!
Did you EVER watch my video on the subject?
From YOUR LINK: "No fertile male ligers have yet been found and it is assumed all are sterile." YOU ARE A LIAR!
shanedk 3 weeks ago
@shanedk "No fertile male ligers have yet been found and it is assumed all are sterile."
Lets do a test now shall we to see who is actually lying, if you fail this one, you can NEVER, EVER debate some1 EVER again, you are a shame to the name "evolution" if you don't: Where did I say that male ligers can get kids?
xXsakkelaoXx 3 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx "Where did I say that male ligers can get kids?"
When you said Ligers could have fertile offspring making tigers and lions the same species.
But then we've already caught you lying about the bible in a laughable attempt to defend a flat Earth text.
johnrainrules 3 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx "Where did I say that male ligers can get kids?"
They HAVE to in order for lions and tigers to be the same species. It's PART OF THE DEFINITION. It's one of the parts of the definition THAT YOU KEEP IGNORING, YOU LIAR!
shanedk 3 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx
> Lets do a test now shall we to see who is actually lying
We already had that test. You are a creationist.
rkyeun 3 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx the fact that male ligers are infertile is an indicator that lions and tigers are different species
TheYoo2b 1 day ago
@xXsakkelaoXx
Geographical isolation is a form of speciation.
Good job. You showed they're two different species.
rkyeun 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
rkyeun 3 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx
You win! :D
In the Bible, the word Dur means circle, and sphere is clearly not the case in Is 29.3, so the Bible claims the Earth is a circle and clearly not a sphere! The Bible is making a statement about a circular pattern rather than giving reference to a special shape, and certainly not saying that the Earth is round instead of flat!
Good job disproving yourself, retardo!
Except I have to be honest, and instead remind you that the target word is CHUG, not DUR.
rkyeun 3 weeks ago
@rkyeun Is. 29:3 !!
xXsakkelaoXx 3 weeks ago
My theory goes like this, gravity is magnetic, life can spontaneously spring forth if the environment will allow it, or it adapts to its new environment, life its self can be transmitted anywhere in the universe at any time, through neutrinos from the sources it passes through downloading and uploading information, after all life is nothing more than information turned into matter evolving systems. Don't jump on me / this is just my opinion
freepress666 3 weeks ago
@freepress666
Opinions are not theories.
rkyeun 3 weeks ago
@rkyeun He said that, why do you jump on him?
xXsakkelaoXx 3 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx
You have failed at reading comprehension.
rkyeun 3 weeks ago
@freepress666 "gravity is magnetic"
Um, no. Gravity and electromagnetism are two completely different fundamental forces. They don't even unify in the standard model!
There's no evidence that neutrinos can interact much at all with regular matter, let alone life forms.
shanedk 3 weeks ago
@shanedk Please type in changeling neutrinos into google, any science provider you like, and you will find evidence of what I say, also type in vortex motion of the planets chasing the sun this system doesn't lay horizontal gingerly going around the sun, its an electric universe as well as mental, electromagnetism is a catalyst to ever cell in your body, as above so below, no religious reference. now look it up
freepress666 3 weeks ago
@freepress666 If you don't have a reference to a peer-reviewed science paper, then I'm not going to waste my time.
shanedk 3 weeks ago
@freepress666
Have you heard about this wonderful new discovery? Apparently not only is there a vortex motion of planets, but the Earth spins inside nature's harmonic four sided timecube. Just do a search for timecube and look it up using any search engine to read all about the timecube!
rkyeun 3 weeks ago
@rkyeun I'm well aware of it, and I have no reason to doubt it.
freepress666 3 weeks ago
@freepress666
Right, just making sure you were a total troll spouting nonsense.
