Now since we're limited to only 60,000 characters for each forum post, then I will probably be able to post only 3 or 4 transcripts with each forum post, so it will take a few posts to cover all 17 transcripts.
To view all 17 videos loading automatically from the play list, click on this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnJX68EL ... playnext=1
Otherwise, just click on each link below to view each video one at a time without automatic loads from the play list.
Each video is at least 10 minutes long so it will take approximately 3 hours to view all 17 videos.
Please view these with an open mind or while reading the transcripts below each You Tube Link.
I would also welcome your comments.
1st Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnJX68ELbAY
Transcript from video.
The 1st falsehood of creationism:
â??evolution = atheismâ?
The U.S. population seems pretty evenly divided over whether the human species is biologically related to other animals or whether we were â??specially-createdâ? as part of a flurry of miracles. Even our collective politicians -seemingly all of them- are wrapped up in this controversy. Yet its hard to find even one of them who knows what its about. Why is it that there is such concern in so many grade schools (K thru 12) about teaching evolution, yet there is still a complete consensus among scientists all over America and the rest of the world -that evolution is the backbone of modern biology, and a demonstrable reality historically as well?
Most people really donâ??t understand science; what it is, how it works, what hypotheses and theories are, or even the purpose behind it. Sadly even those on your school faculty or state Board of Education often need an education themselves before they can be trusted to govern how or what our kids will be taught, and thatâ??s why I thought I should speak up and do what I can to help.
To adequately understand evolution, you not only have to understand how to be scientific, (which is the real trick for most people) but you also have to know something about cellular biology, genetics, and anatomy, geology, particularly paleontology, as well as environmental systems, tectonics, atomic chemistry, and especially taxonomy, which most people donâ??t know squat about at all. Most people who accept evolution also tend to know a whole lot about cosmology, geography, history, sociology, politics, and of course, religion.
But to believe in creationism, you donâ??t have to know anything about anything, and its better if you donâ??t! Because creationism relies on ignorance. It is not honest research! It is a scam, a con job exploiting the common folk, and preying on their deepest beliefs and fears. Creationist apologetics depends on misrepresented data and misquoted authorities, out-of-date and out-of-context, and uses distorted definitions if it uses definitions at all.
There are basically two types of creationists; the professional or political creationists; these are the activists who lead the movement and who will regularly deliberately lie to promote their propaganda; and the second type which are the innocently-deceived followers commonly known as â??sheepâ?. I know lots of intellectual Christians, but I canâ??t get any of them to actually watch the tele-evangelists, because they either already know how phony they are, or they donâ??t want to find out. But that only allows a radical fringe to claim support from they masses they now also claim to represent. So thereâ??s nothing to stop them. Professional creationists are making money hand over fist with faith-healing scams or bilking little old ladies out of prayer donations, or selling books and videos at their circus-like seminars where they have undeserved respect as powerful leaders. All of them feign knowledge they canâ??t really possess, and some of them claim degrees theyâ??ve never actually earned.
Were it not for this con, theyâ??d have to go back to selling used cars, wonder drugs, and multi-level marketing schemes. They will never change their minds no matter what it costs anyone else. So it is obviously the â??sheepâ? whom Iâ??m attempting to reach with this speech â??so that they might not be sheep anymore, and will stop feeding fuel into that manipulative movement. Because its one thing to believe in something that might be true (like God in general or Christianity specifically) even though neither can be substantiated or tested in any objective way. But it is a whole other matter to willfully deceive others into believing things which are definitely not true -like creationism, especially when we can also prove that those doing this know their assorted arguments are bogus, and know theyâ??re lying to our children, and that they hope to continue doing so under the guise of â??educationâ?."You are a scientist, correct?"
"That's right; I have a PhD in truthology from Christian Tech."
