Why isn't the standing still of the sun and the moon not recorded by other cultures?

[Compassionist]

I am quoting from Joshua 10: 12 - 14, the Bible (English Standard Version)

"At that time Joshua spoke to the Lord in the day when the Lord gave the Amorites over to the sons of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel,

Sun, stand still at Gibeon,
and moon, in the Valley of Aijalon.”
And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped,
until the nation took vengeance on their enemies.

Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stopped in the midst of heaven and did not hurry to set for about a whole day. There has been no day like it before or since, when the Lord heeded the voice of a man, for the Lord fought for Israel."

Why isn't the standing still of the sun and the moon not recorded by other cultures that had invented writing?

The event described in Joshua 10:12–14, where the sun and moon are said to have stood still to allow the Israelites more time to defeat their enemies, would - if taken literally - constitute a global astronomical phenomenon. If the Earth’s rotation truly stopped or slowed (which is what "the sun stood still" would physically mean), it would have had catastrophic global consequences, including massive earthquakes, tsunamis, and changes in atmospheric motion due to sudden deceleration.

Such an event could not have gone unnoticed by other civilisations and would have been recorded by other literate cultures that kept astronomical or historical records.

At the time (around 13th to 15th century BCE, depending on the dating of the conquest narratives), several advanced civilisations with writing and astronomical records existed, including:

Egyptians
Babylonians
Chinese (Shang Dynasty)
Minoans/Mycenaeans
Sumerians
Indus Valley remnants

Yet none of these cultures, despite their meticulous sky observations, record a day when the sun and moon stood still or behaved abnormally. I conclude that this is because the Bible is lying about the Biblical God making the sun and the moon stand still.

[1213]

...There is zero evidence that the stories in the Bible are true. If you can provide evidence for the various stories in the Bible, e.g. Adam and Eve's creation by God and eviction from Eden, Jesus being conceived without sex, the various miracles in the Old and New Testaments, then please do.

The evidence for that God created is life and the Bible.

The evidence for that things went as told in the Bible are the Jews. And that is probably why world hates them so much.

1. Genetic Evidence

a. Shared DNA with Other Primates
Humans share ~98.8% of DNA with chimpanzees and ~96% with gorillas.
The similarities are not random — they appear in **the same genes, in the same order**, including identical “mistakes” (pseudogenes, broken viral sequences, etc.), which indicate **common ancestry** rather than separate creation.

That is like saying, Bible has same letters as the Origin of species, they must have been written by the same person.

If you would want to create biological beings, you would use similar code to cause similar things. If there is truly over 90 % similarity, it is as much evidence for a same creator.

b. Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs)
About 8% of human DNA consists of fossilized viral DNA from ancient infections passed to offspring.
Humans and other primates share identical ERVs in the same chromosomal locations, meaning these viral insertions happened before our species diverged — impossible if each species were separately created.

Or if that is true, the same virus infected in similar way multiple species. Not really evidence for evolution.

c. Chromosome 2 Fusion
* Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, while apes have 24 pairs.
* Human chromosome 2 is a direct fusion of two ape chromosomes - it contains two centromeres and telomere sequences in the middle instead of at the ends.
* This fusion event is visible under a microscope and confirmed by DNA sequencing - a smoking gun for common ancestry.

Or it was created like that.

2. Fossil Evidence

The fossil record shows a gradual, chronological transition from ape-like ancestors to modern Homo sapiens, with intermediate species bridging the gaps.

| Species | Approx. Age (million years ago) | Key Traits
| ------------------------------------- | ------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------
| Sahelanthropus tchadensis | 7 | Early bipedal traits, small brain
| Australopithecus afarensis (“Lucy”) | 3.2 | Fully bipedal, still ape-like skull
| Homo habilis | 2.4–1.4 | Tool use, larger brain
| Homo erectus | 1.9–0.1 | Global spread, fire use, modern body proportions
| Homo neanderthalensis | 0.4–0.04 | Large brains, complex culture
| Homo sapiens | 0.3–present | Symbolic art, language, abstract thought

These fossils show a clear evolutionary sequence - not sudden appearance.

Those can be just separate species that were created in the beginning. Or just remains of humans that are little different than common human.

3. Anatomical Evidence

Human anatomy retains numerous vestiges of our evolutionary past:

Tailbone (coccyx) - remnant of a tail used by ancestors.

"Tailbone" is more likely just a necessary bone in human body, not necessary any vestige.

Appendix - reduced from a large fermentation chamber in herbivorous ancestors.

Or just what it was created to be.

Wisdom teeth - relic of larger jaws used for coarse vegetation.

Could be a sign from that people are devolving from the original good state that was when God created.

It is interesting that all evidence for the evolution theory fits more to the Biblical idea that everything was good in the beginning and then began to degenerate.

Goosebumps - inherited from fur-raising in other mammals.

Or something that was created.

Embryonic gill arches and tail ...

By what I have seen, that is not true.

These make no sense under special creation but are entirely expected under evolution.

Why would they be there, if they make no sense? Why would evolution leave them, if they are not useful?

4. Geological and Radiometric Dating

Radiometric dating (e.g., uranium-lead, potassium-argon) shows that the Earth is 4.54 billion years old, not 6,000–10,000 years as Genesis implies.
Fossils of early humans are found in rock layers millions of years old, consistent across continents and dating methods.
No human fossils are found in the same layers as dinosaurs — proving the biblical timeline false.

Firstly, if they are not found in same timeline, that could just be a coincidence and no human was there, when the dinosaurs died. It is not reasonable to assume that human and a dinosaur would die on the same spot.

Secondly, they radiometric dating is not reliable, because it makes an assumption of what was the state of the examined object when it was formed.