Thanks for the heads up.
rkyeun 3 weeks ago
@rkyeun Really, I left you with a way out of your belief, notice I didn't try at all to expand your mental conversion on twisting reality into your personal epitaph, I not here to prove anyone right or wrong, just giving my opinion, I have seen your type before, I cant give you any praise at all for deceptive practices, all I see is opinions in YT land, your untiled to yours as anyone, but that is all, and I stated that was my opinion.
freepress666 3 weeks ago
@freepress666
You don't get to just run by, spout nonsense, and leave uncontested as if what you said had merit.
You made statements of fact which were wrong. That is not an opinion. You called your statements a theory. They are not.
Now if you want to make a claim and cite a peer-reviewed scientific publication supporting it, I will consider your claim. Otherwise take your miracle water, planet vortexes, timecubes, crystal energy, and go sit in the corner with the scientologists.
rkyeun 3 weeks ago
@rkyeun Well any good troll like yourself, would run out and produce positive proof, to disprove or debunk, what ever that bothers you so desperately, the ball was in your court , you failed to produce any evidence to the contrary, your spewing a lot a crap out both holes, to debate the way you do is very easy, do nothing, if your not able to handle yourself any better with this tiny effort, no facts stated means your perverted mind is lost in re-active responses only. THE LAST WORD///////
freepress666 3 weeks ago
@freepress666 Sup with the "666" at the end of your name?
xXsakkelaoXx 3 weeks ago
@freepress666 "its an electric universe as well as mental, "
?
johnrainrules 3 weeks ago
To everyone (I'll answer you individually later lol,)
another key word-concept that is missing in Hebrew: There was no varying word for a "sphere" - a three-dimensional circle. It is not that the Hebrews or anyone else lacked the concept of sphericity (for obviously, they could conceive of it plainly when, for example, they ate pomegranates for breakfast), but that they simply did not create a second word for it.
xXsakkelaoXx 3 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx "another key word-concept that is missing in Hebrew: There was no varying word for a "sphere" - a three-dimensional circle."
Yet rkyeun found one when he said this. "When the Bible wants to talk about a sphere Dur (דור) it does so in those terms and refers to balls, filled sacks, etc"
But then lying is practically a sacrament to you.
Now explain how you can see the entire planet from a very tall mountain.
johnrainrules 3 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx
> There was no varying word for a "sphere"
False. There is, and I told you what they were.
> It is not that the Hebrews or anyone else lacked the concept of sphericity (for obviously, they
had the word Dur which is the word for sphere, as compared to Chug which is the word for circle.
rkyeun 3 weeks ago
@rkyeun Modern languages evolve constantly, and one would first have to prove that the modern word evolved with the ancient understanding in mind. Note as well that since it is related, not the same word, this is as much as admitting that duwr itself does not mean (simply or exclusively) "sphere", for otherwise, there would have been no need to "evolve" a modern word.
xXsakkelaoXx 3 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx "Modern languages evolve constantly,"
In the same Book of the Bible written by the same author?
"and one would first have to prove that the modern word evolved with the ancient understanding in mind. "
By giving different quotes from different books all suggesting the Earth was flat. Like Matthew 4:8 and Revelation 1:7 from your New Testament. There are more.
Whereas you had one quote and we proved you were lying.
johnrainrules 3 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx
> one would first have to prove that the modern word evolved with the ancient understanding in mind.
No we don't. Because we have the original language in the Bible. When the Bible talks about balls and spheres, it uses the word Dur. When it talks about coins and the shape of the Earth, it uses the word Chug. None of this comes from any modern translation AT ALL, but from within the Bible itself.
rkyeun 3 weeks ago
@rkyeun Let me point out: a related modern Hebrew word does mean a "ball". However, this proves little if anything, for modern usage has very little bearing on usage more than two thousand years earlier
xXsakkelaoXx 3 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx
It proves nothing at all, because the word Chug means a flat disc.
rkyeun 3 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx It's not a RELATED MODERN word--it's an UNRELATED word that ISAIAH HIMSELF USED!!!
shanedk 3 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx "Let me point out: a related modern Hebrew word does mean a "ball". "
Which one?