Creationism extorts support through peer-pressure, prejudice, and paranoid propaganda, and sells itself with short, simplistic slogans which appeal to those who donâ??t want to think too much, or are afraid to question their own beliefs. Worst of all, it actually forbids critical inquiry, and promotes anti-intellectualism, and it is based on at least a dozen foundational falsehoods. First and foremost among them is the idea that accepting evolution requires the rejection of theism, if not all other religious or spiritual beliefs as well.
For decades those behind the creationism movement have tried very hard to portray the illusion that one cannot accept evolution and still believe in God. They know better, but they still want you to believe that evolution is atheist, and that it is either evolution without God, or God creating without evolution. Thatâ??s been their central claim since the creationism movement began. But this supposed controversy never was about whether or not there is a god. Most people believe there is a god, and they believe he is in control of all the seemingly-random events of our lives. This is true of most of the people who accept evolution also. Most of them believe in God as well, and they believe that God is in control of evolution; that evolution, like every other system in nature, is part of Godâ??s design.
Of the couple hundred different, and often violently-conflicting denominations of Christianity, the largest of them by far is Catholicism followed by Orthodoxy. Both of these have stated support of evolution and denounced creationism. Pope Benedict recently described evolution as an â??enriching realityâ? and described creationist contests against it as â??absurdâ?. Both of the popes before him advised Christians â??round the world to consider evolution to be â??more than an hypothesisâ? and not to fear acceptance of that as being any challenge to their faith in Christ.
The early pioneers of evolutionary science were all initially Christian, (including Darwin) and many leading proponents of modern evolutionary science are still Christian today. For example, microbiologist Dr. Ken Miller, (who testified against intelligent design creationism in Kitzmiller v. Dover) -is a Catholic. Another outspoken proponent of evolution, Dr. Robert T. Bakker, (who has PhDs from both Harvard and Yale) is not only one of the leading, and most recognizable paleontologists in the world today, but he also happens to be a Bible-believing Pentecostal preacher; though he interprets Genesis differently than literalists would. In his book, Bones, Bibles and Creation, he says that to treat the Bible as though it were common history is to degrade its eternal meaning. One of the earliest geneticists, Theodosius Dobzhansky was an Orthodox Christian who many times professed his belief that life was created by God, but that nothing in biology made sense except in light of evolution. All these men agree that even if there really is a god, and even if that god is the Christian god, and even if that god created the universe and everything in it, =which they all believe- evolution would still be at least mostly true, and creationism would still be completely wrong.
Of all the developed nations throughout Christendom, only the United States has a significant number of creationists, and theyâ??re the minority even here! Every other predominantly-Christian country tends to regard creationism as an incredulous, (if not insane) radical fringe movement which is an almost exclusively American phenomenon, and not taken seriously anywhere else. Poll after poll continues to reveal that, around the world, most â??evolutionistsâ? are Christian, and most Christians are evolutionists. So evolution is not synonymous with atheism, and creationism isnâ??t synonymous with Christianity either. Most creationists arenâ??t even Christians! There are millions more Muslim and Hindu creationists than Christian ones.
Regardless which religion they claim, creationism can be collectively defined as the fraction of religious believers who reject science, not just the conclusions of science, but its methods as well, and I mean all of them, from uniformitarianism and methodological naturalism to the peer review process and requirement that all positive claims be based on testable evidence. These people rely instead on blind faith in the assumed authority of their favored fables. In all cases, creationism is an obstinate and dogmatic superstitious belief which holds that members of most seemingly-related taxonomic groups did not evolve naturally, but were created magically, -that plants and animals were literally poofed out of nothing fully-formed, in their current state, unrelated to anything else â??despite all indications to the contrary.