5. Geographic and Genetic Distribution

Human genetic diversity decreases with distance from Africa, consistent with an African origin about 315,000 years ago.
All humans today descend from a population of perhaps 10,000–20,000 early Homo sapiens in Africa - confirmed by mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome studies.

If humans have existed 315,000 years, why all significant development has only happened during the last 6,000 years? Why was for example computer not invented already 300,000 years ago?

6. Archaeological and Cultural Evidence

Stone tools, art, burial sites, and symbolic artifacts appear gradually in the record.
There is no sign of a sudden “creation” event - instead, complexity accumulates step by step over hundreds of thousands of years.

I think all evidence suggests that there was a great flood about 6,000 years ago and that humans were created not over hundreds of thousands of years ago.

7. Consensus of Science

Virtually every scientific organization on Earth — including the National Academy of Sciences (U.S.), Royal Society (U.K.), AAAS, and UNESCO - affirms that evolution is an established fact ...

Virtually all priests affirms God is real, why don't you believe them?

[Compassionist]

[Replying to 1213 in post #21]

Thank you for your reply. I’ll respond to each of your points in turn.

1. “The evidence that God created is life and the Bible.”

That is an assertion, not evidence.
Evidence is empirical - observable, testable, and falsifiable. The Bible is a claim, not a confirmation. Other religions also have books claiming creation by their own gods. Without independent corroboration, scripture is not evidence; it is hearsay.

2. “The Jews’ existence proves the Bible true.”

The existence of a group of people does not verify their mythology.
For instance, the existence of Greeks does not prove Zeus exists, nor do Egyptians prove Ra exists. A culture’s survival doesn’t validate its sacred stories.

3. “DNA similarity means a common creator, not common ancestry.”

That’s like saying identical spelling mistakes in two essays prove the same teacher, not one copying the other.

In biology, shared non-functional DNA (like identical broken genes, identical viral insertions, and identical mutations in the same positions) points overwhelmingly to inheritance - not design. A designer could reuse functional code, but why reuse broken code in the same way across species? That makes no sense under creation but fits perfectly with evolution.

4. “ERVs might come from viruses infecting multiple species the same way.”

That is statistically impossible.
ERVs insert at random locations in the genome. The chance of the same virus inserting in exactly the same chromosomal location in humans and chimps thousands of times is effectively zero. The only reasonable explanation is inheritance from a common ancestor.

5. “Chromosome 2 was just created that way.”

If it were separately created, we wouldn’t find the fusion site with residual telomere sequences and a vestigial second centromere exactly where ape chromosomes 2A and 2B join. The pattern matches precisely what we would see if two ancestral chromosomes fused end-to-end. That’s physical, testable, repeatable evidence.

6. “Fossils could be separate species created in the beginning.”

Then we’d expect them to appear in the same layers of rock. Instead, the fossil record shows an orderly, chronological progression — never the reverse. No humans in dinosaur strata, no mammals before amphibians, no flowering plants before ferns.
If all were created simultaneously, the layers should be mixed. They are not.

7. “Tailbone and appendix were created that way.”

Vestigial doesn’t mean “useless.” It means “reduced from an earlier function.”
The coccyx still anchors muscles, but it no longer supports a tail.
The appendix has a small immune role, but it’s a remnant of a once-larger cecum for digesting cellulose. These are evolutionary leftovers, not fresh designs.

8. “Wisdom teeth show degeneration from an original perfect state.”

That argument assumes the conclusion. There’s no evidence of a perfect original human form. Smaller jaws evolved because softer, cooked food reduced selective pressure for larger teeth. Evolution predicts gradual adaptation - not perfection followed by decay.

9. “Embryonic gill arches aren’t true.”

They are real, but misnamed. In human embryos, pharyngeal arches develop in a pattern homologous to fish gills. In fish they become gills; in mammals they become parts of the jaw, ear, and neck. Their shared structure across vertebrates is another mark of common ancestry.

10. “Why would evolution leave them if not useful?”

Because evolution isn’t an engineer - it’s a tinkerer. Natural selection modifies what already exists. If a structure is neutral or only slightly disadvantageous, it can persist. There is no foresight or clean design reset in evolution.

11. “Radiometric dating assumes initial conditions.”

Dating methods use cross-checks and isochron techniques precisely to avoid that problem. Different isotope systems (U-Pb, K-Ar, Rb-Sr, etc.) on the same rock yield consistent ages. Independent methods like ice cores, dendrochronology, and astronomical data all align with an Earth about 4.54 billion years old. To dismiss all of them, one must assume a coordinated global error across multiple independent sciences - an extraordinary claim with no evidence.

12. “No humans died with dinosaurs by coincidence.”

Dinosaurs went extinct 66 million years ago. Anatomically modern humans arose 315,000 years ago. That’s not coincidence - it’s a 65.7-million-year gap. We have countless dinosaur fossils and countless human fossils, but never together. The time separation is established by multiple independent dating methods.

13. “Why didn’t ancient humans invent computers earlier?”

Technological progress depends on accumulated culture, not brain size.
For most of our species’ history, humans lived in small, nomadic groups. Large-scale agriculture, writing, and cities only emerged about 10,000 years ago. Once cumulative knowledge began compounding, progress accelerated exponentially. Evolution doesn’t predict when technology should appear.

14. “All evidence points to a global flood 6,000 years ago.”

There is no geological evidence of a single global flood.
Sediment layers around the world record different ages, contain regional fossils, and show undisturbed tree rings older than 6,000 years. Civilisations such as the Egyptians, Sumerians, and Chinese kept continuous records through that period with no mention of a global cataclysm wiping them out. A regional flood in Mesopotamia likely inspired the myth, not a global one.

15. “Virtually all priests believe in God, so why not believe them?”

