Creation vs. Evolution

[Yorzhik]

I think this conversation has run its course. Tyrathca shows no interest in having a conversation knowing it is best to do an Abbot and Costello routine instead.

Chuck (Bud Abbott): No, you don’t understand, when I say Moose kept the money in his head that’s just a figure of speech. Ferdie (Lou Costello): Oh, figure of speech. Chuck (Bud Abbott): You know what a figure of speech is, don’t you? Ferdie (Lou Costello): Oh yeah, everybody knows that. Chuck (Bud Abbott): What is it? Ferdie (Lou Costello): A figure of speech is just like if I said to you, uh, that’s water under the bridge. Chuck (Bud Abbott): What bridge? Ferdie (Lou Costello): How would I know what bridge? Chuck (Bud Abbott): Then how do you know there’s any water under it? Ferdie (Lou Costello): There’s gotta be water under it, so the boats can go up and down! Chuck (Bud Abbott): Up and down? Suppose they want to cross? Ferdie (Lou Costello): I’m a sucker for arguing with this guy. Chuck (Bud Abbott): Why do you start these arguments? Ferdie (Lou Costello): You asked me if I knew what a figure of speech was, and I said just like water under the bridge. I shoulda said gone with the wind. Camille: What wind? Ferdie (Lou Costello): Am I gonna have trouble with you now? Ferdie (Lou Costello): When I said “gone with the wind” it was a figure of speech—like “never the twain shall meet.” Camille: What twain?

Good job Tyrathca, just call me Costello.

Which would mean that the transmission phase and "noise" happens with the mRNA not DNA, so any analysis using Shannon information would be meaningless to your argument. This is why the question of "when" matters, that you don't seem to understand what processes you are describing makes me think you don't understand even basic cellular biochemistry.
If it is obvious you should be able to answer my simple question

You can't though because you don't know, do you? You just keep stating your premise is true and claiming it is obvious because you don't know enough about Shannon information, cells or DNA to actually answer anything further about it.

Do you really want to go on record as saying I don't know the general steps taken from DNA to protein?

But it's basis is math, it's conclusions are math and it's implications are derived from the math.

The problems the math are dealing with is where we are stuck - you have yet to define what we are applying Shannon information to (DNA alone is an insufficient answer). If you can't define the problem is such a way that we can actually apply the math of Shannon information then what is the obvious conclusion?

Math is not required until we can agree on the problem.

It could be a "code" but unfortunately until you can show it is every encoded, transmitted and then decoded it does not fit into Shannon information (you're the one saying we have to limit ourselves to that, no using colloquial or other definitions of code interchangeably with Shannon's!)

It is code because it is not protein, but the proteins DNA makes will be changed in a predictable way if a certain error is introduced.

To be clear what do you mean by "selected"? Is this a vague arbitrary point in time set by you? Is DNA encoded before or after it is selected? Are you saying that DNA is being "transmitted" after it is selected? What is mRNA's part in this? (given it would always exist between "selection" [start point] and protein being made [end point] and to me would fit far better into the encoded-transmitted-decoded paradigm)

Before a protein is made, the portion of DNA that encodes for it is selected out of the rest of the DNA.

So you don't know?

That does not mean it is ever encoded by the way. Or that the "damage" occurs during transmission. If I damage/change an assembly that too can cause a predictable damage/change to it's end product, would that mean the assembly line has been encoded and is being transmitted? You're right it is fascinating to watch your extreme passion to never answer simple questions such as when DNA is encoded or even admitting the reality you don't even understand cells and DNA enough to recognise mRNA.

You seem to be implying, again, that I don't know the general steps taken for a protein to be made from DNA. Are you sure you want to say that? It isn't more complicated than this.

 

[Yorzhik]

Let's just accept your proposals about Shannon and DNA for the sake of progressing to the meat of your argument if it exists. What have you proved? What would be so "devastating" about applying Shannon's theories to DNA expression into protein or duplication?

