How could there be photosynthetic life before there was a sun?

And God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth.” And it was so.

(Genesis 1:11) ESV

And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years,

(Genesis 1:14) ESV

The third day of creation, when God made the dry land appear and covered it with lush vegetation, is a subject of derision from atheist science trolls (ASTs) because of where it occurs in the sequence of creation.

The source of their disdain is an apparent incongruity between creation and photosynthesis: The dry land was covered with lush vegetation on the third day; the sun, moon and stars were created on the fourth day. They mockingly ask:

How could there be photosynthetic life before there was a sun?

– Formerly a reasonable question.

Once upon a time that may have been a reasonable question to ask, now it means that whoever asked it isn’t up to speed. The source of light on the first day was nucleosynthesis; the source of light on the second and third day was the firmament, a sphere of rigid crystal on the edge of space. The whole sky was as bright as the surface of the sun, there was nothing to hinder the development of lush vegetation.

Oh, and if you’re skeptical that there’s such a thing as a firmament we have three sources of evidence for it.

  1. Empirical Evidence for the Firmament
  2. Theoretical Evidence for the Firmament
  3. Scripture: The Firmament Rabbit Trail

March 3rd – Where did the water come from?

Hydrology deduction 1: Where did the water come from to water the Earth if there hadn’t been any rain?


214 Replies to “How could there be photosynthetic life before there was a sun?”

  1. more nonsense from Christianity. There was a sun before plants and your bible is full of false claims.

    It’s so fun to watch creationist lying about their bible and trying to catch up to science. It’s never the other way around. creationist must “reinterpret” their bible to try to lie about the most current science. No evidence for the sky being “bright as the sun” and it’s rather hard to have an earth with before nucleosynthesis: “Nucleosynthesis is the process that creates new atomic nuclei from pre-existing nucleons (protons and neutrons) and nuclei.”

    Try again.

    Like

    1. I think that you’re the one who has some catching up to do. Here are some headlines that you may have missed:
      “A NASA Spacecraft May Have Detected A Giant Wall At The Edge Of The Solar System”
      “NASA detects glowing ‘hydrogen wall’ at edge of our solar system”
      “New Horizons Spacecraft Sees Possible Hydrogen Wall at the End of the Solar System”
      The firmament is the 90% of the mass of the universe that’s “missing” from mainstream cosmological models..

      Like

      1. Oh Matty, you are such a complete failure who cannot show his “firmament” even exists. Rather the nonsense about “aether” that was invented by humans earlier. It’s as imaginary as the quail and 28K feet of water in a flood.

        those websites those lies you quote titles of do show just how easily lunatics lie. There is no “wall”, there is the heliopause. It’s atoms and dust particles at a few per kilometer that just can’t push past the “wind” of the sun e.g. the stream of electrons and photons coming off of it.

        no wall of nucleosynthesis. No sky as bright as the sun.

        Like

      2. Your explanation of the supposed heliopause is an inductive rationalization of the premise that’s there’s a heliopause (in other words: circular reasoning).
        It’s not a testable hypothesis therefore it’s not scientific.

        Like

      3. oh look, Matty is using big words to try to hide his lies. What you’ve said “inductive rationalization ” doesn’t mean circular reasoning at all. It is nothing but Matty’s word salad to try to hide how incompetent he is.

        Alas, we have the hypothesis of the heliopause and our spacecraft found exactly what was predicted.

        It’s quite scientific: hypothesis, prediction, observation, confirmation.

        Again, Matty shows that he is not special, he is just some poor human who finds he needs to lie to feel important.

        But good for you mentioning untestable hypotheses. Matty’s claim of magical firmament is one of those wonderful vague and completely untestable claims.

        So, dear surely you can show how to detect “firmament”, right?

        Like

      4. The prediction of a heliopause is baggage from the Star Trek universe where the outgoing solar wind interacts with radiation from interstellar space. It’s imaginary, a theoretical cosmic beach where the foam of the breakers can be flagged as the source of the visible brightness on the edge of space.
        It’s only a hypothesis within a false paradigm, and since the test of the hypothesis is the premise on which the hypothesis is based then it’s circular reasoning.

        Like

      5. poor Matty and still no Nobel in physics yet. Alas, the voyager space craft have confirmed the hypothesis and Matty is again shown as a ignorant crank.

        There is no “brightness” nor an “edge of space”.

        Like

      6. No one’s at fault and I haven’t failed. My job is to write this blog and lay a foundation for a new era of Christian intellectuals who will have complete mastery of science. Job done.