Science relies on evidence, not authority.
Priests assert faith-based claims. Scientists provide measurable, testable data. If scientists didn't provide evidence, I would not accept what they stated. Belief is not evidence. When religious claims have been tested (e.g., young Earth, global flood, geocentrism), they have been falsified by evidence.

Evolution is not a belief system - it’s an explanatory framework supported by genetics, fossils, anatomy, geology, and observed processes like mutation and selection.

Creationism, in contrast, is an interpretation of one ancient text with no independent corroboration. I am 100% certain that the stories in the Bible are false because there is zero evidence to support them. I am also 100% certain that the Biblical God is evil and imaginary.

[1213]

[Replying to 1213 in post #21]

Thank you for your reply. I’ll respond to each of your points in turn.

1. “The evidence that God created is life and the Bible.”

That is an assertion, not evidence.
Evidence is empirical - observable, testable, and falsifiable. The Bible is a claim, not a confirmation.

When the Bible has for example information that people would not have without God, then the book itself can also be seen as evidence.

2. “The Jews’ existence proves the Bible true.”

The existence of a group of people does not verify their mythology.
For instance, the existence of Greeks does not prove Zeus exists, nor do Egyptians prove Ra exists. A culture’s survival doesn’t validate its sacred stories.

That things go as told in the Bible, in my opinion shows Bible is true. And i mean with this also, if thousands of years ago something was said and things go as was said, it proves the Bible true. One example of that is for example what has happened to Jews.

In biology, shared non-functional DNA (like identical broken genes, identical viral insertions, and identical mutations in the same positions) points overwhelmingly to inheritance - not design. A designer could reuse functional code, but why reuse broken code in the same way across species? That makes no sense under creation but fits perfectly with evolution.

Maybe it is not really a broken code, but something that you just don't understand?

4. “ERVs might come from viruses infecting multiple species the same way.”

That is statistically impossible.
ERVs insert at random locations in the genome. The chance of the same virus inserting in exactly the same chromosomal location in humans and chimps thousands of times is effectively zero. The only reasonable explanation is inheritance from a common ancestor.

It is always funny when a person who believes all species evolved from single species, says something is statistically impossible. The whole evolution belief is based on miraculous random events.

To really test the evolution theory, one way would be to try to breed rats into whale like creatures. According to the belief, whales evolved from land animals, so it should be possible to select rats so that the gradually change and eventually are like whales. Curiously, all evolution believers that I have met say, it is not possible. And of course they say that it requires lot of time, which is why it is not possible. But, that would be the only possible way to really see does the theory really work. And then it could be called a real scientific theory.

Then we’d expect them to appear in the same layers of rock. Instead, the fossil record shows an orderly, chronological progression — never the reverse. No humans in dinosaur strata, no mammals before amphibians, no flowering plants before ferns.
If all were created simultaneously, the layers should be mixed. They are not.

No they should not be mixed, because they are not similar in structure and also usually don't live in a same location. For example some are lighter and float and other don't, which puts them then in a different space.

Vestigial doesn’t mean “useless.” It means “reduced from an earlier function.”
The coccyx still anchors muscles, but it no longer supports a tail.
The appendix has a small immune role, but it’s a remnant of a once-larger cecum for digesting cellulose. These are evolutionary leftovers, not fresh designs.

Or, because they have a function, there are intentionally designed as they are.

10. “Why would evolution leave them if not useful?”

Because evolution isn’t an engineer - it’s a tinkerer. Natural selection modifies what already exists. If a structure is neutral or only slightly disadvantageous, it can persist. There is no foresight or clean design reset in evolution.

Yes, "natural selection modifies what already exists", it doesn't produce anything new.

Dating methods use cross-checks and isochron techniques precisely to avoid that problem. Different isotope systems (U-Pb, K-Ar, Rb-Sr, etc.) on the same rock yield consistent ages. Independent methods like ice cores, dendrochronology, and astronomical data all align with an Earth about 4.54 billion years old. To dismiss all of them, one must assume a coordinated global error across multiple independent sciences - an extraordinary claim with no evidence.

It all looks like the worlds largest circular reasoning.

Large-scale agriculture, writing, and cities only emerged about 10,000 years ago. Once cumulative knowledge began compounding, progress accelerated exponentially.

Sorry, I have difficulties to believe people would not have developed writing soon (in about few thousands of years) after they emerged.

There is no geological evidence of a single global flood.
Sediment layers around the world record different ages, contain regional fossils, and show undisturbed tree rings older than 6,000 years. Civilisations such as the Egyptians, Sumerians, and Chinese kept continuous records through that period with no mention of a global cataclysm wiping them out. A regional flood in Mesopotamia likely inspired the myth, not a global one.

The evidence for the global flood are:
1) Orogenic mountains
2) Vast sediment formations, like most of the strata in the Grand Canyon area.
3) The Mid Atlantic ridge
4) Oil, gas and coal fields
5) Marine fossils on high mountain areas
6) Ancient coast lines
7) The great glaciers
8) Stories about a great flood in many cultures.

I don't believe Civilizations and fossils are dated correctly.

Science relies on evidence, not authority.
Priests assert faith-based claims. Scientists provide measurable, testable data. If scientists didn't provide evidence, I would not accept what they stated....

Yet, I am expected to believe the high priests of science, because they all affirm they are correct.

Evolution is not a belief system -

By what I see, it is a modernized mother earth cult.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #14]

First, it’s important not to conflate claims with evidence.

It is when the evidence is claimed to be false. It's not an objective analysis of what the evidence says, but a subjective accusation.

I am not asking anyone to believe in my authority or opinion -
I am asking whether a global physical event (the sun and moon standing still) would have left verifiable, cross-cultural evidence if it truly happened.