DNA expression into protein or duplication is just a single simple example. There are a host of other communication events that take place in the cell, and is especially relevant when we are talking about these communications that take place during conception. All of these exhibit the same model where encoded information can encounter noise before it is decoded. That's all pretty obvious, correct?

 

[6days]

Atheists have to believe that nothing created everything....

Or they believe that something has always existed.

Which really means that atheists admit they don't know

So are you agreeing that atheists have one of those two choices?

the answer while Christians pretend they do.

We have come to KNOW what we believe to be true based on the absolute truth of God's Word.

Yes... Thanks. Because of the evidence for creation, our world has benefitted through some of the things I mentioned.

How has creationism led to those things? What product, technique, scientific breakthrough, whatever came about due to a creationism based prediction of the world?

A hospital made by a creationist is no more evidence of creationism benefits than a refugee camp created by evolutionists is evidence of evolution.

Not really true because no refugee camp...hospital....museum etc has ever been founded because of a belief in atheism. It is reasonably easy to show how many of those things, as well as modern science itself have been founded based on the belief in the Creator God of the Bible.

Loren Eiseley, famed evolutionary anthropologist said‘The philosophy of experimental science … began its discoveries and made use of its methods in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had set in operation… It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption.'
From his book 'Darwin’s Century: Evolution and the Men who Discovered It'

 

[Tyrathca]

Math is not required until we can agree on the problem.

It is code because it is not protein, but the proteins DNA makes will be changed in a predictable way if a certain error is introduced.

Before a protein is made, the portion of DNA that encodes for it is selected out of the rest of the DNA.

Fine, lets say we will just apply Shannon information and ignore our disagreement and see how far we can run with it. By the way this means we will have to start using math at some point (otherwise we can't claim any conclusions form Shannon information)

To be clear we are talking about DNA selected -> transmission -> decoded message (Protein produced) when we are to apply Shannon information?

You seem to be implying, again, that I don't know the general steps taken for a protein to be made from DNA. Are you sure you want to say that? It isn't more complicated than this.

If I didn't have to keep reminding you when you are talking about mRNA and not DNA I wouldn't feel the need to imply/say outright anything of the sort. And true nothing we've talked about so far or are likely to talk about is more complicated than that, though it confuses me if you understand it why you then the only thing you've mentioned from it is "DNA" and "protein" so far (including this post of yours).

I will in future posts however try to talk to you in terminology which assumes you understood that entire video.

 

[Yorzhik]

“Those HDF pictures”??? As far as what Enyart was talking about, “those” consists of a single image.

Yes. For us laymen with regular monitors, the HDF picture is broken up into a number of smaller pictures.

What do you mean “label” them? Do you want a little “ID name tag” placed under each object in the HDF image, or perhaps some info about what it is? Be a bit more specific in what you think is lacking.

Distance.

Do you know that? Have you actually looked to see what information is available?

I have.

This is a new use of the term “common descent” in my experience. So far, previously when I was presented with that term, it was referring to Darwin’s theory of life descending from a common ancestor. How that applies to identifying what is seen in the HDF is beyond me.

I'm sure you understand the argument, but playing stupid is far better for your argument than having an honest conversation.

Having spent my whole life in science, I am not even a teeny bit impressed by creationist accusations of wholesale deception and dishonesty in the scientific community. I would be very surprised if some of your friends/family/neighbors aren’t honest scientists and faithful Christians at the same time.

Now that there have been so many examples of good people being drummed out of their positions because they dare question the common descent dogma that your platitude is even more unimpressive.

Once again, what would you, as a layman, want to see in THAT (not “those”) picture as far as labels?

Distance.