Creationists may side with western Abrahamic religions, (being the Judeo-Christian/Islamic mythos) in which there are conflicting versions of the same tales. Or creationists may belong to one of many eastern religions where the sacred stories of creation are much older, completely different, and dedicated to other gods and pantheons. But in every case, the proposed "creator" is supernatural, meaning that it is not a part of perceptible reality. Therefore it is undetectable by any testable means, and can only be assumed to exist for subjective emotional reasons, or as a result of cultural indoctrination, rather than because of any measurable evidence or logical rationale. In other words, thereâ??s no way to say if its really there. Worst of all, thereâ??s also no way to distinguish anyoneâ??s gods or ghosts from the imaginary beings some primitive folks just made up either. This doesnâ??t mean no god exists. But it does mean that science canâ??t say anything about them. Because even if gods are real, they still don't appear to be, and apparently don't want to â??since all the holy books demand they be believed on faith alone. As there is nothing anyone can verify and thus actually know to be correct about gods, then science is unable to make any comment about them at all. Because science can only ever investigate things with demonstrable evidence can be tested or measured.
From the creationistâ??s perspective, the method or mechanism of creation which these mystical beings use is nothing more than a golem spell where clay statues are animated with an enchantment. Or its an incantation in which complex modern plants and animals are "spoken" into being. Thatâ??s right, magic words which cause fully-developed adult animals to be conjured out of thin air. Or a god simply wishes them to exist; so they do. Thatâ??s it! There really is nothing more to it than that; pure freakinâ?? magic â??by definition. Remember that the next time you hear anything from a creation â??scientistâ?.
So for those who believe in God, the question really is how God created, and whether it was by one of many inextricably integrated natural systems he seemingly designed, or whether he simply blinked, wiggled his nose, wished upon a star and said "abra-cadabera".
2ed Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFrkjEgUDZA
Transcript from video.
The 2nd falsehood of creationism:
scriptures are the â??Word of Godâ?.
The 2ed foundational falsehood of creationism is the belief that sacred scriptures were written by a god rather than by the actual human authors. When believers argue over any of the many things which contradict their religion, they often challenge us to decide whom we are going to believe? The alleged â??wordâ? of God? Or that of Men? As if human inquiry had no chance against the authority they imagine their doctrine to be. But when they say, â??menâ?, theyâ??re talking about science. And when they refer to the â??word of Godâ?, theyâ??re talking about myths written about God by men.
If there really is an intelligent and purposeful creator, then it would have to be he who constructed the fossil record revealing evolutionary history, and he has to be the one who conceived the genetic patterns which also trace that same course, and it must have been he who added the other lines of evidence which point to the evolutionary conclusion exclusively and in brilliant detail. Why else would all these things exist? Its as if he were trying to tell us something! Men couldnâ??t create any of those things. But men can tell stories, whoppers in fact. And it was men who wrote all the scriptures pretending to speak for God.
Every one of the worldâ??s supposedly â??holyâ? doctrines of any religion describe themselves as being written by men, not gods; men who were â??moved byâ? or inspired by their favorite gods, or perhaps taking dictation from angels, but they were written by lowly imaginative yet imperfect mortals none the less; not by angels, and certainly not by gods.
If there really was one true god, it should be a singular composite of every religionâ??s gods, an uber-galactic super-genius, and the ultimate entity of the entire cosmos. If a being of that magnitude ever wrote a book, then there would only be one such document; one book of God. It would be dominant everywhere in the world with no predecessors or parallels or alternatives in any language, because mere human authors couldnâ??t possibly compete with it. And you wouldnâ??t need faith to believe it, because it would be consistent with all evidence and demonstrably true, revealing profound morality and wisdom far beyond contemporary human capacity. It would invariably inspire a unity of common belief for every reader. If God wrote it, we could expect no less. But what we see instead is the very opposite of that.
Instead of only one religion leading to one ultimate truth, we have many different religions with no common origin, all constantly sharding into ever more deeply-divided denominations, seeking conflicting truths, and each somehow claiming divine guidance despite their ongoing divergence in every direction.