Once again, you're not objectively asking why such an event is not more widely recorded, but rather claiming the record of the event is false, because it's not recorded elsewhere. This is not objective skepticism, but predetermined rejection by unbelief alone. Which is opinion without authority.

And, an opinion that would not change with or without corroborating evidence.

1. On the “Eclipse at the Crucifixion”

There is no record by Greek astronomers of a total solar eclipse lasting several hours during a full moon.

Other than that given. It's one thing to reject a record of events, but another to say it doesn't exist at all.

By definition, a solar eclipse cannot occur during a full moon, because the Moon must be between the Earth and the Sun (new-moon phase) for an eclipse to happen.

By natural law that's the case. Which is why the event is unnatural, with natural law changed by supernatural power. Unbelief is not an argument.

The story of “darkness from the sixth to the ninth hour” at the crucifixion is not an astronomical observation, but a theological motif found in the Gospels. It uses symbolic darkness to represent divine grief or judgment - a literary device common in ancient texts.

Neither is pseudo-symbolizing recorded events.

In any case, any honest argument for supporting evidence is abandoned. Unbelief is the motivating factor, that will not be change by any amount of recorded evidence.

Invoking one unverified miracle (a three-hour eclipse during a full moon) to defend another (a 24-hour suspension of Earth’s rotation) does not increase credibility - it compounds the problem.

It does confirm credibility of the accuser. Demands for external evidence are a smokescreen for predetermined disbelief.

Reliable truth claims are those that leave independent, consistent evidence that can be tested from multiple sources.

Not true. Since in this case, the record is still rejected, even if external records exist.

And so in the end, the argument has nothing to do with credibility of recorded evidence, but only with incredulous disbelief in the spiritual things having power over the natural. Which is natural opinion, not proven truth.

[RBD]

4. Conclusion

Either the event was literal (and physically impossible without catastrophic consequences)
Or it was a mythological event (and not a record of real astronomy).Both options refute a literalist claim that the Bible gives scientifically accurate history.

Other than being impossible, this is true. Changing events recorded literally into symbolism, only undermines Bible integrity. It accuses the writers of recording fables, as though they were fact.

Saying the event is impossible, is only natural-bound opinion.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to 1213 in post #23]

Thank you again for engaging. I appreciate your willingness to continue the discussion.
Let me respond point by point.

1. “If the Bible contains information people couldn’t know, it’s evidence of God.”

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Many ancient books contain poetic or insightful statements, but insight doesn’t prove divine origin.
If the Bible contained verifiable scientific knowledge that was unknown at the time and demonstrably accurate beyond chance or inference, that could count as evidence.
But claims like “the Earth hangs on nothing” or “the circle of the Earth” were common ancient metaphors, not scientific observations.
To be evidence of divine revelation, a text must contain unique, specific, and correct information inaccessible by human means - which no scripture does.

The Bible never states that the Earth is a sphere. There are many Bible verses which talk about the Earth as if it is a flat square or rectangle:

Isaiah 11:12

“He will raise a banner for the nations and gather the exiles of Israel; he will assemble the scattered people of Judah from the four corners of the earth.”
(Hebrew: kanafot ha’aretz - literally “corners” of the land.)

Ezekiel 7:2

“An end! The end has come upon the four corners of the land.”
(Same Hebrew phrasing as Isaiah, implying all extremities of the Earth.)

Revelation 7:1

“After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth, so that no wind could blow on the earth or on the sea or on any tree.”

Revelation 20:8

“[Satan] will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, and to gather them for battle.”

Here are some Bible verses which talk about the ends or the edges of the Earth. The Earth is a sphere and therefore, does not have ends or edges.

Job 37:3

“He unleashes his lightning beneath the whole heaven and sends it to the ends of the earth.”

Job 38:13

“…that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it?”

Isaiah 24:16

“From the ends of the earth we hear singing: ‘Glory to the Righteous One.’”

2. “Prophecies about the Jews prove the Bible true.”

The alleged Prophecies are written after the fact or are vague enough to be interpreted many ways.
The continued existence of Jews shows cultural perseverance, not divine intervention.
By the same reasoning, the survival of Hindus, Chinese, or Indigenous peoples would prove their religions true.
Historical endurance is not supernatural proof.

3. “Maybe those broken genes aren’t really broken.”

They are broken.
We can identify frameshift mutations, premature stop codons, and missing regulatory regions that make the genes nonfunctional.
For example, humans and chimps share the same disabled GULO gene (for vitamin C synthesis) with identical mutations.
A designer would have no reason to copy the same broken gene into both species - but inheritance from a common ancestor explains it perfectly.

4. “Evolution is statistically impossible, but you believe in random miracles.”

Evolution isn’t random miracles - it’s lawful, cumulative change.
Mutation introduces variation (partly random), but natural selection is non-random - it preserves beneficial variations and removes harmful ones.
Small changes accumulate over immense timescales, just as tiny drips carve canyons.
Calling that “miraculous” misunderstands probability: low probability in one event doesn’t apply when you have billions of trials across billions of years.

5. “Try breeding rats into whales to prove evolution.”

That’s like asking a physicist to make a mountain in a lab to prove plate tectonics.
Evolution typically operates over millions of years and thousands of generations - not in human lifespans.
However, we have directly observed speciation in bacteria, insects, and plants.
We also have transitional fossils - Ambulocetus and Pakicetus — showing the shift from land mammals to whales.
We don’t need to breed rats into whales to test evolution; we can trace intermediate forms, DNA evidence, and comparative anatomy that all line up consistently.

6. “Fossils are sorted by buoyancy, not time.”

If fossils were sorted by buoyancy in a single flood, light shells and heavy bones would mix within one layer.
Instead, we find microscopic plankton fossils only in the oldest strata, dinosaurs only in Mesozoic strata, and humans only in Quaternary strata - never mixed.
Even volcanic ash layers within those strata can be dated and correlated across continents.
A global flood cannot explain that fine-grained chronological order, but gradual deposition over deep time can.