 

[MichaelCadry]

God created it all... out of nothing. See?
Yup. Darwin first published his ideas in the 1850's.
By your own admission you've had 5,000 years and have nothing to show for it.
Evolution has had a mere 150 years and looks at the revolution it has caused within the biological sciences with implications from agriculture to ecological protection to medicine etc. If creationists were going to prove itself it should have done it by now, instead its just an outdated and obsolete idea like the 4 humors (ancient medicine) or flat earth. We've learnt better and moved on as a species, you should too and realise the truth. No, they are nothing alike. Just... no.... where do I even begin?
So you're argument basically dumbs down to - you have no reasons to say you're right but just believe you because you have a really really good feeling about it? Then failing that to smugly just taunt "you'll see"? What exactly is there to discuss about this? What is the point of this conversation if all you want to do is just say is you're right and we should just believe because you said so?

Dear Tyrathca,

God did not create it out of nothing. He probably created it out of hydrogen and other elements. We do not know what elements, if we even know them yet, of what God's Spirit is made up of. But I suppose He glows, like the angels, and Jesus when He was transfigured. I would guess His Spirit has hydrogen in it, which He made the Universe and the Sun, and the host of Heaven partially out of. I've seen and been spoken to the first angel that visited me. He glowed brightly indeed, I guess it was hydrogen too. But it was a softer light than the sun. Maybe because he was so much smaller than the sun. Two other angels visited me, and spoke, but I did not see them. They both spoke to me during the afternoon. I couldn't take my eyes away from watching the angel!! And the Lord God also visited me. His voice was booming, loud and commanding! You do not know anything about my life. You should read my book. It's FREE online. If you want to know how to get it, let me know and I will explain it to you. Otherwise, this will be a little longer than it already is going to be.

In over 5,000 years, much of the world believes in God and many in the story of Creation, like the Christians and Muslims. How many of them are in the Earth compared to scientists or evolutionists, or atheists???!!! Try millions!! So 5,000 years has done just fine. I am not against scientists or biologists. The Lord God speaks to their thoughts to give them their ideas to invent this or that, or to cure this or that. But it is the devil who speaks to the mind of Darwin, and now others, that man evolved or that evolution is the way things came about. God Created Everything!! I could go on.

I do not taunt or be smug. I don't speak because I say so! I speak what the Lord God and angels have taught me! Read My Book, if you care to. Go to www.jesusreturningverysoon.com
Once there, go on the left of the picture of Jesus and the clouds, and you will see 'Book Copy.' Left-click on that. Then click on 'SKU-text2.pdf
Once there, my Title Page is on the third page. The first two pages are blank {for autographs and readers' notes}. The third page says "What Your Eyes Have Not Seen." That is the title of my book. You can flip through the pages using your up and down arrow cursor keys on your keyboard. The book is 88 pages long and is double-spaced, in simple language, as the Lord told me, and is easy to read. Perhaps you could read it in two hours. It is best if you look up the Scriptural references I quote in the book in the Bible or on the Internet.

There you go, Tyrathca, and to all on this website. Go for it and find out where I'm coming from. There's TONS more that has happened to me that I can hardly include in this post. I will get going for now.

Thanks & Warm Regards, Tyrathca,

Michael

P.S. Are you a GIRL or a GUY?? I keep asking.

 

[MichaelCadry]

*sigh* Yes I did Michael, you even responded saying you were glad I wasn't a warlock... It was you who never answered MY question, why were you even asking this?
That's pointless and rude to do here Michael. This is a DISCUSSION forum, once people think that you don't want to discuss what you are posting them they are unlikely to bother reading it and expecting people to do so (when you obviously wouldn't do the same) is rude. You could have just posted a link to the books if people were interested, but in reality we are all perfectly capable of searching online for sources to read which are much better than that silly book (you haven't even said why you like that book other than you obviously agree with it, why should we take it seriously?)

Dear Tyrathca,

I'm sorry. I did not answer your questions, I think, in my previous post to you. I do think I asked you, but you never did say if you were male or female, which I was also wondering.

The reason I take his book seriously {at least the essays/chapters I posted} is because they are true and I know them to be basically the truth. He might be off on some of his years, but he's trying. He did a good job.

Okay, I've answered these questions. Hope that does the trick.