The Jewish Torah, the Christian gospels, the Qurâ??an of Islam, the Kitab-i-Aqdas of Baháâ??uâ??lláh, the Hindu Vedas, the Avestas of Zarathustra, the Adi-Granth of the Sikhs, the Mahabarataâ??s Bhagavad-Gita, the Book of Mormon, and the Urantia book are all declared to be the â??absolute truthâ? and the â??revealed wordâ? of the â??one trueâ? god, and believers of each say the others are deceived. The only logical probability is that they all are â??at least to some degree.
None of these have any particular advantage over the others. None of them have any evidentiary support, and none of them are historically verifiable.
All of them require faith, and apologetics as well, because they also contain inconsistencies, absurdities, and primitive notions once held true but which have since been disproved. So they can claim no evidence of divine wisdom. Many of them promote heinous atrocities in place of morality, and many claim to be validated by prophecies now fulfilled â?? where each may also contain prophesies which failed to come to pass as predicted.â??Iâ??m Dr. Paul Maier, professor of ancient history at Western Michigan University. â?¦Iâ??m not saying that now I have proven the Bible is authorative, is accurate historically. Of course not. You still have to have faith.â?
Leading theologians admit that all of the scriptures of any religion were written by human hands and were thus subject to the interpretations, impressions and perspectives of their primitive and often prejudiced and politically-motivated authors, and they cite this as the explanation behind many of the contradictions in those books, especially those in the Bible.
Heâ??s right about there being more than one author for Genesis, and it was definitely not an eyewitness account! Some experts now recognize four different sources just for the Pentateuch, the five books of â??Mosesâ?, and they donâ??t credit Moses as the author of any of them as he evidently never existed as described. The scholarly consensus is that Genesis was compiled, (probably by Ezra) from several unrelated oral traditions less than 2,500 years ago. Other documents filtered in at the same time, all of which attributed to human authors. The Bible is nowhere near as old as believers say it is! The Dead Sea Scrolls are the oldest archaeological texts known for the still unfinished basis of all of western monotheism, yet theyâ??re each centuries younger than the origins of Zoroastrian, Buddhist, Hindu, Helenist, Druidic, Chinese and Egyptian religions.â??Well I wouldnâ??t call them contradictions as much as commentaries, the one on the other. Again, letâ??s point out, we probably do have two different authors here whoâ??s work was blended together then in editorial revisioning somewhat.â?
Christianity began with the Gnostic faith, and then the Docetics, and Ebionites, and their completely different perspectives of Jesus were eventually combined into a kind of compromise called Orthodoxy. Other Christian subsets like the Luciferians were overrun and discredited by further Biblical revisions.
One of these revisions relates to the king of Ugarit around 3500 years ago. As his followers were the principle competition with the emerging religion of Moses, scribes working on the New Testament chose to demonize Baâ??al ZeBul, the â??Lord on Highâ?, by distorting his name to Beelzebub, the â??Lord of the Fliesâ?. So the Bible has been deliberately and deceptively altered for both religious and political reasons.
The rest of what became the New Testament was canonized in the 4th century in a series of committee decisions at a convention at Nicea. Four gospels were accepted and sixteen more were rejected, all by a show of hands, as if the facts of the matter could be evaluated or dismissed by popular vote.
So the council simply accepted as gospel whatever few relevant stories the uneducated masses happened to like at that time. But they still opted to remove more than a dozen books from the Bible even though they were still referenced by other books they chose to include. Among the rejected items were the writings of both apostles and prophets. Why would Godâ??s word refer us to other books which were some humanâ??s word, and/or are no longer available? Who were the real editors here? The Bible often names human authors. But how could it make such an admission if God were the real author and editor of this haphazard jumble of fables, parables, and psalm lyrics?â??The way the canon developed was by what was being read on Sunday in the centers of Christianity. What do you read on the 2nd Sunday after Easter in the church in Jerusalem? Whatâ??s the church of Rome reading at this time? And they found that again and again, they were zeroing in on the same stories in the gospels. And so the core of the canon kind of developed from the usage of the early churchâ?.