7. “Vestigial organs still have functions, so they’re not vestigial.”

“Vestigial” means “reduced from an earlier function”, not “useless.”
The coccyx still anchors muscles, but it no longer supports a tail - that’s precisely what “vestigial” means.
Design doesn’t predict such partial leftovers; descent with modification does.

8. “Natural selection modifies, but doesn’t produce anything new.”

It produces new genes and structures through mutation, duplication, and divergence.
For instance, the antifreeze protein in Antarctic fish evolved from a duplicated digestive enzyme gene.
Duplication provides raw material; selection refines it.
This has been demonstrated in laboratory evolution experiments such as Richard Lenski’s 70,000-generation E. coli project, where bacteria evolved new metabolic pathways.

9. “Radiometric dating is circular reasoning.”

It’s not circular; it’s self-consistent.
Different isotope systems (U-Pb, Rb-Sr, K-Ar) have distinct decay constants and half-lives.
When applied to the same rock, they yield concordant ages.
Cross-checks with ice cores, dendrochronology, and sediment layers independently confirm the timeline.
To call this circular, one must show that all independent methods use each other as assumptions - they don’t.

10. “People should have invented writing sooner.”

That assumes linear progress, but archaeology shows otherwise.
Before surplus agriculture, populations were small and nomadic, leaving little incentive for writing systems.
Writing emerged when economic complexity (taxes, trade, records) made it necessary - roughly 5,000 years ago, consistent with the archaeological record.

11. “Evidence for the global flood”

All those phenomena - mountains, sediment layers, ridges, coal, oil, fossils on mountains, glaciers, and flood myths - have natural explanations unrelated to a global flood:

Mountains: Formed by tectonic uplift, not floodwater.
Sedimentary strata: Laid down over millions of years in varied environments (marine, desert, river).
Mid-Atlantic Ridge: Ongoing seafloor spreading, not flood rupture.
Coal and oil: Formed from ancient plant and plankton deposits under pressure and heat.
Marine fossils on mountains: From uplift of former seabeds.
Flood myths: Common because local floods were frequent and catastrophic in river valleys.

There is no global layer of uniform flood deposits encircling the planet, and tree rings older than 6,000 years remain continuous - proving no worldwide flood occurred.

12. “Scientists are like high priests of science.”

Science doesn’t require belief in authority; it requires evidence reproducible by anyone.
You don’t have to trust scientists - you can replicate their measurements, check the math, and read the data.
Faith says “believe regardless of evidence.”
Science says “believe because of evidence.”
That’s the opposite of priesthood.

13. “Evolution is a modernized Mother Earth cult.”

That’s rhetoric, not argument.
Evolution isn’t worship; it’s a scientific model explaining observed biodiversity through testable mechanisms.
It works in medicine (vaccine design, antibiotic resistance), agriculture (selective breeding), and genetics (shared ancestry of genes).
Its success lies in predictive power - not in belief.

The Bible makes claims, not measurements.
Evolution is evidence-based and testable.
Flood geology contradicts observable stratigraphy and radiometric data.
Science corrects itself; the Bible does not, and cannot.

If the Bible’s claims were consistently supported by independent evidence, I would accept them.
So far, the evidence overwhelmingly supports an ancient Earth, evolution by natural processes, and no global flood - not divine creation 6,000 years ago.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to RBD in post #24]

Thank you for replying. I’ll address your points one at a time as respectfully as I can.

1. On “subjective accusation” vs objective analysis

Skepticism isn’t an accusation; it’s the default position until a claim is substantiated.
If someone reports an extraordinary event - like the Sun and Moon stopping in the sky - the objective question is whether any independent, verifiable evidence supports that report.
If none exists, it is not “calling it false by prejudice,” it is simply withholding belief until evidence appears - which is how we treat all historical claims, religious or not.

That’s not hostility; it’s consistency.

2. On conflating record with reality

Saying “there is only one record” is not the same as saying “the record is false.”
It’s saying “the record is unconfirmed.”
Historians always seek multiple attesting sources because human memory and oral transmission are unreliable.
If a global astronomical event occurred, every culture on Earth - has seen it Egyptians, Chinese, Mayans, Greeks, Babylonians - yet no such records exist.
The absence of global corroboration is evidence against a global event, not proof of “unbelief.”

3. On supernatural explanations

Appealing to “supernatural power overriding natural law” explains anything and therefore explains nothing.
If every contradiction between a story and natural law can be resolved by saying “God changed the laws temporarily,” then no event is testable and all distinctions between myth and reality vanish.
Science and history rely on regularity - the assumption that natural laws are consistent.
If those laws can be suspended at will, evidence becomes meaningless and discussion impossible.

4. On the eclipse at the Crucifixion

Greek, Roman, and Chinese astronomers kept meticulous records of eclipses.
No record exists of a three-hour solar eclipse during a full moon in the first century CE.
That’s not bias; that’s a fact of astronomy.
To say “it was supernatural” concedes that it violates known physics and is therefore not a matter of historical or scientific evidence but of myth, then we are no longer discussing evidence.

5. On the charge of “predetermined disbelief”

My position is not “predetermined disbelief,” but conditional belief:

I will believe any claim, natural or supernatural, the moment it is supported by independently verifiable evidence.
That condition is the same one believers use in every other domain of life - medicine, engineering, forensics, or weather forecasts.
It’s not bias; it’s intellectual fairness.

6. On “spiritual things having power over the natural”

If spiritual forces can change physical reality, their effects should still be detectable in physical reality.
Otherwise, the claim is indistinguishable from imagination or legend.
The question isn’t whether the spiritual exists, but whether it leaves measurable traces when it interacts with the physical world.
If it doesn’t, then it lies outside the realm of evidence and cannot be demonstrated to anyone who doesn’t already believe.

