The Theory of Evolution

[Philosopher]

Chapter 2

The Universe Confirms the Bible

by Dr. Jason Lisle

The number of the stars

The Bible often uses the “stars of heaven” to represent an extremely large quantity. Genesis 22:17 teaches that God would multiply Abraham’s descendants “"as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is on the sea shore."” Genesis 32:12 makes it clear that this represents a number which is uncountable by humans: “"the sand of the sea, which cannot be numbered for multitude."”2 These are excellent analogies. Clearly the sand of the sea and the stars in the universe cannot be counted exactly by humans, though of course, they can be roughly estimated. Interestingly, the two quantities come out to about the same order of magnitude: 1022, or ten billion trillion, give or take a factor of ten or so.3 (For other verses using stars as an illustration of large numbers, see Deuteronomy 1:10 and 10:22.)

It was not always believed that the stars were so numerous. The astronomer Claudius Ptolemy (A.D. 150) cataloged 1,022 stars in his work The Almagest.4 Many astronomers believed that these were the only stars that existed, even though Ptolemy never claimed that his catalogue was exhaustive.5 Of course, there are many more stars than this number. The total number of stars that can be distinctly seen (from both hemispheres under ideal, dark sky conditions) with the unaided eye is around 10,000. The precise number depends on how good one’s vision is.

Today, with the help of modern science, we have an even greater appreciation of just how innumerable the stars are. Powerful telescopes allow us to see stars much too distant and faint to be seen without optical aid. Even binoculars reveal countless multitudes of stars that cannot be seen by the unaided eye. It is estimated that our galaxy alone contains over 100 billion stars. Astronomers believe that there are more galaxies in the visible universe than there are stars in our own. Each of these galaxies would have hundreds of millions to trillions of stars. Modern science certainly confirms Genesis 22:17.

https://answersingenesis.org/answers/books/taking-back-astronomy/the-universe-confirms-the-bible/

[spitfire]

Excellent. The earth hangs on nothing. Gravitational forces do not exist

The number of the stars. Actually, they don't even know what a star is.

Best of the best. The earth is round. Well it's not round exactly nor does saying round means spherical. The circle is round. A discus is round.
4Π is what they should have said, but out of ignorance, they don't. Let alone the fact that even the New testament talks about a flat Earth.



Needless to say of course that Philosopher keeps quoting creationists.

[Philosopher]

Excellent. The earth hangs on nothing. Gravitational forces do not exist

The Book of Job is poetry and prose. God is expressing that the earth hangs in space on nothing. The idea that God is going to explain a concept of gravitational forces to a man living before 1500 BC is a bid absurd.

You obviously do not understand the Bible and Revelation.

I ask you, Spitfire, do you know of any ancient text that speaks of the earth hanging on nothing?

The number of the stars. Actually, they don't even know what a star is.

Care to elaborate?

Best of the best. The earth is round. Well it's not round exactly nor does saying round means spherical. The circle is round. A discus is round.4Π is what they should have said, but out of ignorance, they don't.

Let's see if we can define our terms:

A sphere (from Greek σφαῖρα — sphaira, "globe, ball"[1]) is a perfectly round geometrical and circular object in three-dimensional space that resembles the shape of a completely round ball. Like a circle, which, in geometric contexts, is in two dimensions, a sphere is defined mathematically as the set of points that are all the same distance r from a given point in three-dimensional space.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphere

The Hebrew word used for circle in Isaiah is “chug”. The word means circle, compass, sphere. Naturally, the word “sphere” is of Greek origin, and one should not expect the word sphere in the book of Isaiah or in the Old Testament in general. Of course, from a non-technical perspective, the earth is a circle, and it is clearly described as such to primitive men.

In His preparing the heavens I am there, in His decreeing a circle on the face of the deep”...

It is obvious from the context of the Old Testament, that the earth is described as a circular object in three-dimensional space, and that God “hung” it on nothing.

Let alone the fact that even the New testament talks about a flat Earth.

Not quite Spitfire. The cartoon illustration you give about Satan tempting Jesus on the mountain is problematic for several reasons.

First, the word Matthew uses for “world” is “kosmos”. The word Luke uses for world is “oikoumene”, which means “habitable earth or land”.