The Very Best To You And Yours!!

Michael

 

[Tyrathca]

Dear Tyrathca,

God did not create it out of nothing. He probably created it out of hydrogen and other elements.

And where did this hydrogen come from? Did it always exist? (which means you are making a prediction about physics - i.e. proton decay does not occur)

If it didn't always exist then I presume it come from nothing

We do not know what elements, if we even know them yet, of what God's Spirit is made up of. But I suppose He glows, like the angels, and Jesus when He was transfigured. I would guess His Spirit has hydrogen in it, which He made the Universe and the Sun, and the host of Heaven partially out of.

Waaaaaiiiiiitttt........ God is made of matter? Ummmm..... Seriously? So he didn't create space-time?

I've seen and been spoken to the first angel that visited me. He glowed brightly indeed, I guess it was hydrogen too.

Unless he was made of a hydrogen plasma I doubt it. It would mean that angels are actually self-sustaining magnetic fields containing said super-dense hydrogen plasma in an improbable humanoid shape. Do you even know what hydrogen is? Or why the sun is bright?

And the Lord God also visited me. His voice was booming, loud and commanding! You do not know anything about my life. You should read my book. It's FREE online. If you want to know how to get it, let me know and I will explain it to you. Otherwise, this will be a little longer than it already is going to be.

Unless it is relevant to our discussion I have no interest in your book or your hallucinations. I don't believe you have any interest in actually discussing it anyway, you'll just want to tell me you're right and expect me to just believe (and get angry when I don't - I'm not being rude, this is what you've done before)

In over 5,000 years, much of the world believes in God and many in the story of Creation, like the Christians and Muslims. How many of them are in the Earth compared to scientists or evolutionists, or atheists???!!! Try millions!!

Many christians are evolutionists, depending on the denomination the rates vary from 24-58% within the USA.

Also non-religious people possibly make up about 10-22% of the worlds population (i.e. potentially more than 1 billion) though data is difficulty to collect worldwide on such a question.

Then again what does it matter? Millions of people still believe in homeopathy and astrology so we know lots of people can still believe in stupid things. Truth and science isn't a democracy

I do not taunt or be smug. I don't speak because I say so! I speak what the Lord God and angels have taught me! Read My Book, if you care to. Go to www.jesusreturningverysoon.com
Once there, go on the left of the picture of Jesus and the clouds, and you will see 'Book Copy.' Left-click on that. Then click on 'SKU-text2.pdf
Once there, my Title Page is on the third page. The first two pages are blank {for autographs and readers' notes}. The third page says "What Your Eyes Have Not Seen." That is the title of my book. You can flip through the pages using your up and down arrow cursor keys on your keyboard. The book is 88 pages long and is double-spaced, in simple language, as the Lord told me, and is easy to read. Perhaps you could read it in two hours. It is best if you look up the Scriptural references I quote in the book in the Bible or on the Internet.

There you go, Tyrathca, and to all on this website. Go for it and find out where I'm coming from. There's TONS more that has happened to me that I can hardly include in this post. I will get going for now.

Do you have a section about why we should believe you? Why believe that you spoke to god and not the literally millions of other people to claim the same thing over the last few millennia?

If not I shall not waste my time for now, a story without a reason to believe it is just a story.

P.S. Are you a GIRL or a GUY?? I keep asking.

I'm male. And not a warlock/wizard/whatever (in case you felt the need to ask again)

 

[MichaelCadry]

Good luck.

Gee, Michael, you've been on this thread for how many years now? And still, you don't even get the most fundamental basics. If I didn't know any better, one would have to assume you're deliberately playing stupid.

evidence trumps fairy tales!

Dear TheDuke,

Our predictions of Jesus Returning will come true soon. So I won't need Good luck.

I've been on this thread for so long because God is with this thread and most of the people on this thread, including you. I'm not deliberately playing stupid. See my post to Tyrathca and you can read my book and find out who I am and that I get my info from the Lord God and angels. Check it out! {See Post #16457, near the end}

God Be With You,

Michael

 

[Tyrathca]

The reason I take his book seriously {at least the essays/chapters I posted} is because they are true and I know them to be basically the truth.