7. On credibility and burden of proof

The burden of proof always rests on the person making the positive claim.
If someone says a man rose from the dead, the Sun stopped, or darkness covered the Earth for three hours, the question is:

“What evidence would convince a neutral observer that this happened?”
If the only evidence is “you must already believe,” that’s circular.
Faith can motivate belief, but it cannot serve as evidence for itself.

Skepticism is not hostility; it is the same standard applied to all claims.
“Unbelief” is not a moral fault; it’s a response to insufficient evidence.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Invoking “supernatural exceptions” removes a claim from the realm of history and places it in theology, where verification is impossible.

If a god truly wanted everyone to believe in such events, leaving clear, cross-cultural, physical evidence would be the most honest way to do so.
The absence of that evidence tells us the events didn’t actually happen.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to RBD in post #25]

Thank you for your response. I agree with you on one thing - if the event were literal, it would indeed have catastrophic physical consequences. That is precisely why it cannot be treated as a literal record of real astronomy.

Let me explain why calling it “impossible” is not a mere “natural-bound opinion,” but an evidence-based conclusion.

1. “Impossible” means “contradictory to all known physical evidence.”

When scientists say something is impossible, they don’t mean “God could never do it.”
They mean there is no known mechanism consistent with physical law that allows it, and no empirical evidence that it ever occurred.
Stopping Earth’s rotation for 24 hours without annihilating everything through inertia is not just “unlikely” - it directly contradicts the well-established principles of conservation of momentum and orbital mechanics.

To call that “natural-bound opinion” is like saying “gravity is just an opinion.” It’s not - it’s an observation confirmed trillions of times.

2. Literal or symbolic - both cannot be “scientifically accurate.”

If Joshua’s “sun standing still” is taken literally, it’s physically impossible.
If it’s taken symbolically, then it’s not a scientific description.
Either way, it cannot be used as evidence that the Bible gives literal, scientific truth about nature.
That doesn’t insult the authors - it simply recognises that they were writing ancient literature, not science textbooks.
The writers described the world as they understood it, using the language and cosmology of their time. That is entirely human and entirely understandable. God didn't write the Bible; people did.

3. Integrity isn’t harmed by recognising genre.

Acknowledging myth or symbolism doesn’t accuse the authors of deception.
Ancient people used mythic storytelling to express meaning, not to write peer-reviewed science.
Calling Genesis or Joshua “mythic” is like calling the Iliad “epic poetry” - not falsehood, but genre recognition.
Insisting that every story must be literal to be meaningful diminishes the text’s literary and moral depth.

4. Why methodological naturalism matters

Science and history operate under methodological naturalism - the rule that explanations must be consistent with observed laws of nature.
That’s not bias; it’s a practical boundary that lets us test claims.
Once we say “supernatural power can alter any law at any time,” no statement can ever be tested, verified, or falsified - meaning all knowledge collapses into personal belief.

5. Faith and evidence serve different roles

Faith can comfort or inspire, but evidence is what determines whether an event happened in the external world.
If the “sun standing still” was a miracle beyond natural law, it belongs to religion, not science.
If it were a literal, physical event, then its absence from every other culture’s sky records and every geological layer on Earth remains decisive evidence that it didn’t occur.

Saying an event is “impossible” is not arrogance; it’s alignment with all known physics.
Calling a story “symbolic” is not an insult; it’s recognising its true literary nature.
The integrity of the Bible is harmed more by forcing literalism onto ancient myths than by appreciating them as human efforts to understand the divine.

To value a story’s message, we don’t need to pretend its cosmology is scientific truth.

[1213]

[Replying to 1213 in post #23]

Thank you again for engaging. I appreciate your willingness to continue the discussion.
....

Your welcome. Are you using AI, or just naturally well organized?

If the Bible contained verifiable scientific knowledge that was unknown at the time and demonstrably accurate beyond chance or inference, that could count as evidence.

Bible tells that for examole in the beginning there was one continent (one area of dry land). Do you think ancient people would have known that without God?

God said, "Let the waters under the sky be gathered together to one place, and let the dry land appear," and it was so. God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the wa-ters he called Seas. God saw that it was good.
Gen. 1:9-10

...There are many Bible verses which talk about the Earth as if it is a flat square or rectangle:
Isaiah 11:12

“He will raise a banner for the nations and gather the exiles of Israel; he will assemble the scattered people of Judah from the four corners of the earth.”
(Hebrew: kanafot ha’aretz - literally “corners” of the land.)
Ezekiel 7:2...

Earth means in the Bible dry land, not the whole planet. Dry land can have corners.

Here are some Bible verses which talk about the ends or the edges of the Earth. The Earth is a sphere and therefore, does not have ends or edges....

As said previously, in the Bible earth means dry land and dry land obviously has edges.

2. “Prophecies about the Jews prove the Bible true.”

The alleged Prophecies are written after the fact or are vague enough to be interpreted many ways.
The continued existence of Jews shows cultural perseverance, not divine intervention.
By the same reasoning, the survival of Hindus, Chinese, or Indigenous peoples would prove their religions true.

Bible tells for example how Jews will be gathered back to their country, after God had scattered them. Both of those happened after it was told so. Or are you saying Bible was written after year 1900?

I will scatter you among the nations, and I will draw out the sword after you: and your land will be a desolation, and your cit-ies shall be a waste.
Lev. 26:33
...where Yahweh your God has scattered you. If [any of] your out-casts are in the uttermost parts of the heavens, from there will Yahweh your God gather you, and from there will he bring you back:
Deut. 30:1-4

They are broken.
We can identify frameshift mutations, premature stop codons, and missing regulatory regions that make the genes nonfunctional.
For example, humans and chimps share the same disabled GULO gene (for vitamin C synthesis) with identical mutations.
A designer would have no reason to copy the same broken gene into both species - but inheritance from a common ancestor explains it perfectly.