Thus the explanation maybe very mundane or supernatural. It could be that Satan showed Jesus the kingdoms visible to the naked eye, or revealed to him supernaturally the kingdoms of the planet. Either way, I fail to see how this denies a spherical planet.

Checkmate

[spitfire]

The Book of Job is poetry and prose. God is expressing that the earth hangs in space on nothing. The idea that God is going to explain a concept of gravitational forces to a man living before 1500 BC is a bid absurd.

You obviously do not understand the Bible and Revelation.

I ask you, Spitfire, do you know of any ancient text that speaks of the earth hanging on nothing?

How idiotic can a statement be that explains something and begins with proclaiming poetry and prose in a discussion about science?
I guess then you can say that for everything in an attempt to suit your meaning or what you say.

So, everything is poetic therefore not to be taken for granted.

Care to elaborate?

Do you know what a star is?

Let's see if we can define our terms:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphere

The Hebrew word used for circle in Isaiah is “chug”. The word means circle, compass, sphere. Naturally, the word “sphere” is of Greek origin, and one should not expect the word sphere in the book of Isaiah or in the Old Testament in general. Of course, from a non-technical perspective, the earth is a circle, and it is clearly described as such to primitive men.



It is obvious from the context of the Old Testament, that the earth is described as a circular object in three-dimensional space, and that God “hung” it on nothing.

Non technical perspective? Hangs from nothing?

Do you know what gravity is? Do you know what 4Π is? A sphere (4Π) does not "flow" in the universe. It is moving according to gravitational forces of other relevant in size celestial bodies. Where's that said in your book?

Not quite Spitfire. The cartoon illustration you give about Satan tempting Jesus on the mountain is problematic for several reasons.

First, the word Matthew uses for “world” is “kosmos”. The word Luke uses for world is “oikoumene”, which means “habitable earth or land”.

Thus the explanation maybe very mundane or supernatural. It could be that Satan showed Jesus the kingdoms visible to the naked eye, or revealed to him supernaturally the kingdoms of the planet. Either way, I fail to see how this denies a spherical planet.

Checkmate

I would appreciate it if you stopped copying me. The cartoon and caricature is what I say of you.
Be original for once. And stop using chess. You are a lousy chess player.

Are giving me two greek words? Are you actually trying to tell me the meaning of Kosmos and oikoumeni?
How pathetic can you be?

Go back and look at the verses on the drawing I posted. It's all there.

Supernatural explanations???? Again this is not to be taken literally therefore everything could be explained as such, therefore crap!

[Philosopher]

Supernatural explanations???? Again this is not to be taken literally therefore everything could be explained as such, therefore crap!

I see you failed to address and answer my comments.

So let me add to it.

Let me explain how incredibly stupid you are.

If we interpret the words literally (that of Jesus and Satan on the mountain), and a flat earth is being described, my question to you is how could human eyes see all the kingdoms of the world from a mountain in Jerusalem?

Matthew and Luke state that Satan showed Jesus all the kingdoms of the world. And yet we know no human eyes can see that far (whether in a spherical earth or a flat earth). It is not possible.

So let me repeat the obvious.

The verse is either referring to the kingdoms visible with the eye, or it is a supernatural encounter with a supernatural being.

And considering Jesus authored the Old Testament, where he states the earth is a circle, it would only make sense if in the New Testament the same rule would be applicable.

Checkmate.

[spitfire]

I see you failed to address and answer my comments.

So let me add to it.

Let me explain how incredibly stupid you are.

If we interpret the words literally (that of Jesus and Satan on the mountain), and a flat earth is being described, my question to you is how could human eyes see all the kingdoms of the world from a mountain in Jerusalem?

Matthew and Luke state that Satan showed Jesus all the kingdoms of the world. And yet we know no human eyes can see that far (whether in a spherical earth or a flat earth). It is not possible.

So let me repeat the obvious.

The verse is either referring to the kingdoms visible with the eye, or it is a supernatural encounter with a supernatural being.

And considering Jesus authored the Old Testament, where he states the earth is a circle, it would only make sense if in the New Testament the same rule would be applicable.

Checkmate.

It is you who does not answer. Therefore I cannot keep up discussing the obvious with you.

FIY a star is the sun for instance. The stars on your book are not actually stars.