I believe they are true because they are true is a tautology. It is not a reason. It is not something with which we can have a discussion about (unless you think "is too! / is not!" is a discussion fit for anyone other than children)

He might be off on some of his years, but he's trying. He did a good job.

He may be trying but he didn't do a "good job" and when it comes to science you don't get much kudos for effort, results are what matter.

 

[MichaelCadry]

And where did this hydrogen come from? Did it always exist? (which means you are making a prediction about physics - i.e. proton decay does not occur)

If it didn't always exist then I presume it come from nothing

Waaaaaiiiiiitttt........ God is made of matter? Ummmm..... Seriously? So he didn't create space-time? Unless he was made of a hydrogen plasma I doubt it. It would mean that angels are actually self-sustaining magnetic fields containing said super-dense hydrogen plasma in an improbable humanoid shape. Do you even know what hydrogen is? Or why the sun is bright? Unless it is relevant to our discussion I have no interest in your book or your hallucinations. I don't believe you have any interest in actually discussing it anyway, you'll just want to tell me you're right and expect me to just believe (and get angry when I don't - I'm not being rude, this is what you've done before)
Many christians are evolutionists, depending on the denomination the rates vary from 24-58% within the USA.

Also non-religious people possibly make up about 10-22% of the worlds population (i.e. potentially more than 1 billion) though data is difficulty to collect worldwide on such a question.

Then again what does it matter? Millions of people still believe in homeopathy and astrology so we know lots of people can still believe in stupid things. Truth and science isn't a democracy

Do you have a section about why we should believe you? Why believe that you spoke to god and not the literally millions of other people to claim the same thing over the last few millennia?

If not I shall not waste my time for now, a story without a reason to believe it is just a story.
I'm male. And not a warlock/wizard/whatever (in case you felt the need to ask again)

Dear Tyrathca,

God was In The Beginning. Jesus said He is the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End. It always existed as long as God was here, before any Universe, or Earth, or angel, or man.

I didn't say that God was matter. He is a gas or combination of them. A Spirit is gas. Just like air, freon, hydrogen, helium, oxygen, the wind; you know they are there, but you can't see them. God is like that, which is what a person is when they leave their bodies. The spirit of a man resides in his soul. His soul resides in his earthly body. God, Jesus, and angels can take on human forms, but the Spirit in them is of God. Same as man. But in man is also another spirit called evil spirit. So man is a combination of the two. A person's personality often is a result of how much of each spirit they have in them. For example, a good person has a lot of God's or good spirit in them and a bad person has a lot of Satan's or evil spirit in them. There's TONS you don't know yet. But you won't read my book. That's your story, morning glory.

I would guess that God's spirit also has some helium in it. That is why the sun shines so brightly. There is no telling what the Lord God's Spirit is made of, for He hasn't disclosed it. When He appeared to Moses, Moses saw His back. That's about all it says about God in human form. I know more, but won't go into it for now. You won't read my book.

Astrology is not of God. It is of Satan. Many Christians believe in evolution also. That is because there is another spirit from Satan in them causing them to believe it. In other words, they have a devil. Big deal. Most men have some degree of evil spirit within them. Some not too much at all. But that's why we are human. We are on this Earth to choose between good and evil. That was the story also given us in the story of Adam and Eve, at the beginning.

If you read my book, you might have a reason why you should believe me. Sure there are many who have said they've heard God speak to them, but they had a devil. But there were many who actually heard God speak to them. They are called Jesus, Moses, prophets, disciples, apostles, witnesses, and good men. A goodly amount also.

I know why you don't want to read my book. Because you're afraid of finding out the truth, or that you may have been wrong, or that you might start believing in Him, and Jesus, etc. You're defiant, stubborn, and don't want to be found to be wrong. That is IT in a nutshell.