In Biblical point of view, after God had created, everything was good. Then God was rejected and corruption/degeneration started. It can be that the broken genes are result of the degeneration and has happened also to other species.

Evolution isn’t random miracles - it’s lawful, cumulative change.
Mutation introduces variation (partly random), but natural selection is non-random - it preserves beneficial variations and removes harmful ones.
Small changes accumulate over immense timescales, just as tiny drips carve canyons.
Calling that “miraculous” misunderstands probability: low probability in one event doesn’t apply when you have billions of trials across billions of years.

Evolution requires mutations. Do you think mutations don't happen randomly?

5. “Try breeding rats into whales to prove evolution.”

That’s like asking a physicist to make a mountain in a lab to prove plate tectonics.

It should be possible to demonstrate that in a laboratory, if it is a real scientific theory.

Evolution typically operates over millions of years and thousands of generations - not in human lifespans.
However, we have directly observed speciation in bacteria, insects, and plants.
We also have transitional fossils - Ambulocetus and Pakicetus — showing the shift from land mammals to whales.
We don’t need to breed rats into whales to test evolution; we can trace intermediate forms, DNA evidence, and comparative anatomy that all line up consistently.

The fossils can be just separate species without any connection. Therefore they are not useful evidence.

Also DNA evidence is not useful, because the similarities can be the result of creating similar things.

The "specification" I know has been observed is basically the same as saying you are different species, if you eat only corn, but not wheat.

6. “Fossils are sorted by buoyancy, not time.”

If fossils were sorted by buoyancy in a single flood, light shells and heavy bones would mix within one layer.
Instead, we find microscopic plankton fossils only in the oldest strata, dinosaurs only in Mesozoic strata, and humans only in Quaternary strata - never mixed.
Even volcanic ash layers within those strata can be dated and correlated across continents.
A global flood cannot explain that fine-grained chronological order, but gradual deposition over deep time can.

Not only by buoyancy, but also by different habitats.

Gradual depositions would not restore large animals or plants.

I believe vast amount of sediments was formed during the great flood. And it deposited species in the order the flood carried stuff. First would drown or sink those that are not agile and area easily trapped (the "oldest species"), then those that are larger and not as developed for example as mammals. Most mammals would not likely be trapped the same way also because the lived in a different area and because killed mammals tend to float when drowned, which is why not much would end up in sediments.

7. “Vestigial organs still have functions, so they’re not vestigial.”

“Vestigial” means “reduced from an earlier function”, not “useless.”
The coccyx still anchors muscles, but it no longer supports a tail - that’s precisely what “vestigial” means.
Design doesn’t predict such partial leftovers; descent with modification does.

And "reduced" seems to be a baseless belief.

It produces new genes and structures through mutation, duplication, and divergence.
For instance, the antifreeze protein in Antarctic fish evolved from a duplicated digestive enzyme gene.
Duplication provides raw material; selection refines it.
This has been demonstrated in laboratory evolution experiments such as Richard Lenski’s 70,000-generation E. coli project, where bacteria evolved new metabolic pathways.

But, it always seems to need something that can be used. Never creates something that didn't exist. And it is always an error in the copy process, which in my opnion is evidence for that things were created in the beginning.

If the duplication thing works, why not test it, and do it for a fish that has not that gene?

In the case of E. coli, I believe the different eating habits was more likely related to epigenetics, meaning, no real change in DNA, it was just activated little differently.

It’s not circular; it’s self-consistent.
Different isotope systems (U-Pb, Rb-Sr, K-Ar) have distinct decay constants and half-lives.
When applied to the same rock, they yield concordant ages.
Cross-checks with ice cores, dendrochronology, and sediment layers independently confirm the timeline.
To call this circular, one must show that all independent methods use each other as assumptions - they don’t.

For example the Rb-Sr
....If the amount of Sr and Rb isotopes in the sample when it formed can be determined, the age can be calculated from the increase in 87Sr/86Sr...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubidium% ... ium_dating

How do you determine what were the amounts of Sr and Rb isotopes in the sample, if it was formed "millions of years ago"?

That assumes linear progress, but archaeology shows otherwise.
Before surplus agriculture, populations were small and nomadic, leaving little incentive for writing systems.
Writing emerged when economic complexity (taxes, trade, records) made it necessary - roughly 5,000 years ago, consistent with the archaeological record.

Why didn't we have surplus of agriculture 300,000 years ago?

All those phenomena - mountains, sediment layers, ridges, coal, oil, fossils on mountains, glaciers, and flood myths - have natural explanations unrelated to a global flood:

Yes, and the flood gives also natural explanation for them.

But, having an explanation is not good enough, if it is not reasonable, as the mainstream theory is not.

There is no global layer of uniform flood deposits encircling the planet, and tree rings older than 6,000 years remain continuous - proving no worldwide flood occurred.

If the flood happened as told in the Bible, there should be many layers and no uniform layer around the earth.

Can you show the tree rings?

Evolution is evidence-based and testable.

Real test would be for example to breed rats into mini whale like creatures.

Science corrects itself; the Bible does not, and cannot.

Truth is what it is, it cannot be corrected and it doesn't need to be corrected.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to 1213 in post #29]

Thank you again for engaging in this discussion. I appreciate your continued civility and interest in the topic. I’ll address your points in order.

“Your welcome. Are you using AI, or just naturally well organized?”[/quote]

I have been researching religions for just over 29 years. So, I know a lot about various religions. I also have a biological science degree, so I know a lot about evolution. If you want to learn about evolution, I can recommend some resources. Have you studied other religions? Do you have a biological science degree?