        Like

      7. well, Matty, you will indeed lay a foundation for Christian intellectuals who will know how incompetent you are.

        You have no comprehension of science at all, much less a mastery of it.

        Like

      8. I got my Masters of Science when I was 23 years old, that was 28 years ago and I’ve been studying science ever since.
        When did you get your Masters degree?

        Like

      9. nah, you didn’t. But nice try. It’s quite cute that you couldn’t mention where you got this supposed “masters degree” from. A master in what science, Matty? It isn’t a catch all thing.

        oh and a argument from authority too!

        Like

      10. Nice degree, if you got it and it has nothing to do with astronomy or astrophysics.

        I have a BS in geology and thus do not try to lie and claim that I know more than astrophysicists.

        Like

      11. I got my Masters in Biology when I was 23. In the subsequent 28 years I have studied Physics and Math.
        You have a BS and you’re claiming to know more than me.
        You’re not being very objective.

        Like

      12. Matty, I wouldn’t take a child to a mechanic and my car to a pediatrician.

        Having a degree has little to do with what one knows. But nice appeal to authority fallacy there!

        Like

      13. I do indeed know what you know and what you make up in your delusion.

        And no, dear, you couldn’t fix a car. That requires some attachment to reality.

        Like

      14. I replaced the engine in a truck, among other things.
        You have no idea of the extent of the things that I know.
        It’s foolish for you to claim otherwise.
        Are you a fool?

        Like

      15. That’s really rich, dude. A believer accusing an argument of being imaginary! Wow! That’s what you call gall!

        Your entire belief system is imaginary, bud. I hate to break the news but the entire religious corpus of dogma is pure imagination, and not even very creative imagination at that. Just nonsense created by people for people to understand that which is beyond their capabilities.

        Reason and science is the antidote to religious dogma. There is nothing; no phenomena, no event or process, that can be better explained by religion than by reason. Religion is the bane of humanity and will be the doom of civilization unless we get our collective heads out of our asses.

        Like

      16. Religion is irrelevant. The Bible, on the other hand, contains an extensively developed unified theory of everything. It includes first cause, time, gravitation, electromagnetism (a unified field theory) consciousness and redemption. It’s definitely worth an objective evaluation.

        Like

      17. So, the Bible isn’t “religion” What is it, a science book? This is a new approach, similar to intelligent design vs creationism. What, is god a scientist now?

        Like

      18. God was always a scientist. The Holy Trinity is God the Father (Hydrogen) God the Holy Spirit (Omega Oxygen) who fused in conception to beget God the Son (Hydroxyl). This was manifested as a body of water called the deep which predates creation. It was the source of Hydrogen for nucleosynthesis. This is the reason why Jesus Christ is the name above all names, the savior. He is the one through whom all things were made, and he’s the one who has the power to save us.

        Like

      19. I don’t see the connection between having a bad church experience and becoming an atheist.
        Churches are an assembly of fallible humans. God is still God.
        I’ve had my fair share of bad church experiences (I’ve been disciplined out of two churches) but it just made me more resolved than ever to have an intimate relationship with God.

        Like

      20. I didn’t have a “bad experience” per se. I studied the Bible, very closely, research as much as I could about it; how it was written, by whom was it written, where and when was it written, etc. That’s all anyone has to do in order to come to the conclusion that it’s all nonsense, front to back, start to finish. This applies especially to the NT and Jesus himself. There’s almost nothing in the NT that’s true about Jesus. Once I came to that conclusion, the rest is easy. there is simply nothing there. I have come to terms with that and I am ok with it. our true mother is the Earth; she made us and we should be aware of that and the fact that she can “unmake” us also.

        Put your faith in yourself and those whom you love. You’ll be much better off than putting in in some invisible man up in the sky that sees everything you do, knows everything you think, even when your sleeping, is aware of all the horrible suffering and pain in the world and yet does nothing. Now I know why this is the case: there’s nothing there.

        Like

      21. It’s not possible to deduce the conclusion that there’s no God because the evidence is accounted for by God’s Word which, logically, proves that there is a God.
        What you did was inductively rationalize the premise that there’s no God.
        Big difference.

        Like

      22. That’s completely absurd, Matt. Your using your dogma to prove that your dogma is true. That’s just completely absurd.

        Like

      23. A book of ancient dogma which just happens to contain explanations for the origin of the Hydrogen used in nucleosynthesis, the origin of the CMBR, the creation of gravity in a way which aligns with practical mathematical applications of gravitational time dilation, a theory of time, a unified field theory, and theories of consciousness and redemption… etc. etc. I think it’s time you ditched your tired old rhetoric and reevaluated.