The Bible was very definitely written by men, and not superior men either; far from it! This is why so much of it can be shown to be historically and scientifically dead wrong about damned-near everything back-to-front. Weâ??re talking about people who believe snakes and donkeys can talk, who believe in incantations, blood sacrifice, ritual spells, enchanted artifacts, pyrotechnic potions, astrology, and the five elements of witchcraft. They thought that if you use a magic wand to sprinkle blood all over someone, it will cure them of leprosy. Weâ??re talking about people who think that rabbits chew cud, and that bats are birds, and whales are fish, and that Pi is a round number. These folks believed that if you display striped patterns to a pregnant cow, it would bare striped calves. How could anyone say that who knows anything about genetics? Obviously the authors of this book didnâ??t.
If the Bible had been written by a supreme being, then it wouldnâ??t contain the mistakes that it does. If it was written by a truly superior being, and meant to be read as a literal history, then the Bible wouldnâ??t contain anything that it does.
As a moral guide, it utterly fails, because much of the original Hebrew scriptures were written by ignorant and bigoted savages who condoned and promoted animal cruelty, incest, slavery, abuse of slaves, spousal abuse, child abuse, child molestation, abortion, pillage, murder, cannibalism, genocide, and prejudice against race, nationality, religion, sex, and sexual orientation. Why? To justify their own inhumanity by claiming to do the will of God.
But creationists still continue to ignore all of that. Some of their sites even admit that wherever reality conflicts with the Bible, then reality must be ignored! And why is that? Because if creationists didnâ??t have their beloved books, they wouldnâ??t have a god either. One is the other in their world. Ironically, the faithful reject the "works" of God as "worshipping creation over the creator." But then they prop up the words of men before God, as God, and even insist that disproving their supposedly "holy" books would somehow disprove God too; not just their version of God, but everyone else's version of God as well. Creationist Christians think that if the Bible is wrong, then God lied. They cannot accept that God could exist but the Bible be wrong because they canâ??t distinguish doctrine from deity. So it is a form of idolatry wherein the believers worship man-made compilations as though those books were God himself -because they think it is HIS word. But God never wrote or dictated any of the scriptures of any religion. Everything men chose to reject from or include in their supposedly â??inalterable wordâ? of whatever god was conceived, composed, compiled, translated, interpreted, edited, and often deliberately altered and enhanced by mere fallible men.
3rd Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnj7PlqmJ5o
Transcript from video.
The 3rd falsehood of creationism;
human interpretation = absolute truth.
George Harrison, the guitarist for the Beatles was a Bhakti Hindu. He believed in a personal god, and he said that if one chants the mantras with devotion, Lord Krishna would visibly appear and speak to him in an audible voice. Many pagans are similarly convinced of having met their deities too. For example, a cat fancier in Texas insists he began worshipping Bast only after the Egyptian goddess dramatically appeared physically manifest, having personally chosen him to become her disciple. The Chinese religion is a mixture of Confusionism, Taoism, Buddhism, polytheism and ancestor worship. Devotees of this blend of traditions are capable of remarkable feats of faith, and many of them claim direct communication with their gods and spirits as well. All of these different believers, and some Buddhists too, talk about their spiritual rebirth once they accept whichever deity into their lives. Every religion boasts their own miracles and prophecies proving thiers is the truest faith. So its no surprise that Christians say the same things about their versions of God too. No religion is significantly different from any other in this respect. But whatever else may be going on, when men claim revelation from God, it usually means is that theyâ??ve decided to promote their own biased and unsubstantiated opinions as if they were divinely inspired. So its not like any â??one true godâ? is really guiding all these people they way they all insist he/she/they, or it is.