I'll get going for now. If you read my book, you would know a more complete picture of the story. I know you don't want to know that either.

Thanks, Dude!

Michael

 

[gcthomas]

DNA expression into protein or duplication is just a single simple example. There are a host of other communication events that take place in the cell, and is especially relevant when we are talking about these communications that take place during conception. All of these exhibit the same model where encoded information can encounter noise before it is decoded. That's all pretty obvious, correct?

Why can't you clearly explain what you imply? WHAT is it that you think applying Shannon's theories to DNA transcription says about evolution?

I keep asking and you do nothing but wriggle and avoid answering. No wonder others have become convinced you are not the expert you claim to be.

 

[Tyrathca]

I didn't say that God was matter. He is a gas or combination of them. A Spirit is gas. Just like air, freon, hydrogen, helium, oxygen, the wind; you know they are there, but you can't see them.

First of all - gas = matter, second of all I can see gases sometimes, example being the sky is blue (rayliegh scattering in the gases). I can also feel it and detect it through a range of means.

Gas is just a less dense form of matter than liquids and solids. There is nothing mystical or supernatural about gas. If god is made of hydrogen gas he is therefore made of matter, the most simple and uncomplicated matter at that.

There's TONS you don't know yet. But you won't read my book.

Mainly because you refuse to justify why I should believe a word you say, apparently your book doesn't have a section about that. Also what you say reads like you've made it up as you've gone along and have don't even have a high school level science education.

If you give me a reason to believe what you say then I'll read it. But you wont because you don't have a reason other than you have a realy good feeling about it.

I would guess that God's spirit also has some helium in it. That is why the sun shines so brightly.

You "guess"?!?!? Why do you guess that and why is god made of matter?

The reason why the sun is bright is not because of helium (a helium balloon isn't bright) it is because that hydrogen and helium is undergoing fusion and it is essentially a massive ball of superheated plasma (the sun is not made of gas). Scientists know quite a lot about the sun, you obviously do not...

Astrology is not of God. It is of Satan.

And lots of people still believe in it (not me) so clearly neither of us can trust large groups of random people about the truth of things.

I know why you don't want to read my book. Because you're afraid of finding out the truth, or that you may have been wrong, or that you might start believing in Him, and Jesus, etc. You're defiant, stubborn, and don't want to be found to be wrong. That is IT in a nutshell.

I have a lot of books to read already, I'm not going to waste my time with another unless I have a good reason to. You're too afraid to justify your book however.

 

[Caino]

I thought of this thread when I saw this video.

Earth is fixed?

 

[DavisBJ]

Scholars muddy up the Bible

Scholars muddy up the Bible

And there are qualified scholars who do agree with me.

I would think that one of the primary goals of the scholars that translated the Bible into English would be to use the English words that most accurately convey the meaning of the original author. I am sure the Bible translators were fully aware of the spherical shape of the earth, and I expect they were competent in understanding old Hebrew. Why didn’t they use an English word that clearly and correctly described the shape of the earth?

(Your scholar BTW taught Latin and Greek courses, not Hebrew)

Except I didn’t identify any specific scholar. I only linked to an article, in which the author draws on work from several other scholars and sources. Did you even bother to actually read it? He specifies what sources he relied on when dealing with Hebrew.

All you have offered is a vague allusion to scholars who agree with you.

 

[TheDuke]

Dear TheDuke,

Our predictions of Jesus Returning will come true soon. So I won't need Good luck.

I've been on this thread for so long because God is with this thread and most of the people on this thread, including you. I'm not deliberately playing stupid. See my post to Tyrathca and you can read my book and find out who I am and that I get my info from the Lord God and angels. Check it out! {See Post #16457, near the end}

God Be With You,

Michael

I hope you'll be just as correct as every other doomsday fetishist generations before you.

You'll have to verify the post number again, I'm afraid, the one you stated wasn't from you.

Cheers!