        Like

      24. Sounds like “Popular Science” Magazine! I don’t know what Bible you’ve been reading but mine doesn’t provide any such information. I smell a new cult developing! Good luck with that Matt, you’re off and running. The sheep are out there for the shearing!

        Like

      25. Same Bible, the physics of the universe is in plain sight. It’s been dismissed as flowery poetic language but it’s accurate biology, chemistry, geology and physics. We call it Hypothesis 22.

        IF the Holy Spirit is the power of God to inspire human writers,
        AND the physics of the universe has been written in scripture so that it’s
        obvious and
        invisible,
        THEN phrases or words that look like chemistry, physics, biology or geology should be treated as if they are chemistry, physics, biology or geology,
        AND the science will be congruent with the scriptural context.

        Like

      26. There really is no reason for a cult. People who believe in Jesus Christ should be in Church, and I don’t think that it really matters what flavor of church.

        Like

      27. All religions are cults. The distinction is almost purely semantic; accepted by society at large? Religion. Not? Cult. Pretty simple. All religions contain the same basic attributes of a cult, therefore I consider them all cults.

        Like

      28. Religion is irrelevant.
        It’s merely baggage that you’re clinging to as a way to rationalize your rebellion against God.
        Grow up, move on.
        You can have a relationship with God through faith in Jesus Christ.

        Like

      29. You can’t have a rebellion against something that isn’t there. That’s called “psychosis.” Just like you can’t have a relationship with someone that isn’t there. Another great example of psychosis. My growing up is way behind me when I dropped belief in foolish things, imaginary things, invisible men up in the sky and all that.

        I’m dropping out now, this is just sophomoric nonsense. Good luck with your cult. Maybe we’ll see your on TV!

        Like

      30. You can’t have a rebellion with something that doesn’t that doesn’t exist, that’s called “psychosis.” (A “bad” thing.) You also can’t have a relationship with something that doesn’t exist; also a symptom of psychosis. There are some excellent therapists out there today. You should consider finding one.

        I’m tapping out of this now. It’s nothing but sophomoric nonsense. Good luck with your new cult. Maybe we’ll see you on TV.

        Like

      31. That’s because there’s NO EVIDENCE Matt. Get it, Mr Science? You have ZERO evidence of your ridiculous ideas. None. Nada. Zilch. Nothing that ANY self respecting or marginally respected scientist could possible present. You just continue to assert your specious ideas by repeating the same nonsense over and again. Good luck with that. I am CERTAIN there’s an audience that’ll buy this crap. There always is.

        Over and out.

        Like

      32. No wall of fire. “Plasmas are by far the most common phase of ordinary matter in the universe, both by mass and by volume.[42]

        Above the Earth’s surface, the ionosphere is a plasma,[43] and the magnetosphere contains plasma.[44] Within our Solar System, interplanetary space is filled with the plasma expelled via the solar wind, extending from the Sun’s surface out to the heliopause. Furthermore, all the distant stars, and much of interstellar space or intergalactic space is also likely filled with plasma, albeit at very low densities. Astrophysical plasmas are also observed in Accretion disks around stars or compact objects like white dwarfs, neutron stars, or black holes in close binary star systems.[45] Plasma is associated with ejection of material in astrophysical jets, which have been observed with accreting black holes[46] or in active galaxies like M87’s jet that possibly extends out to 5,000 light-years.[47]”

        I could wander around in my skivvies out there and be frozen, not burnt and well, pretty done from radiation.

        Like

      33. Everything after “interplanetary space” is induction. The wispy strands of actual data show a noticeable brightness on the edge of space.
        The sensors aren’t detecting Hydrogen, that’s an inductive rationalization of the phenomenon to fit the popular science narrative.

        Like

      34. Poor Matt, he can’t write a coherent sentence. We know quite well what is in interplanetary space, since we have that in this solar system. We also have a good idea what is in interstellar space, and it doesn’t include magical bits where Matt’s god is hiding.

        It’s hilarious to see Matt try to use big words that he has no idea what they mean. Do explain what “inductive rationalization” means, Matt.

        This should be grand fun to see how an ignorant man who needs to pretend he is special responds.

        Like

      35. Inductive rationalization is when you use your premise, for instance that there’s a heliopause, to interpret evidence, in this case a visible brightness on the edge of space.
        There’s no actual evidence of a heliopause, it’s a requirement of the popular science paradigm which is, let’s face it, an attempt to use scientific jargon to validate the Star Trek universe.