If any god exists, and it happens that thereâ??s only one of them, then surely every spiritually enlightened and visionary holy man from any nation or tribe should be able to sense it, if men can sense such things at all. And their scribes would write the scrolls seeking to make sense of it â??however feeble an attempt that may be. Perhaps thatâ??s why there are so many different religions; because no man can know the true state of God. There can only be one truth, and only one version of it. But rather than coming together, as everyoneâ??s search for the one truth should, religions continuously shard further and further apart into more divided factions with mutually-exclusive beliefs, -and there are as many wrong interpretations as there people claiming theirs as the â??absolute truthâ?. Which brings us to the third foundational falsehood of creationism; the assertion that any human's understanding of their various internally-conflicting and inter-contradictory beliefs should, -or even could- be considered infallible or inerrently accurate.
In reality, there is no such thing as â??absolute truthâ?. Everything within the capacity of human understanding contains a degree of error, and everything men know to be true is only true to a degree. Everyone is inevitably wrong about something somewhere. We donâ??t know everything about everything. We donâ??t know everything about anything! And what we do know, we donâ??t know accurately on all points nor completely in every detail. Honest men admit this. Anyone claiming to know the absolute truth is not being honest, especially not when they claim to know anything about things which can only be believed on faith. Even if men were given genuine revelations by truly omniscient beings, they must still be filtered and interpreted by weaker minds influenced by our limitations, biases, and misimpressions, as well as linguistic and cultural barriers.
In the history of history itself, no account human journalists have ever given has been absolutely complete, inerrant, and perfectly accurate -especially when there is a desperate emotional bias such as there is at the source of each of the worldâ??s religious books. All of them were written decades or centuries after the alleged events they claim to have witnessed, and they speak of many scenes no one could have witnessed at all. Some of them, -like the Bhagavad Gita and much of the Torah- were originally written as poetry. So the conversations canâ??t have been verbatim unless all the characters really spoke in rhyme. These tales include impossible absurdities which canâ??t even be corroborated by any other contributors internally, much less external records. No matter how many witnesses there supposedly were, or how many historians should have known about it, the only source for any of the fables in the Bible is the Bible itself.
Archaeology certainly doesnâ??t support any of these stories. Instead, we have many earlier versions of many of them coming from myriad myths of polytheism, some of which written by the very ancestors of the Biblical authors. They apparently conceived all the original, but as-yet unassociated elements which were eventually â??blended togetherâ? into the fables we now know as Genesis. These stories can be interpreted wildly differently by anyone who reads them.
Some argue that the Bible doesnâ??t really say some of the things we can prove that it does, while others are convinced that it clearly does say things that it doesnâ??t really even hint at anywhere. For example, the idea that there was no death before â??the fallâ?. The Bible doesnâ??t say that. In fact, it says there was death before the fall, because Adam and Eve had to ingest and digest living cells in order to survive, the very definition of what it means to be an animal. The only way around that was to eat of the fruit of the tree of eternal life, which directly contradicts the creationistâ??s interpretation, because it wouldnâ??t need to be there if they already had eternal life. It is an obvious metaphor representing a choice, perhaps between innocence and responsibility. That too is an interpretation. But it was obviously not an actual deciduous plant!
The council of Nicea gathered theologians from all over the Roman empire trying to interpret what their scriptures meant rather than what they said. One of the central points in dispute was whether Jesus was who he said he was, or whether he was secretly God instead. Those trying to reconcile contradictions between the Old and New Testaments may have borrowed concepts of trinitarian gods and avatars from the Hindus. In the Bhagavad Gita, Lord Krishna said he was the creator of the world and God-in-the-flesh, an avatar of Vishnu. But in the gospels, which are the only documents claiming to record the Christâ??s actual words, Jesus never implied any of that at all. Jesus only did what Akenaton did; promote himself as the sole prophet of the sun-god. At one point, Jesus says he is "one" with God. But he clarifies that he is referring only to his purpose, and he says that any of us might become "one" with God just as he is, and that we may perform even greater miracles than he did. But throughout the Bible, regardless whatever else he may claim about himself, Jesus always only ever described himself as separate from, and subordinate to El/Allah/Abba/YHWH. And he said that the god of Abraham, and bringer of the flood was someone else somewhere else, who knows things Jesus doesn't know, can do things Jesus can't do, and who did things Jesus didn't do, but only witnessed, like creating the world. Jesus also spoke about God in 3rd person and to God in 2nd person, and in one scene God talks about Jesus in 3rd person too â??when he introduced his son to the Jews. Then the Holy Ghost showed up and lead Jesus to somewhere Jesus did not already know. None of this could be if Jesus were an avatar or "god-in-the-flesh" because then Jesus and God and the holy ghost would all still share the same knowledge, power, identity and position in space and time. So it is pretty clear that Jesus did not believe himself to be the same god as the one he and the Jews both worshipped.