 

[TheDuke]

I know enough about it to know that what I said was correct.

Hurray - Dunning-Kruger in action!

Atheists have to believe that nothing created everything....
Or they believe that something has always existed.

Have you not heard: atheists don't have to and usually don't believe when they don't know the facts. This is called being reasonable and honest. Unlike theists as yourself, who feel so proud cause they've an answer for everything:

That's just mental masturbation!

In a manner of speaking, you are wrong. From Wiki... "The proposal that one type of organism could descend from another type goes back to some of the first pre-Socratic Greek philosophers, such as Anaximander and Empedocles"

As it turns out, you're still very wrong.
Anaximander said: "life originated from the moisture that covered the earth before it was dried up by the sun. Originally, men were generated from fishes and were fed in the manner of a viviparous shark." But I see why you'd think this refers to descent with modification IF you apply the same kind of semantic contortions as you do in bible class (we'll get there, patience...)
Empedocles said: "First of all individual limbs and organs were produced from the earth. These wandered separately at first and then under the combining power of Love they came together in all sorts of wild and seemingly random hybrid combinations, producing double fronted creatures, hermaphrodites, ox-faced man creatures and man-faced ox-creatures. The creatures assembled wrongly from parts of disparate animals will die out and only the creatures by chance put together from homogeneous limbs will survive and so go on to found the species that we see today." Now that sounds actually very poetic, especially if taken into context of his holistic views on the nature of plants and animals.

As you can see, none of it pertains to the evolutionary concepts that resulted from actual scientific investigation. The philosophers of old had a very vibrant imagination, that should give you a clue about how your precious book came about....



But all of this is actually just trivia, now let's get to business.

From the oldest book in God's Word
Job 26:7 "God stretches the northern sky over empty space and hangs the earth on nothing"

Isaiah 40:22 says that God “sits above the circle of the earth”. The Hebrew word 'Khug' implies ball-shaped, and we see people in the years after Isaiah discussing our ball shaped earth

So, remember what I told you recently about quote-mining your lord and saviour? Let's have a look at the entire picture, shall we:

Job 26:7 depending on the translation it's empty space/empty place. In the original it's the same term as was used in Genesis: "Tohu". According to this, it's a very wide stretch to equate the term with the cosmic "space".

Let's take a look into other gems from the same chapter:
26:11 The pillars of heaven tremble and are astonished at his reproof.
28:24 For he looketh to the ends of the earth, and seeth under the whole heaven;
37:3 He directeth it under the whole heaven, and his lightning unto the ends of the earth.
And just for the lulz, let's add
1 Samuel 2:8 ... for the pillars of the earth are the Lord's, and he hath set the world upon them.

Still think we're a planet? :duh:

And now let's see the other verse in fullness:
40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
Yeah, only with a massive amount of wishful thinking can you transform this flat disc into a sphere. I dunno, maybe the guys who judged Galileo had a wrong interpretation of it???
Anyway your contention with the term used: "Khug" can be resolved by looking at what it means. Sorry, no 3-d objects to be found here.

Now wasn't this fun? I hope you enjoyed it as much as I did.



And if I employed the same logic as you do, I'd have to insist that anyone who believes in creation, has to accept a flat earth as well.

This is your reality:

 

[6days]

Have you not heard: atheists don't have to and usually don't believe when they don't know the facts.

Sooooooo NOT TRUE. *

Anaximander said: "life originated from the moisture that covered the earth before it was dried up by the sun. Originally, men were generated from fishes and were fed in the manner of a viviparous shark.

Yes... as I said*
"Evolutionism in one form or another has existed for thousands of years."*

Isaiah 40:22*says that God “sits above the circle of the earth”. The Hebrew word 'Khug' implies ball-shaped, and we see people in the years after Isaiah discussing our ball shaped earth

Yeah, only with a massive amount of wishful thinking can you transform this flat disc into a sphere.