Aphrodite (Venus) the planet is seen by us in the night sky (and early in the morning) but it is not a star. It is a planet. It reflects the sun's light just like the moon does.
The amount of reflection is measured in percentage. The earth also reflects light. 39% of the sun's light. Hence it has an albedo 0.39

That's the title of a music album by Vangelis. The music was used in Carl Sagan's Cosmos TV series.

Here's a clip. Cosmos, albedo of celestial bodies, stars and evolution combined.

Evolution Vangelis Alpha Cosmos - YouTube

THAT'S CHECKMATE!

[Philosopher]

It is you who does not answer. Therefore I cannot keep up discussing the obvious with you.

Not quite.

FIY a star is the sun for instance. The stars on your book are not actually stars.

What the hell are you writing? A star is a sun? You mean the sun is a star. Everyone knows the sun is a star. Stars on your book? What?

I think this phrase comes to mind:

Spitfire has a tendency, a proclivity if you will, to propagate rubbish.

How prophetic and true.

Aphrodite (Venus) the planet is seen by us in the night sky (and early in the morning) but it is not a star. It is a planet. It reflects the sun's light just like the moon does.

We all know a planet is not a star Spitfire.

What does any of this have to do with the stars mentioned in Genesis as being “innumerable”.

THAT'S CHECKMATE!

I see you like my phrase. It's too bad you can only copy my style...

[spitfire]

Not quite.

What the hell are you writing? A star is a sun? You mean the sun is a star. Everyone knows the sun is a star. Stars on your book? What?

I think this phrase comes to mind:

How prophetic and true.

We all know a planet is not a star Spitfire.

What does any of this have to do with the stars mentioned in Genesis as being “innumerable”.

I see you like my phrase. It's too bad you can only copy my style...

Blah-blah-blah.

In your book, everything in the sky is stars, yet you say everybody knows what a star is. Crap-crap-crap.

Goodnight. Listen to some music instead.

[Nikolaj]

Now you see that is why you haven't read the thread thorougly.
There is no macro-evolution happening. It's micro-evolution all the time. It's small gradual changes. There wasn't an ape and suddenly there was a man. There is no defining moment. You are making me repeat myself

No shit Einstein, it's a gradual process... I thought you could distinguish the difference between what macro evolution is/how it could happen, and evidence for it...

The problem usually is that people don't comprehend how evolution works entirely.

Your lack of arguments is what makes you use characterizations. I will not follow.

I never needed to provide arguments because you are clearly at the stage where you need to learn to interpret scientific data because you don't understand what it actually means when something is proposed. Like I said earlier in my previous post, you need to be able to distinguish the difference between 'best case scenario in support of evolution' and 'a realistic scenario', as well as what we think we have based on certain unproved assumptions instead of proved assumptions.

Regardless though, it is finals week and I don't want to get involved in any long forum discussions.

It's not a matter of belief. Science doesn't work that way. It's a matter of evidence.
It's like I said. When scientists don't work their understanding, by resorting to god they fill the gaps in an unscientific way. That's not science, that's creationism in disguise.

Who is the one resorting to a God here?

So let me get this straight, you have no evidence of macro evolution but you have an explanation on how it would work through micro evolution. I haven't seen any evidence of the outcome of macro evolution (like an animal being half this half that at a consistent or even inconstant level from fossil records), this is why myself; regardless of my beliefs, and many atheists cannot believe in evolution too - they don't work off belief either.

No Spitfire, e.g. I didn't resort to God when I was studying nuclear physics over 3-4 years ago in uni because I couldn't understand something.

I actually thought you would realise how degenerative it was to bring up something about a divine creator when I never mentioned one, here you go again but as if it has any relevance, you fail to understand when I speak of science, I speak as if I were an atheist.

[spitfire]

No shit Einstein, it's a gradual process... I thought you could distinguish the difference between what macro evolution is/how it could happen, and evidence for it...

So let me get this straight, you have no evidence of macro evolution but you have an explanation on how it would work through micro evolution.

Thanks for the laugh. No shit, it's gradual... yeah that's what happens when you accumulate gradual changes in the time domain. You end up with a big change in time. That's macro-evolution. All those micro-evolution changes.

Cool. You got it!