        Like

      36. Funny how no one is doing what you claim, Matty. You make up a lie and then claim that people are doing what you lie about.

        no surprise that Matty can’t show a single image of this “visible brightness from the edge of space”. You can’t even show an edge.

        Like

      37. you are lying again, Matty. Poor dear can’t show one article in the “popular science press”. I do keep up with it and know that there is no articles supporting an edge of space or “visible brightness” at it.

        Now, why is that, Matty? Your bluff is called.

        Like

      38. and all of them have nothing to do with an edge of space or “visible light” there.

        But do quote them where they support you, Matty. You can, right?

        Like

      39. I have done, twice. I’m not sure why you’re having a problem with mainstream scientific evidence that there’s a brightly shining wall on the edge of space. It’s science.

        Like

      40. and not one article supports that nonsense, Matty. There is a layer of widely dispersed plasma that is at the heliopause. It does not shine. If it did, we could see it from the Hubble. But I’m sure you’ll invent a lie about that too.

        Like

      41. Quoting you “There is a layer of widely dispersed plasma that is at the heliopause.” That’s induction. The existence of a heliopause is theoretical (imaginary), not empirical.
        Both the Voyager and New Horizons space missions returned empirical evidence of a brightness on the edge of space. That has nothing to do with an imaginary heliopause.

        Like

      42. theoretical does not mean imaginary and again, we have found evidence to support the theory.

        So, do show where Voyager 1 & 2, and New Horizons have returned evidence at of a “brightness on the edge of space”.

        I’m waiting.

        Like

      43. poor Matty, still no evidence for his claims. Amazing how delusional you are if you actually do have a degree in paleobiology. Alas the entire rest of the world, sans lunatic conspiracy theorists, know that theories have nothing to do with “faith”.

        You have no evidence at all. Happily, I do.

        Rant and rave on, Matty, with your lack of evidence for your magical light at the “edge of space”.

        Like

      44. Clearly you don’t understand what the evidence is or how it’s used.
        Firstly, we all have the same evidence. You can’t claim that you have evidence but I don’t, because we’re all basing our explanations on the same evidence.
        Secondly, the evidence is a brightness on the edge of space which was detected by the Voyagers and New Horizons. That’s it, nothing else.
        Now, the issue is, how do we account for the evidence? What causes the phenomenon?
        There are two choices:
        1) in popular science (the Star Trek universe) rationale is induced which makes the findings compatible with the fabricated notion of a heliopause.
        2) in Matty’s Paradigm the cause comes directly from the Word of God: it’s the firmament, which is also called the sea of glass.

        Like

      45. Quoting yourself as proof of what you believe is hilarious, Matty.

        Still no evidence for the Voyagers or NH detecting “brightness on the edge of space”. not one link, not one paper, nothing.

        ah, “seas of glass”, I have a Mormon going on about that too. Alas, no evidence of a firmament or a sea of glass.

        Like

      46. Things you have made up are not evidence. No “firmament” no idea what it even is, and no magical light source at the “edge of space”, whatever that is. Space has no edge.

        Of course, you probably think the earth is flat too.

        Like

      47. Of course space has an edge.
        We can see the same distance in every direction and in every direction the stars have the same average distribution.
        It’s empirically observed that the Earth is at the center of the cosmos.

        Like

      48. ROFL. Oh my. Of course, you made this up too. Alas, the existence of galaxies shows that you are wrong.

        and now commence with the lies that the images that we have of galaxies are not what they show. Poor Matty, that pesky Hubble telescope shows you to be an incompetent liar.

        I do love to see what lies my favorite cat toy makes up in his quest to dig himself out of the hole he is in.

        Like

      49. you are indeed an idiot. I feel very sorry for anyone who has to work with you. And as for fixing a truck, I do love that. Did you decide it needed magical healing and it wasn’t really malfunctioning at all?

        Compartmentalization is a pitiful thing. You want to claim that physics doesn’t work when you want to pretend you have a magical best friend, but you have to work with the same physics to fix a truck.

        Like

      50. No you haven’t, matty. You don’t even know what they are. Poor Matty, he can’t even figure out that the strength of the sun in the Kuiper belt would not make his magical nonsense shine so we can see it here on earth. Andromeda, a galaxy can be seen with the naked eye.

        Matty forgot that.