Ha.... Perhaps it is atheists who are doing the wishful thinking. *We see that early commentators understood the earth was a ball.*

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia says *“The Earth a Sphere—Certain astronomical relations were recognized very early. The stars appear as if attached to a globe rotating round the earth once in 24 hours, and this appearance was clearly familiar to the author of the Book of Job, and indeed long before the time of Abraham, since the formation of the constellations could not have been effected without such recognition. But the spherical form of the heavens almost involves a similar form for the earth, and their apparent diurnal rotation certainly means that they are not rigidly connected with the earth, but surround it on all sides at some distance from it. The earth therefore must be freely suspended in space, and so the Book of Job describes it: ‘He stretcheth out the north over empty space, and hangeth the earth upon nothing’ (Job 26:7).”

I dunno, maybe the guys who judged Galileo had a wrong interpretation of it???

The Galileo story is pertinent in that he stood up for the Bible.... and not religious leaders who bowed to 'science' of his day. Many religious leaders today could take a lesson here. God's Word should be our source of absolute truth.*

It would seem from this Galileo quote that he was scolding religious leaders who had compromised on God's Word ""It seems to me that it was well said by Madama Serenissima, and insisted on by your reverence, that the Holy Scripture cannot err, and that the decrees therein contained are absolutely true and inviolable. But I should have in your place added that, though Scripture cannot err, its expounders and interpreters are liable to err in many ways; and one error in particular would be most grave and most frequent, if we always stopped short at the literal signification of the words."

 

[6days]

*

I would think that one of the primary goals of the scholars that translated the Bible into English would be to use the English words that most accurately convey the meaning of the original author. I am sure the Bible translators were fully aware of the spherical shape of the earth, and I expect they were competent in understanding old Hebrew. Why didn’t they use an English word that clearly and correctly described the shape of the earth?

Good question Davis.

The Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible says
"It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth". But most translation teams try stay as close as possible to an actual translation...not a paraphrase. That is why many modern translations use outdated words such as 'brethern', even though it is clear from the text it is referring to both male and female.*

(Your scholar BTW taught Latin and Greek courses, not Hebrew)

Except I didn’t identify any specific scholar. I only linked to an article, in which the author draws on work from several other scholars and sources. Did you even bother to actually read it? He specifies what sources he relied on when dealing with Hebrew.

Apologies..... The article was good... well written. but I disagree with his conclusion. We could look at a few other verses and we can also look at what some of the earliest commentators said. We can even see secularists from early times understood the earth to be round. (I think circumference was known even before the time of Jesus)

 

[DavisBJ]

Earth Sphere Score: 6days 4%, opposition 96%

Earth Sphere Score: 6days 4%, opposition 96%

The Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible says
"It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth".

More specifically, according to Bible Gateway, of 51 translations into English, they translate “circle of the earth” as follows:

1 uses “globe” in place of circle
1 uses “round ball” in place of circle
1 uses “whole” in place of circle
1 uses “sky” in place of circle
1 uses “disc” in place of circle
1 uses “vault” in place of circle
1 uses “compass” in place of circle
4 use “horizon” in place of circle
5 omit “circle” entirely
and 35 use “circle”​

So only 2 translations (4%) seem to clearly support your claim of a spherical earth, while the others do not, including by far the most popularly used translations (King James, New King James, New International, New American Standard, Common English, English Standard, New Living).

But most translation teams try stay as close as possible to an actual translation...not a paraphrase.

Apples and oranges. “Paraphrase” often means to restate in a clearer way. But of all books, the Bible is the one in which the “translation” needs to be both accurate and clear.

The article was good... well written. But I disagree with his conclusion. We could look at a few other verses and we can also look at what some of the earliest commentators said.

Go ahead. So far, you have given a pretty anemic defense of your unqualified claim to Tyrathca that “The Bible however talks about earth as a sphere in space.”

We can even see secularists from early times understood the earth to be round. (I think circumference was known even before the time of Jesus)

Doesn’t matter what secularists thought or what was known about circumference. What matters is what the original Bible said.