1. “Bible tells that for example in the beginning there was one continent... Do you think ancient people would have known that without God?”

The verse says: “Let the waters be gathered together to one place, and let the dry land appear.”
That’s simply a poetic description of the emergence of land from water - a natural observation from any coastal viewpoint. It doesn’t specify plate tectonics, continental drift, or Pangea, which were unknown concepts to the ancients.
Ancient creation myths from Mesopotamia and Egypt also describe the land “rising out of the waters.” So Genesis reflects the same prescientific imagery, not unique divine knowledge.

2. “In the Bible earth means dry land, not the whole planet.”

If “earth” merely means “dry land,” then verses about “the ends of the earth” and “the four corners” still reflect a flat, bounded world-view - not a spherical one. Ancient Hebrew cosmology depicted a flat disc of land surrounded by seas, covered by a solid dome (the “firmament”).
That’s why the same texts speak of the sun rising, setting, and standing still. These are not scientific claims - they are phenomenological descriptions from a human perspective.

3. “Bible tells for example how Jews will be gathered back... Or are you saying Bible was written after year 1900?”

No, but you’re assuming the text refers to the modern State of Israel, which is an anachronistic interpretation.
The “return” prophecies (e.g. Deut. 30, Isaiah 11, Jeremiah 29) referred to the Babylonian exile - centuries before the 20th century. The Jews did return from Babylon under Cyrus in the 6th century BCE, exactly as the authors intended.
Later political events can be retrofitted to sound like fulfilment, but that is confirmation bias, not evidence of divine foresight.

4. “Broken genes are from degeneration”

That claim is unfalsifiable. Genetic evidence shows identical disabling mutations in the same gene (like the GULO pseudogene) at the same locations in humans and other primates.
A designer could have fixed it, but common ancestry explains it naturally.
The “degeneration” hypothesis predicts random differences - not shared identical errors across species.

5. “Mutations are random, therefore evolution impossible”

Mutations are random with respect to usefulness, not random in origin. Natural selection is non-random in its filtering effect. That’s why complex adaptation emerges over time.
In contrast, appealing to a supernatural designer adds no explanatory power - it just moves the question back one step: Who designed the designer?

6. “We should breed rats into whales”

That’s like demanding to see continents drift in a laboratory to prove plate tectonics.
We can’t reproduce millions of years in real time, but we can observe evolution in action in bacteria, fruit flies, and plants, and trace its history through genetics, fossils, and comparative anatomy.
Fossils such as Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, and Basilosaurus show the step-by-step transition from land mammals to whales - exactly what evolutionary theory predicts.
To call them “separate species” misses the point: every fossil species is separate - the evidence lies in the transitional traits that bridge forms.

7. “Fossils sorted by flood and habitat”

Flood sorting cannot explain the precise, global stratigraphic order of microfossils, pollen, and isotopic signatures that align across continents.
If all layers formed in one year, radioactive isotopes and coral growth bands wouldn’t show consistent, independent dating over millions of years.
Also, a flood would mix species by density and habitat, yet we never find humans or modern mammals in the same layers as dinosaurs.

8. “Vestigial just means belief”

“Vestigial” is not a belief; it’s an observation of reduced ancestral function.
For example, whales retain tiny pelvic bones — homologous to hind limbs in land mammals. These bones no longer support legs, but still anchor reproductive muscles.
Design doesn’t predict leftover structures; evolution does.

9. “Gene duplication never creates new things”

Gene duplication plus divergence has been directly observed to create new proteins and functions - not merely reactivations.
For instance:

The antifreeze glycoprotein in Antarctic fish evolved from a duplicated trypsinogen gene.
Lenski’s E. coli experiment showed the evolution of a new citrate metabolism under aerobic conditions - confirmed by DNA sequencing (not just epigenetic changes).
That’s new genetic information arising through natural mechanisms.

10. “Radiometric dating assumes unknown initial amounts”

Multiple isotope systems (U-Pb, Rb-Sr, K-Ar) have different decay chains and half-lives.
When they all give concordant ages on the same rock sample, that rules out arbitrary initial conditions.
Isochron methods use internal ratios from the same sample to calculate initial composition, no assumptions needed.
The consistency with independent methods (tree rings, ice cores, volcanic layers) confirms the reliability.

11. “Why no agriculture 300,000 years ago?”

Because anatomically modern humans existed long before civilisation.
Agriculture requires climate stability (post-Ice-Age), suitable domestic species, and social organisation.
Those conditions arose only around 10,000 years ago. Population size, not intelligence, was the limiting factor.

12. “Flood explains everything”

Flood geology fails because it contradicts observed physical laws:

No global layer of uniform flood deposit exists.
Sediment layers show different climates, not one chaotic event.
Annual tree rings and ice cores extend continuously beyond 10,000 years - impossible if the world was drowned 4,000 years ago.
You asked to see the tree rings: dendrochronology records from bristlecone pines and oak overlap to more than 12,000 years, independently verified by radiocarbon calibration. I have seen these tree rings under the microscope. You can, too.

13. “Truth cannot be corrected”

Science corrects human error in understanding truth; religious texts cannot.
That’s why we know Earth orbits the sun, despite ancient texts implying the opposite. The Christian Church punished Galileo for saying that the Earth orbits the sun, even though it is true.
Truth itself doesn’t change - our cognitive models of it improve as evidence accumulates.

Whether or not one believes in God, a real deity would not fear honest inquiry.
If evolution, cosmology, or geology were false, evidence would expose that.
Instead, all data, from genetics to physics, converge on a consistent natural history billions of years long.
The strength of science is that it welcomes correction.