I haven't seen any evidence of the outcome of macro evolution

Now you ain't got it again. Well go to line #1.

(like an animal being half this half that at a consistent or even inconstant level from fossil records), this is why myself; regardless of my beliefs, and many atheists cannot believe in evolution too - they don't work off belief either.

Difference between belief and evidence. Fundamental. Scientist do not "believe". They show evidence.

No Spitfire, e.g. I didn't resort to God when I was studying nuclear physics over 3-4 years ago in uni because I couldn't understand something.

I actually thought you would realise how degenerative it was to bring up something about a divine creator when I never mentioned one, here you go again but as if it has any relevance, you fail to understand when I speak of science, I speak as if I were an atheist.

Out of curiosity. Where do you resort except science when the issue is scientific?

[Nikolaj]

Thanks for the laugh. No shit, it's gradual... yeah that's what happens when you accumulate gradual changes in the time domain. You end up with a big change in time. That's macro-evolution. All those micro-evolution changes.

Cool. You got it!

1) I asked you for evidence of macro evolution.
2) You then told me micro evolution is the evidence of macro evolution.
3) I then said of course it is, but where's the evidence?
4) You then blabber about macro evolution not being instantaneous.
5) I then say and? Of course its transitional. Implying, where's the evidence of this transition, not the outcome of the transition.
6) Then you try to belittle me (only for egotistical reasons), where I only had to explain it was transitional because you failed to understand what I meant as proof, using it against me as if I just learnt what macro evolution and micro evolution was - instead of actually answering my question thus this continuous loop of discussion as a result of you.

...
..
.

I won't even bother with you.

[Phoenix]

Why are the creationists so flexible about science, they seem to have a very dynamic and malleable approach to its acceptance.

Philosopher for example puts his entire trust and belief into the science of DNA but won't have anything to do with any aspect of evolution, this is the same with all the 'believers'...I find it a little bit hypocritical.

Hawking puts many of these issues in an interesting perspective, he believes that it's the 'cause and effect' mentality that people accept as (dare I say) 'gospel'...when clearly the entire physical universe operates at the quantum level, where 'cause and effect' mean jack shit...

[Nikolaj]

Why are the creationists so flexible about science, they seem to have a very dynamic and malleable approach to its acceptance.

Philosopher for example puts his entire trust and belief into the science of DNA but won't have anything to do with any aspect of evolution, this is the same with all the 'believers'...I find it a little bit hypocritical.

Hawking puts many of these issues in an interesting perspective, he believes that it's the 'cause and effect' mentality that people accept as (dare I say) 'gospel'...when clearly the entire physical universe operates at the quantum level, where 'cause and effect' mean jack shit...

- DNA is something observable, and something proven.
- There is no theory of DNA, but a theory of evolution.
- Evolution is still in the process of being proven hence why it is a theory.

Is Philosopher anything but rational? Is philosopher not able to pursue a degree with science within it due to his disbelief in evolution? Is that not ridiculous to you? You're confusing science to be this generalised thing that orientates around evolution when it's quite the opposite.

[spitfire]

Why are the creationists so flexible about science, they seem to have a very dynamic and malleable approach to its acceptance.

Philosopher for example puts his entire trust and belief into the science of DNA but won't have anything to do with any aspect of evolution, this is the same with all the 'believers'...I find it a little bit hypocritical.

Hawking puts many of these issues in an interesting perspective, he believes that it's the 'cause and effect' mentality that people accept as (dare I say) 'gospel'...when clearly the entire physical universe operates at the quantum level, where 'cause and effect' mean jack shit...

Exactly. Not only Hawkins but Dawkins also who is a biologist.

They need to have a cause to accept their existance whereas in fact there is no cause.To put it simply, it's plain egotistical human nature that has a need to believe a cause.

Those creationists in disguise (aka id) cannot even explain why the design is not intelligent in the first place.
Can you imagine the hoax of that?

[spitfire]

- Evolution is still in the process of being proven hence why it is a theory.

The scientific definition of the word "theory" is different from the colloquial sense of the word. In the vernacular, "theory" can refer to guesswork, a simple conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation that does not have to be based on facts and need not be framed for making testable predictions.

However, in science, the meaning of theory is more rigorous. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.

Hope you get the idea now and the confusion that Philosopher is trying to spread.