"However, this proves little if anything"
Because it is a lie with no evidence to back it up.
"for modern usage has very little bearing on usage more than two thousand years earlier"
Usage that we have proven from examples always meant flat circle. Your inability to read is not a valid premise to defend your flat Earth myths. Especially given the other examples we gave you.
johnrainrules 3 weeks ago
@rkyeun What it boils down to: While a sphere is a duwr, it is not the only thing that is a duwr, so it would not be sufficient for the absurd precision-demands of modern Skeptics, who would simply assume that the text is saying that the earth is in the shape of a circle, as in Is. 29:3.
xXsakkelaoXx 3 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx "Skeptics, who would simply assume that the text is saying that the earth is in the shape of a circle, as in Is. 29:3. "
Or Skeptics who would look at the very next verse and see the sky is a dome like tent. Impossible on a sphere.
Also notice your example says that Dur may not be a sphere, not Chuwg can be anything other than a flat disc.
johnrainrules 3 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx
There is a difference between merely being skeptical of your claim and demonstrating it to be a lie. We are beyond the former and have reached the latter. Your argument is backward. You should be arguing that Chug, the word used to refer to the Earth's shape, means sphere, rather than that Dur, the word meaning sphere, might also mean flat.
rkyeun 3 weeks ago
@rkyeun Are you an idiot, probably not, just misinterprating what I actually said.
xXsakkelaoXx 3 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx
It doesn't do you any good to lie about what you said when your words are still right here on the page for people to read.
rkyeun 3 weeks ago
@rkyeun "It doesn't do you any good to lie about what you said"
I agree, where have I lied? please point that out.
xXsakkelaoXx 3 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx
At least twice per sentence in every comment on this page. I only have 500 characters.
rkyeun 3 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx It would be quicker to point out the times where you HAVEN'T lied!
shanedk 3 weeks ago
@shanedk
Agreed. I'll make a list.
Ø
rkyeun 3 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx "There was no varying word for a "sphere" - a three-dimensional circle."
Bullshit! I just gave it to you! The Hebrew word "Duwr"--in fact, Isaiah used it in 22:18!
YOU ARE A LIAR--even about YOUR OWN BIBLE!!!
shanedk 3 weeks ago
@shanedk "Bullshit! I just gave it to you! The Hebrew word "Duwr"--in fact, Isaiah used it in 22:18!"
Note that it is related, not the same word
What it boils down to: While a sphere is a duwr, it is not the only thing that is a duwr, so it would not be sufficient for the absurd precision-demands of modern Skeptics, who would simply assume that the text is saying that the earth is in the shape of a circle, as in Is. 29:3.
xXsakkelaoXx 3 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx Right--it's NOT the same word! THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT!!!
Isaiah KNEW and USED a word for a round sphere, but in 40:22 he SPECIFICALLY chose a word that ONLY means a flat disc!
shanedk 3 weeks ago
@xXsukkitnaoXx
Hey, retard. Pay attention this time.
The Bible uses Chug for the shape of the Earth. Not Dur.
You need to prove that Chug means sphere instead of circle.
Not that circles are sometimes Dur.
rkyeun 3 weeks ago
@xXsakkelaoXx "What it boils down to: While a sphere is a duwr, it is not the only thing that is a duwr,"
While the word we were talking about Chuwg is always a flat disc. Nice trying to change the subject when you were caught lying.
johnrainrules 3 weeks ago
"Despite this need to detect and correct error, formal peer review has serious shortcomings. For example, Callaham et al. (1998) described an experiment in which a manuscript with 23 deliberate flaws was sent to 124 reviewers. Ten of these flaws invalidated the entire study, and thirteen were less severe. The reviewers detected an average of 3.4 of the major flaws and 3.1 of the minor flaws."
answersingenesis . org/articles/arj/v1/n1/theology-peer-review
xXsakkelaoXx 3 weeks ago