        Like

      51. alas, our telescopes have shown that what Matty wants to lie about as ” unknown luminous material ” are stars.

        and poor Matty also wants to claim there is a Kuiper belt, but the same science that says that exists also says that galaxies exist. Matty picks and chooses he science wants to use, just like any garden variety hypocrite.

        Like

      52. Telescopes can’t measure the distance to a stellar object, nor can they tell us its nature. You explain it in a way which fits the narrative of your paradigm.

        Like

      53. yawn. and we see again that Matty has no idea about the basic tools in the sciences he claims to know about and how they are used.

        Like

      54. LOL. oh my. and still offering your baseless lies as backup for your baseless lies.

        Like

      55. and again, no evidence for these “minute specks of light” aka the god glitter, aka pieces of firmament.

        we have luminosity and spectra from very large things very far away.

        But do tell how your perfect “firmament” stuff gives all sorts of different spectra and luminosities.

        Surely, you can explain, right?

        Like

      56. stars aren’t “minute”, dear. seems that your baseless claims are tripping you up, since you are the one who wants to pretend that galaxies are god glitter in the Kuiper Belt.

        Like

      57. What we see by direct observation (empirical) is that the night sky has billions of minute specks of light.
        You can IMAGINE (theoretical) that these specks are light from distant stars and induce a rationale in which this is possible.
        I’m being empirical. You’re being theoretical.

        Like

      58. LOL. oh my. no dear, you aren’t being empirical at all. You are a child who wants to pretend his imagination is right.

        Like

      59. Empirical means “verifiable by direct observation.”
        My interpretation of scripture and harmonization of it with science is verifiable by direct observation: empirical.
        Your belief, the popular science narrative of godless existence, is theoretical.
        In other words: imaginary.

        Like

      60. Funny how direct observation using telescopes, etc show that you are entirely wrong.

        As Ra noted, you have to lie and try to change words to make your nonsense sound important.

        Like

      61. I’m having a hard time believing that you actually comprehend the subject matter that we’re discussing.
        Telescopes confirm everything I’m saying. Telescopes provide empirical observations which I’ve accounted for.
        Invoking random technology doesn’t hide the fact that you’re in over your head.

        Like

      62. ROFL. Alas, telescopes and the images they capture do not support your delusions about god glitter in the least. Just the “pillars of creation” shot from early on in the Hubble Telescope’s lifetime shows that you are utterly wrong.

        I very much understand astronomy and know that you are just one more crank who needs to pretend he knows magical secrets about the universe.

        Like

      63. The Pillars of Creation prove my point.
        Supposedly it’s an active star forming region but it’s enveloped in smoke.
        Clearly something is very wrong with your designation of stars as distant suns.
        It proves that stars are in fact minute specks of light, reflective rocks in the Kuiper belt.

        Like

      64. Oh my. No, dear, the “pillars of creation” are a part of the Eagle Nebula, a cloud of interstellar dust and gases, not “smoke”, the product of oxidation aka burning. Gravity causes the interstellar dust and gas to collapse into stars.

        hmm, so the “firmament” aka god glitter is shiny rocks. How mundane and completely ridiculous.

        Like

      65. Yes, it is, that comes from combustion. “smoke is a collection of airborne particulates and gases emitted when a material undergoes combustion or pyrolysis, together with the quantity of air that is entrained or otherwise mixed into the mass. ” wikipedia “smoke” Not all dust and gas come from combustion.

        as usual, you make up nonsense based on your truly amazing ignorance.

        Like

      66. You certainly are persistent.
        I have to say that I appreciate all of your feedback.
        Whether the nebula is smoke or dust and gas is an irrelevant distinction.

        Like

      67. yep and there we have it where the failed theist again tries to pretend that his failure and lies are “irrelevant”.

        Like

      68. No one lives forever. No evidence for this at all.

        And per your bible, this god only picked certain people who can accept it. It damns the rest for no fault of their own (Romans 9). So, your baseless claims of this god’s love are just silly.

        And dear, I have better morals than a god that has no problem with killing children. I wouldn’t bother worshipping vermin like that even if it was real.

        Like

      69. we know what happens after death. The brain and body rot. No more person.

        you have no more than the wishful thinking of a scared child.

        Like

      70. then show it. Explain how consciousness changes when the brain is damaged.

        If they aren’t the same thing, then no one should go unconscious from a concussion. No one should show mental illness from brain injury.

        Like

      71. Who says consciousness changes with brain damage?
        Brain damage affects how a person perceives stimuli and interacts with the world but does it make them a different person?

        Like

      72. and again more lies from Matty. Sorry, dear, they know the structure of the brain and nervous system.