When the Nicene creed was being conceived, the committee took a vote on the identity and divinity of Jesus. Even that is subject to interpretation! Those who said Jesus was a prophet of God but not of the same essence as God â??lost the vote, and were banished to prevent their ideas from influencing the Christian formation. For a time, both sides labeled the others heretics.
If the Bible is interpreted literally, then it is clear that its authors believed that the world was a flat disc, which was originally said to be covered by a giant crystal dome. It was a common belief at the time in all the neighboring regions. But it was still wrong. The Biblical authors obviously knew nothing about the real state of this world nor the worlds beyond this one either. But we know what lies outside our atmosphere. And that proves that there is no water above where the firmament isn't, and no windows to let it drain in -if there was either water or firmament there.
Some Persians at that time said that the god, Mithras had the stars sewn into the lining of his cloak, which he would drape over the crystalline firmament to bring on the night. But we know that night is not a veil to be spread over the missing firmament like a curtain or a tent. We also know that the stars are not made to stand in the span of this expanse because they are not "high" in the firmament; there is no firmament, and they are so far beyond our puny world that "height" is meaningless and inapplicable. They are much too far away to be blown out of place by any storm and they couldn't be taken "down" by anything at all. We've also proven that the illusive heavenly firmament has no foundations either, and neither does the Earth. There are no pillars holding the Earth above the deep, because there is no deep. Outer space is not full of water! We also now know what lies outside our gravitational field. And that proves that you can't have any passage of days and nights without a sun to measure them against an Earth which constantly moves. We also know that the sun cannot be made to set at noon, and that neither the sun nor the moon can be stopped in the sky. We also now know what is beyond our solar system. And that proves that the stars can't fall from the sky, and even if they did, we still couldn't stomp on them because they're each millions of miles around. Which makes it a bit silly to imagine a whole group of them having conscious minds, and ganging up in combat with a mere human being. We even know now what lies beyond our galaxy. And that proves that nothing or no one could ever "seal up the stars". We also know that the Earth with its fictitious firmament didn't predate the "lights in the heavens" by any amount of time, and that the stars weren't "set" specifically to light the Earth; because the Earth is not at the center, -or the beginning- of the universe in any respect. The way the Bible depicts the Earth in relation to the rest of the universe is wrong and has been known to be wrong for thousands of years.
Many creationists say that it is impossible to understand or believe the Bible unless it is read â??in the spirit of the holy ghostâ?. In other words, you must already assume its truth before you read it, and you have to read it through filters of faith because it certainly isnâ??t compelling on its own without those blinders on. If it doesnâ??t make sense, then youâ??ve got to convince yourself that you must not understand it properly, and youâ??ve just got to try to make yourself believe it anyway somehow. That is precisely why creationist faith is deemed â??dogmaticâ??. But thatâ??s also proof by admission that even a literal reading must be â??interpretedâ?. So its very design is such that the Bible can not be either inerrant or â??absolute truthâ?.
====================
To be continued below with more Videos and transcripts.
I'm fat and sassy! I love to sing & dance & stomp my feet & really rock your world!