        Like

      73. again, where is the soul? If the brain is hardware, then any similar hardware should be able to sense this soul.

        now commence the excuses.

        Like

      74. Nope, it doesn’t always mean that they are an idiot. However, when you have a different opinion than others, it does mean that you are an idiot.

        again, still no evidence for matty’s delusions.

        Like

      75. You have no evidence at all for your nonsense. But again, no surprise that all you have are lies.

        Like

      76. And still waiting for that evidence for your nonsnse. I have evidence you are wrong.

        Like

      77. It’s possible that you don’t know what evidence is or how it’s used.
        Can you name anything that you consider to be evidence for your beliefs?
        I’ll show you how the same evidence can be evidence for my beliefs.

        Like

      78. No it isn’t possible. It is a lie on your part. Do indeed show how entirely different events happening at the same time you claim your magic nonsense happened is “evidence” for your beliefs.

        Like

      79. You really don’t understand what evidence is and how it interacts with what we believe.
        The worldwide distribution of sedimentary rock is an example of evidence.
        We call it the stratigraphic column.
        What is it evidence of?
        You deny the existence of God and so to rationalize the evidence you use it as the basis for the geological timescale.
        I accept the existence of God and so I can understand it as proof that Noah’s flood happened.
        Same evidence, different beliefs.

        Like

      80. Alas, you haven’t a clue about the geological column. If you did, you would know that it is evidence for a series of erosion and deposit events since it shows each layer graded from fine to coarse within itself. This cannot be evidence for anything else. Floods don’t leave deposits like this.

        of course, you’ll just lie and claim they do. Nothing new here.

        Like

      81. Alas, you’re blowing smoke about the “geological column.”
        Did I happen to mention that I have a Masters degree in Paleobotany? That’s the study of, among other things, the stratigraphic column.
        Having examined a lot of evidence first hand I can categorically state that the stratigraphic column, Cambrian through Quaternary, is evidence of Noah’s flood. It’s deduction.
        On the other hand your rationalization of the evidence to fit the premise of a geological timescale is induction.

        Like

      82. alas, I am not and you again have to tell a lie, Matty. You indeed mentioned you have a masters in paleobotany. That hasn’t made you smart or less of a liar.

        You have no evidence of the column from the cambrian to the quaternary as evidence of one massive 28,000+ foot deep flood. Floods don’t leave layered and sorted deposits.

        I have evidence and it is deduction.

        now, do show us all how floods leave layered deposits that are graded within themselves.

        A real geologist shows how this does not happen with a lovely, and simple, experiment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5ElhX38w3Q

        Like

      83. and you discussed lies. But that’s nothing new.

        Poor Matty, still can’t show how a flood can make the layers we see.

        Like

      84. I gave you a link to a series of detailed posts which show exactly how the flood caused the stratigraphic column to form, it even has a reason for why there are paleozoic, mesozoic and cenozoic sections.

        Like

      85. you gave me links to a series of posts with baseless garbage in them. Those posts demonstrated an amazing ignorance in the most basic science.

        Like

      86. Not bad. A good day at work and a nice evening drinking a home-brewed beer, kibbitzing with my spouse, watching some TV and pointing out theist failures online.

        How was yours?

        Like

      87. that bit of nonsense is belied when he only other person to care to comment here also thinks you are an idiot.

        Like

      88. That being the case the question ought to be, why are YOU posting here?
        We already established that you don’t have a solid grasp of basic science.
        Are you saying that you don’t understand social media too?

        Like

      89. again, dear you are my cat toy. I am here to see what new nonsense you post. You are a great example of how religion fails.

        Like

      90. no, matty you don’t write about science. You write about religion and try to make science fit your delusions.

        Like

      91. “Theory is the scientific word for faith”

        This is the final evidence of cult-like behavior; language manipulation. Creating new definitions for words and phrases that allow the cult leader to “re-inform” his followers and demonstrate that his nonsense is sound. Any 3rd grader knows that faith is the belief in something for which there is no evidence.

        Clubschadenfreude: Save your breath for something else. A cult is a cult and there are those that will never buy into it, and those that will. Marty’s looking for the latter, you are the former.

        Like

      92. Quoting you “faith is the belief in something for which there is no evidence.”
        That’s mindless propaganda and the statement isn’t logically sound.
        We all have exactly the same evidence.
        We all have faith in something.
        Our faith is how we interpret evidence.
        There’s no cult, salvation is through faith in Jesus Christ and none other.

        Like

      93. I consider Matty a cat toy for myself. He is no more than a cultist and a conspiracy theorist, someone who needs to pretend he’s important.

        Like

      94. no, as the lawyer said, I’m not a cat. But I do like batting you around like a cat toy. The Dunning Kruger is strong with you.

        Like

      95. Alas for Matty, he is a classic example of Dunning-Kruger, “The Dunning-Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people wrongly overestimate their knowledge or ability in a specific area. This tends to occur because a lack of self-awareness prevents them from accurately assessing their own skills.” Psychology Today

        Like

      96. The fact that you had to copy-and-paste a definition of Dunning Kruger from a psychology journal means that you don’t understand it.
        It’s usually taken as the observation that there are people who are too stupid to know how stupid they are.
        However, in an interesting parallel, high-functioning individuals who find complex tasks to be easy naturally assume that everyone else will find the tasks easy too.
        This is why it seems like simple logic for me to debunk theoretical physics while maintaining the integrity of all empirical laws, while you’re copy-and-pasting definitions that you found on a Google search.

        Like

      97. I’m quite happy to see you so desperate in your nonsense that you have to whine about someone copy and pasting something rather than type out the exact same thing.

        Good show, matty! You have nothing at all.

        Yes, I do assume that people can do what I can. That is a mistake. I however, know that you can’t.

        Alas, no one else notices your ever so special “debunking”. It’s hilarious to see you do things like make up terms like “empirical laws”. when there no such things.

        Like

      98. Kepler’s laws of planetary motion show that you are wrong. But nice try though.

        we can see the laws of planetary motion in planets around stars far from us and they have to be very large for those laws to work.

        Like

      99. and again, we have an idiot who thinks that he understands things better than everyone else. Alas no one notices, and he can’t convince anyone about his failures.

        Like

      100. No, and there is no evidence of eternal life. Given that Christians can’t agree on what their god wants, what heaven and hell are, etc no reason to think that your religious fantasies are any more true than any others.

        And your god isn’t fond of liars (Romans 3).

        Like

      101. The evidence of eternal life is that Jesus rose from the grave.
        However, if you would rather dismiss that as evidence then you and I both have faith in one outcome or another.

        Like

      102. no evidence of that either, Matty, only a moldly old baseless claim in a book filled with contradictions and outright lies.

        Oh, I do trust that you’ll just die. I dont’ need faith.

        Like

      103. You may believe that there’s no life after death but it’s not a testable hypothesis in which case it’s not scientific.
        You have just as much faith as I do.

        Like

      104. funny how we have the fact the brain and body rot and no one comes back. I don’t need to prove anything more than that. No souls floating around by themselves. If they can interact with the brain, then they can interact with other electrochemical objects. Hmmm, two millennia of looking and still failure.

        Theists need to show that their fantasies are true.

        Like

      105. The soul (our consciousness and personality) is a gravity node.
        The soul interacts with the environment by inhabiting a body which is controlled by a brain.
        The soul is eternal.

        Like

      106. and yep, more garbage. So, dear, do tell how something that is immaterial has gravity. And let us now watch Matty invent a new definition for gravity.

        and do tell how this soul interacts with the brain or the body. If it can interact with electrochemical things, we should be able to detect it.

        Funny how that doesn’t happen.

        Like

      107. Baseless?
        The existence of the human soul as a gravity node is the conclusion of four different lines of deductive reasoning and it’s a predictive testable hypothesis based on gravitational waves.

        Like

      108. yep, baseless, as in Matty is making up nonsense again to feel special. It’s hilarious that you want to claim that gravitation waves support your lies. You have no idea what a singularity even is.

        it’s hilarious to see you lie about a singularity at the center of the earth. that’s what you get for thinking that the bible is true. Alas, it is a set of books written by ignorant men.

        oh and dear, gravity has nothing to do with “evil”. ::facepalm::

        Like

      109. The Bible may have been written by ignorant men but, and here you can use some logic, it somehow contains a unified theory of everything (first cause, time, gravitation, electromagnetism, consciousness and redemption) that they couldn’t have known anything about….
        Therefore it has to have a divine nature.
        Logic.

        Like

      110. nope, it does not contain a unified theory of everything. You’ve made that garbage up with your rather pathetic “interpretation”.

        hmmm, so if something might predict things ahead of its time it’s magical? Well golly then, Jules Verne is a prophet!

        Like

      111. That’s a very amateur tactic: comparing something from last century which was intended as fiction to something from two millennia ago which is divinely inspired.
        You’re usually fine but this makes it sound like you’re 14 years old.

        Like

      112. Sorry, dear, your bible is fiction that is poorly written. At least Verne could write and not contradict himself.

        So much for “divinely inspired.”

        But nice attempts to be insulting again.

        Like

      113. My Bible?
        We may be getting to the root of your cognitive dissonance.
        You’re criticizing me because you don’t like what the Bible says, but I didn’t write the Bible.
        I’m showing the people of our time how relevant it is through physics, geology, chemistry and biology.

        Like

      114. yep, your bible dear. The one you try ever so hard to pretend is real. You invent your own interpretation of it, just like every other Christian.

        It’s wonderful that you can’t show a single one of your delusions to be true.

        Like

      115. an the “all true” nonsense that a Christian tries when he can’t show his nonsense to be real.

        Like

      116. It’s not my job to make you believe a certain way.
        I’m sowing seeds and watering.
        So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth. (1 Corinthians 3:7) ESV

        Like

      117. and now we get into were the theist claims something is true and can’t show it. such lovely circular reasoning.

        Like

      118. no, it hasn’t been shown. poor Matty, claiming his nonsense is “self-evident” just like all of the theists who say he’s wrong.

        Like

      119. God is the one who states clearly that the truth is self-evident.
        For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.” (Romans 1:20) NLT

        Like

      120. a fictional character stating anything is meaningless.

        and most, if not all, religions make the same claim. Alas, none of you can show that your version of some god is the right one.

        Like

      121. You must have missed the part where the entire universe is derived from the only begotten son, Jesus Christ.
        God the Father (hydrogen) conceived with the Holy Spirit (Oxygen) to form the deep (H2O) who is the embodiment of the phrase “the word became flesh.”
        This gives us a theory of first cause.

        Like

      122. Yes, I do have a life. And I find it necessary to expose the lies of theists like you. It’s a worthwhile hobby.

        Like

      123. no, since it doesn’t. Ooooh, look one person showing that Matty is a nutcase. Yeah, that’s not the stats to be proud of.

        Like

      124. We also call that “eisogesis” where we imbue a premise or a conclusion with the data necessary to produce the result we’re already looking for. Kinda like what you do. Twist and turn the story over and over so it makes your original theory correct when, in fact, it is not.

        Like

      125. Ra, if you are claiming that I’ve done this “Kinda like what you do. Twist and turn the story over and over so it makes your original theory correct when, in fact, it is not.”

        show where.

        Like

      126. I thought so 🙂 Matty is quite the amazing idiot. Must be a real thrill working with him.

        Like

      127. You really are a dreamer Matt. Really. You can’t hear yourself jumping through hoops to try and rationalize a “theory” (there’s nothing theoretical about it, it’s just crazy talk) in order to make your religion work? There is nothing inductive about what science knows – and doesn’t know, by the way – about the universe except in the minds of those that choose to believe in this hogwash you call Christianity, “God”, whatever. When you were a child, you spake as a child, now it’s time to put away childish things.

        Yes, you can “choose” to believe anything you like; God, the boogie man, Easter, Bunny, Tooth Fairy, whatever. But let’s call it what it is; delusion. There’s nothing scientific or rational about it at all. Spin your phony scientific “theories” all you like, it’s still just crazy talk until it gets recognized or accepted by the corpus of scientific communities worldwide. I just don’t see that happening.

        Like

      128. You don’t know much about science. Quoting you “There is nothing inductive about what science knows.”
        Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation states that “A particle attracts every other particle in the universe using a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. This is a general physical law derived from empirical observations by what Isaac Newton called induction.”
        Theories have to be based on testable hypotheses which are predictive. That’s what I did.

        Like

      129. Poor Matt, still having no luck with convincing Christians he’s right.

        Poor Matt, he thinks that if someone shows how he lies and he’s wrong, they “really” are interested in him. Such is the desperate who needs acknowledgment.

        No, Matt, I just love to show how Christians know they have nothing and continue to try to feed on science like remoras, since you have nothing of your own.

        Like

      130. I’m not here to convince Christians. If someone is a Christian it’s because they believe that Jesus Christ is God the Son who died and rose again, in which case they already have what they need: eternal life.

        Like

      131. Nice excuse matty, but you are trying convince Christians your ignorance is true. You make up your version of Christianity.

        A shame that you choose to lie and ignore what this supposed messiah said.

        Like

    1. The light on the first day was nucleosynthesis. It’s essentially the Big bang of popular science. There was a body of water present called the deep which was the source of Hydrogen.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: