July 11, 2025 • 31 mins
David debates Fuz Rana, a PHd in biochemistry holder and devout Christian. For access to this this episode and all 816 episodes of Dogma Debate go to dogmadebate.com
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
It's time again for Throwback Thursday right here on Dogma Debate.
Let's listen to an episode I've done in the past,
or at least a portion of it, and get your comments,
your feedback, what could I have done better? And if
you want to hear the full episode, it's always available
at Patreon. You can get there through Dogma Debate dot com.
(00:21):
Go sign up, give us all your comments, let us
know how you feel about how I did, what I
could have done better, and if I should ever talk
to this guest again. I think maybe Michael should handle
it now, who knows. I want to know your feedback,
how we should move forward, and how you thought the
episode went. It's Throwback Thursday right here on Dogma Debate.
Speaker 2 (00:38):
I'm Neil deGrasse Tyson.
Speaker 3 (00:39):
Hey, I'm Adam Caralaette.
Speaker 2 (00:42):
Not only listening, I'm a guest.
Speaker 1 (00:44):
I'll teller, and I am the fourth listener.
Speaker 3 (00:47):
And I am the fourth listener.
Speaker 2 (00:50):
And that must make me at least the fourth listener.
Speaker 3 (00:52):
To keep our three listeners coming back, we must be
doing something right. And if you're the fourth listener, we
thank you for the support. You can get every episode
with no ads at Patreon dot com. Slash David C.
Smalley and take advantage of your bourth listener status, and
we're going.
Speaker 4 (01:08):
To sue David Smalley for slander.
Speaker 3 (01:17):
With the world divided, it's time to resurrect to nuance
and remember the importance of conversation.
Speaker 2 (01:24):
He's an actor, he's a.
Speaker 3 (01:25):
Comedian, and he'll make you think this is David C.
Speaker 2 (01:30):
Smalley.
Speaker 1 (01:35):
So I want to start with the big one that
first really jumped out at me as a believer.
Speaker 2 (01:40):
When I was.
Speaker 1 (01:42):
As a kid, I remember doing they give me yarn,
and apparently you can do it with rubber bands as well,
and you can do this thing and make what's called
Jacob's ladder. And I remember asking, like, why would there
be a ladder? What was the latter thing about? And
my Bible study teacher told me that it had something
to do with, you know, Jacob's ladder, so we could
climb up to heaven in the firmament. And then again,
(02:05):
being an inquisitive kid, I was like, what's a firmament
and they were like, well, you know the dome over
the earth.
Speaker 2 (02:12):
And I went dome.
Speaker 1 (02:14):
And I was just like what. And I'm walking outside
and I'm looking and I'm going, that's the firmament, just
a kid, but I couldn't really wrap my head around it.
And then as I got into sort of studying about,
you know, the Bible, and I started working on blogs
that would eventually become my first book, I got into
(02:34):
the I started studying like what were the words behind
it and what was the Latin behind it? And yeah,
it seems that it was supposed to be like a
solid roof over the world, and it's talked about in
Genesis one six, and clearly that's untrue. And I think
that you know, this was written in a time you
(02:55):
know that they never thought we would be flying through
what they call the firmament now you know at thirty
forty thousand feet or that rain came from the firmament, right,
because also in Genesis it talks about the waters above
and below, because you know, rain would come down from
the clouds, and so I guess the assumption was that
there was water above the firmament and water below. So
(03:18):
we know the ocean was below us, but because rain
came down, we assumed that there was like an ocean
above the firmament. That's my best guess. And so now
that we know, there's not a solid roof in the sky.
Clearly the Bible has an error there.
Speaker 4 (03:33):
Right, Yeah, Well, you know that that's a common perspective,
and in fact, that idea of the firmament is advocated
by a number of Christians as the way to understand
you know, I think it's the second day of creation
in Genesis one, you know, and the I heard. I'm
(03:55):
not an expert in the ancient Near East, but that
idea apparently reflects ancient Near Eastern cosmology at which people
argue was essentially imported into the Genesis one creation account,
where they would argue, well, Genesis one is just really
a Hebrew version of the ancient Near Eastern mythologies that
(04:15):
were around, you know, at the time that scripture was written,
or at least at the time the Pentituke was written.
Speaker 1 (04:22):
Right, But it's still a scientifically inaccurate statement in the Bible.
Speaker 4 (04:25):
Right, right. But you know, I heard a talk a
few years ago by a Christian scholar who actually was
arguing that that concept of the firmament never even really
existed in the ancient Near East, that this was essentially
a mistake on the part of people that were interpreting
(04:47):
ancient Near Eastern understanding of the ancient Near Eastern understanding
of cosmology. So that would be just simply the first
point that that I don't know that scripture is actually
teaching that. And you know, Genesis one one isn't the
only creation account in scripture. There are other creation accounts
that we can turn to to shed light on what
is actually being described on the second day of Creation. So,
(05:10):
for example, Psalm one O four is a creation psalm.
It is a psalm where the writer of that psalm,
presumably David, is reflecting upon God's work as creator and
is praising him for that. But the way that Psalm
one O four is structured is to correspond to the
(05:32):
Genesis one, where different portions of Psalm one O four
correspond to the different days of creation in Genesis one.
And what we see on the part that corresponds to
the Today two is that what clearly is being described
is what we would understands atmospheric phenomena. That is, if
(05:52):
you take that understanding that you see in Psalm one
O four and imported into Genesis one, you would not
understand it to be a firmament, but you would understand
it to be essentially the atmosphere as we know it. Also, Joe,
but the.
Speaker 1 (06:08):
Firm sorry, but the firmament. The ask, but the very
concept of the firmament was to be firm, it was
to be a solid roof. It's it's not, it was never.
I don't know how anyone could say that the firmament
was just atmosphere. I mean it literally talks about being
a solid roof.
Speaker 4 (06:30):
Yeah, and again that that interpretation is strongly influenced by
ancient Near Eastern cosmology. And again another creation account would
be in well, I don't know the specific you know reference,
but it's in Job thirty eight through forty forty one.
That's another creation account that again corresponds to Genesis one,
(06:53):
and there where we see it corresponding to the Second Day,
it clearly is speaking as how we would understand the atmosphere.
So my response would be, I don't think the Bible
is actually teaching the firmament or that something like the
firmament existed. And I think if we go elsewhere in
scripture and cross reference those passages to Genesis one, the
(07:16):
best interpretation is that it's describing an atmosphere as we
understand it, or as we know it.
Speaker 1 (07:22):
What's that Bible verse again, Job thirty eight.
Speaker 4 (07:24):
What.
Speaker 1 (07:24):
I don't want to pull it up round.
Speaker 4 (07:25):
I don't remember that that particular. If you, I think
I might have a thin I can find if I
just look it up real quickly, No, go for it.
Speaker 1 (07:34):
Yeah, I just Job thirty eight four.
Speaker 4 (07:39):
Okay, here we go. So uh yeah, Psalm one O
four verses one and two, and then also Job thirty
eight verses eight and nine, So that those three four chapters.
Speaker 1 (07:48):
Are I want to do one at a time job
Job thirty eight versus what eight and nine? Who enclosed
the sea behind doors? When it burst forth from the womb?
When I made the clouds its garment and thick darkness,
it's blanket.
Speaker 4 (08:05):
This seems poetic, poetic Job is, and the psalms are
also poetic as well. Right, it doesn't mean that they
don't contain well.
Speaker 1 (08:18):
Essentially, this seems to be that this is this is
God right talking back to Job. Yes, like basically this
is his whole thing of like, who the hell are you?
Speaker 2 (08:27):
Right?
Speaker 1 (08:28):
He's like, what are you? Where were you when I
laid the foundations of the earth. Tell me, if you
have understanding, who fixed the measurement? Surely you know who
stretched a measuring line across it? On where on? What
were its foundation set? Who laid its cornerstone? While the
move while the morning stars sing together, all the sons
of God shouted for joy? Who enclosed the sea behind
(08:49):
doors when it burst forth from the womb. When I
made the clouds its garment and thick darkness, it's blanket.
When I fixed its boundaries and set in place its
bars and doors, and I cleared, you have come this far.
You may have come this far, but no further here
you're proud. Waves must stop. So I don't know if
(09:10):
I was that. That sounds like he's being poetic, essentially,
just saying, where the hell were you when I created
all of this? You're a nobody on God, which he
does quite a bit in the Bible, But that doesn't
really Negate Genesis one sixs through eight, where it flat
out says the firmament, What is the psalm? Psalm?
Speaker 4 (09:28):
What?
Speaker 2 (09:28):
Psalm?
Speaker 4 (09:30):
Yeah? And the Hebrew word there is rakia. I think
that is translated as firmament. And and so there's other.
I mean, you could translate it as sky right or
you know, so sorry. The other was one Psalm one
O four verses one through three, Right, But my point
(09:50):
is is that again, yeah, I mean, you're right, these
are poetic passages, but in Hebrew poetry works differently then
how we're accustomed to poetry where the poetry was in
effect thought rhyming, And so it's a lot of fun
reading Hebrew poetry.
Speaker 1 (10:10):
And oh for sure, oh yeah.
Speaker 4 (10:12):
Different ways the ideas kind of relate to each other.
And of course there is metaphorical language and simile in
that type of stuff being used. But I think there's
still real information being communicated in the framework of poetic structure.
So I think it's not fair to just simply dismiss
(10:33):
the content as being poetic.
Speaker 1 (10:35):
Okay, no, well, so Psalm one four, I'm going to
start with one and read through four. Bless the Lord,
oh my soul, oh Lord, my God, you are very great.
You are clothed with splendor and majesty. He wraps himself
in light, as with a garment. The garment he stretches
out the heavens like a tent, which still implies a
(10:57):
covering or roof, laying the beams of his chambers in
the waters above, making the clouds his chariot. Walking on
the wings of the wind. That's clearly poetic. He makes
the winds his messengers, flames of fire his servants. I
mean he's clearly being metaphorical there. I mean that is
(11:18):
clear metaphor. And even within the metaphor, he says stretches
out the heavens like a tent, which implies some sort
of solid roof.
Speaker 2 (11:28):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (11:28):
I think you know, it would be fair to go
ahead and read Genesis. And God said, let there be
a vault between the waters to separate the water from
the water. So God made the vault and separated the
water under the vault from the water above it. And
it was so God called the vault sky. And there
(11:48):
was evening and there was morning the second day. So
this is Genesis one six through eight. I think a
vault is pretty darn solid. I don't know if I was.
What do you say here? I'll give you the last
word on this before we move on. But I think
it's pretty clear that they are claiming in Genesis one
six through eight that there is something clearly solid above
us that separates us from water above our heads.
Speaker 2 (12:13):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (12:13):
Well, and I would you know acknowledge that that that
is a common interpretation of what's going on in the
second day of Creation Genesis one, you know, six through eight.
But I would argue that again, I think there it's
possible to look at that and see that as essentially
(12:34):
referring to the atmosphere as we would understand it. So
I guess you know, when I look at again some
one O four in Job thirty eight, I think that
those passages actually mitigate against that that being referring to
a solid, you know, structure.
Speaker 1 (12:54):
Okay, speaking of shining light on a subject, let's talk
about the planetary four nation because in the Creation story,
and again I've argued against Young Earth creationists in favor
of Old Earth creationism in a weird way to say that,
you know, the Genesis account is poetic. It's designed to
(13:15):
say who did it, not necessarily all the details of what,
which could be an argument against my last my last
challenge to you. You know, if it's if it's poetic,
if it's just saying, you know, I'm the guy that
did it, let's write a song about it.
Speaker 2 (13:29):
Then.
Speaker 1 (13:29):
Okay, we do that all the time. We say you know,
I rode your your tear drop down to Earth. We
say I flew through the walls, or I walked on water,
or you know when we kissed, I was in the clouds.
We use metaphorical language and song all the time, but
if it's in errant, if it's literal, well that that
poses a problem I think for science or those who
(13:52):
defend the science in the Bible, because that same creation
account that talks about the firmament also says that the
Earth was formed before the Sun. I believe the Sun
is formed on the fourth day. Yeah, but there were
three mornings and evenings before the Sun was created, which
gives us a huge problem with photosynthesis because plants already existed.
(14:15):
But despite all that stuff, it just flatly goes against
any nebular hypothesis of stellar formation. We know that that,
you know, the Sun existed first and then planets come
around because of gravitational pool. So what do you say
about that As far as Genesis making the claim that
Earth was created first and then three days later the
(14:36):
Sun was formed.
Speaker 4 (14:38):
Yeah, well that's that again is a common objection to
you know, the again the scientific credibility of Genesis one.
And you know, I would draw on the work that
that Hugh Ross has done to kind of respond to
that and the first point would be that when you
look at Genesis one two, that actually is setting the
(15:03):
frame of reference for us in terms of how we
should think about the Genesis one creation account. So in
Genesis one too, it talks about the spirit of God
hovering over the surface of the waters, and so that
tells us that our frame of reference would be as
hypothetical observers residing on the surface of the earth, looking
(15:24):
outward and looking upward. And so when we go to
the First Day of Creation, we see that it talks
about the light being separated from the darkness, and the
light called day, the darkness called night. Uh, and uh.
The the the word that that is used there to
(15:45):
talk about what the the let the light appear is
in effect the word hiyah, which means to let, to
let to appear, let let something appear, let something come
to pass. So the point is on the first day
of Creation, God isn't creating the light. The light already exists.
(16:06):
It's that God is doing something to the earth in
such a way that sets up a light dark cycle.
You could argue, presumably changing the atmosphere so that light
could penetrate to the surface of the earth. So day
four is using that same word hi yah. So it's
not God creating the sun, moon, and stars, but rather
(16:26):
letting the sun, moon, and stars appear. So the implication
is that they already exist. It's just that as a
hypothetical observer on the surface of the Earth for the
first time, you would see that the sun, moon, and
stars appear. And again going back to Job thirty eight,
there is a portion that corresponds to I think the
(16:49):
first day of Creation, where it would be versus I
think verse seven. Here Job thirty eight seven that says, well,
read verse six on what were its footing set or
who laid its cornerstone? While the morning stars sang together
and all the angels shouted for joy. So in other words,
(17:11):
it's describing, you know, what's happening when the Earth's foundation
was laid. The Earth was literally coming into existence, And
here it talks about the stars being witnessed to that event.
So the implication there is that there were already stars,
the sun was already present when the foundations of the
(17:31):
Earth were laid.
Speaker 1 (17:34):
Well, that's not what Genesis said. So which one do
you think is right? Do you think Job is right
or do you think Genesis is.
Speaker 4 (17:39):
Right, No, I think what Genesis is saying is that again,
if the word there is high yah, that is not
saying that God created the sun, moon, and stars, but
that they appeared for the first time. So let me see,
I let me pull up.
Speaker 1 (17:55):
So while you're doing that, let me read just the
first few words of the Bible and then have a
follow up question. In the beginning, God created the heavens
and the earth. Now, the earth was formless and empty.
Darkness was over the face of the deep, and the
spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said,
(18:15):
let there be light. And there was light. God saw
that the light was good, and he separated the light
from the darkness. God called the light day, and the
darkness he called night. And then there was evening and
there was morning the first day. The sun has not
yet been created, but there was light. So from a
(18:38):
scientific perspective, my question to you is where was this
light emanating from if it existed with no sun?
Speaker 4 (18:48):
Yeah? Well, I mean, the way I would look at
the first few verses of Genesis would be Genesis one one.
In the beginning, God creates the heavens and the earth,
And that expression is kind of a you might say,
it's a summary statement or it's essentially a statement making
the point that the sum total of reality was brought
(19:10):
into existence by God.
Speaker 1 (19:12):
So he says in the introduction I made everything. And
then beginning in verse three, he starts telling you, I guess, wait, well,
maybe verse six, then he starts saying, here's how I
did it, step by step.
Speaker 4 (19:25):
Well, but then you moved to Genesis one two, which
is giving you a depiction of the Earth in its
primordial state. So, in other words, if you take Genesis
one one as being, you know, a referrent to the
beginning of the universe, right, which you know, some people
see the connection between that verse in Big Bang cosmology.
(19:45):
What it's basically telling you is that, you know, much
of cosmic history is not even discussed in Genesis one
its beginning, which makes sense at the Earth in its
primordial state. And and then, as I said in the
First Day, God is is not creating the light, but
(20:06):
rather is is doing something so that the light appears
for the first time on the surface of the Earth.
And the word there is high yah in distinction from
words like barrah, which means to originate something new that's
never existed. So in Genesis one one. In the beginning
God Barrah and the word create there is translated from barrah,
(20:30):
which means to originate something that's never existed. There's also
words like a saw yatsaw banaw, which means to create
something new from pre existing material. Well, the word high
yah isn't really describing creation, but rather something coming to pass.
(20:51):
So on the first day it says, let there be light.
That means that that that the light wasn't created, then
it was already existing. It was now again as a
hypothetical observer, you were now beginning to see that separation
of light from darkness, or the light would now penetrate
to the surface of the earth. The fourth day of creation,
(21:13):
which it starts in verse fourteen, that again is using
that same verb hyah. And so it's not God creating
the sun, moon and stars, but let it come to
pass that they now will appear in the sky.
Speaker 1 (21:32):
So where were they then, if they weren't in the.
Speaker 5 (21:34):
Sky, they were there, they just weren't observable to somebody
hypothetically that would have been present on the surface of
the earth, because again the frame of reference would be
on the surface of the earth.
Speaker 1 (21:49):
That just doesn't make sense to me. How could the
stars in the Sun and the Moon all be there
where they are today yet not visible from planet Earth.
Speaker 4 (22:01):
And this is where I think some work in the
formation of the Solar system actually becomes helpful. You know.
I find Genesis one, too, is a remarkable passage of
scripture because it I think presents a scientifically correct depiction
of the Earth in its primordial state. You know that
it's saying there was darkness everywhere. The Earth was a
(22:24):
water world. The whole surface was covered with water, which
would be true very early on in Earth's history and
the Earth if you were a hypothetical observer on the Earth,
you would not initially see sunlight penetrating the surface of
the Earth because of the very thick primordial atmosphere and
the high level of interplanetary debris. And once that debris
(22:46):
gets swept into the sun and there are impact events
that strip away the atmosphere. Now for the first time
sunlight penetrates the surface. But it doesn't mean that the
atmosphere it would be transparent. It would be you know, translucent,
but not transparent. And it's on the fourth day where
the atmosphere becomes transparent, and so now what's in the
(23:09):
heavens is now visible hypothetically on the surface of the earth.
Speaker 1 (23:13):
So that's how So what you're saying is, whenever it
says God created the sun and the moon and the
sun would rule over the day, and he didn't really
create it, you're saying that the word there used means
he made it visible by clearing out debris.
Speaker 4 (23:28):
Well, I would say that as creator he did. You know,
ultimately he's responsible for the creation of the sun, moon
and stars. It's just that that pattern the fourth day
of Creation isn't describing their creation.
Speaker 2 (23:45):
I don't know if it was.
Speaker 1 (23:46):
That sounds like a stretch to me, but I understand
where you're coming from. I just think that's a really
complicated way for God to do it and to not
explain it. If that's really what he meant, why not
say God created everything, but there was debris so no
one could see it from the earth if you had
been there, And then so he wipes out all of
this debris and now hear it. I mean, it just
(24:07):
it it seems like it's a you're in a difficult
position to, you know, explain away some poetic verses with science,
and I commend you for attempting to do so. I
just think those those scientific explanations fall short. But you're
not trying to convince me. The listeners are are are
very interested in what you're saying. I'm sure, and and
you know, I don't really know what to say to that,
(24:27):
other than I guess we could just move on. The
next verse. I really want to want to push on.
Is something that I mentioned in passing from time to time,
but I never really dive into. And I don't even
think I think I've quoted the verse and got the
verse wrong in the past. This is how lightly I've
used it. But it's in Joshua ten, and this is
(24:47):
something that I think I brought this up one of
the times Nilda grass Tyson was on the show because
he doesn't get into religious arguments, but he did laugh
about this one, and that explained scientifically what would have
happened if this actually did take place. But it's Joshua ten.
I guess the direct verse would be ten thirteen, but
(25:12):
I'll read from twelve to through fourteen, just so that
we have contacts before and after. It says on the
day that the Lord gave the emirits over to the Israelites.
Joshua spoke to the Lord in the presence of Israel,
Oh Sun stand over, Gilbeon, Oh moon over to the
valley of Agelon. Who knows? So the sun stood still
(25:37):
and stopped. Sorry, And so the sun stood still and
the moon stopped until the nation took vengeance upon its enemies.
Is this not written in the book of Jasar. So
the sun stopped in the middle of the sky and
delayed going down about a full day. There has been
no day like it before or since when the Lord
(25:58):
listened to the voice of a man, because the Lord
fought for Israel. So not only are we saying this
is the first and last time God listened to the
voice of a man and changed something he was gonna do,
which then brings into all sorts of other issues with
prayer and whatever, but it does call into question did
(26:21):
the earth actually stand still and the moon stopped for
an entire day? Neil de grass Tyson talked about the
catastrophic consequences that if the moon or sun actually froze
in the sky, what that would do to our tides
and our spin and our our axial tilt and everything else.
But you, as a scientist who studies this and says
(26:43):
that the Bible is an errant. What do you say
about this verse purely poetic or do you think this
actually happened and somehow Earth survived it?
Speaker 4 (26:53):
No, I actually would agree with Neil de grass Tyson's assessment.
I mean, I think if something like what seems to
be described at face value in the text took place,
then it would just be absolutely catastrophic, right, and for
the reasons that Neil deGrasse Tyson, you know, suggests, And honestly,
(27:14):
I I'm not completely sure I know what's going on
in this particular passage is scripture. Uh. And you know,
Hugh Ross, who is the founder and the president of
the organization I work for, has done an analysis of
this passage of scripture and argues, by looking in detail
(27:35):
at the at the Hebrew words that this is he
thinks some kind of meteorological phenomena, not necessarily you know,
the sun and the moon standing in place, you know where.
He argues that it was a meteorologic meteorological phenomena that
would be interpreted by the Israelites as the sun and
(27:56):
the moon standing still. You know, I I It's been
a while since I've read through his analysis, so I
don't have the specifics unfortunately at my fingertips. Uh. But
I I just look at this as being a passage
that to me is mysterious. I felt like Hugh had
an interesting argument, as he often does. Uh, and he
(28:20):
very well, may you be correct.
Speaker 1 (28:22):
He's very interesting when he was on. When he was
on the show, we mostly talked about aliens and ouiji
boards and we had a blast doing it. So he's
a very interesting guy. I like him a lot.
Speaker 2 (28:32):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (28:33):
Yeah, So so I guess, you know, I guess you
know point in your column, you know, and and and
to be you know, to to be fair here is
that you know. The way I look at a passage
like this, or let's say the passage where the whale
swallows Jonah right, and he's in the belly of the
whale for three days, I just don't know what, honestly
(28:56):
to make of that passage scientifically speaking, But I will
say that there are so many other passages in scripture
that I see consistent with what we've discovered scientifically about
the world around us, or passages that I think at
minimum harmonize with scientific discovery or can be interpreted in
(29:17):
such a way that they harmonize with scientific insight, And
so I choose to look at those passages that to
me are mysterious as being mysterious and not really having
an explanation for them. But I don't know that I
would say that that necessarily, in my view, undermines the
credibility of scripture soon if I don't necessarily have that explanation.
Speaker 1 (29:41):
No, Look, I appreciate that level of mystery because that's
the same view I hold with the origins of life.
And I guess the question is, why isn't that your
view on origins? Why isn't it just something that's mysterious
and you're continuing to look for a cause rather than
saying God's the best explanation, let me see how God
did it?
Speaker 2 (30:00):
Right?
Speaker 1 (30:01):
Like, why why isn't that same level of I guess
Mulligan given to the you know, origin of species on Earth?
Speaker 4 (30:10):
Well, I mean I would for for somebody who is, uh,
you know, holds your perspective. I think if you say, hey,
this is a mystery and we're going to you know,
the jury is still out, let's let science try to
figure this out. I'm perfectly comfortable with somebody, you know,
taking that position, you know, but I would argue that
(30:31):
I'm coupling that that the fact that that we the
original life at this point doesn't have a ro you know,
an explanation that is compelling from an evolutionary perspective, coupling
that with what I see to be incredible design in
biochemical systems as tipping the scale in favor of of
a creator. Right right, and so.
Speaker 1 (30:55):
Well, I have two more again. I think we could
probably write a book together to be on it. I
feel like I could come up with seventy five or
one hundred of these and you could give your best,
you know, explanation, and I could tell you why that
explanation doesn't sit well with me. This could be, This
could go on forever. All right. That concludes this episode
of Throwback Thursday for Dogma Debate. Let us know your
(31:15):
thoughts in the Patreon comments, and if you're not signed up,
you want to engage in the comments, and you want
to hear the entire episode in the archives. It's available
at Dogma Debate dot com. Just click to sign up
through Patreon and join our lovely community. Let us know
what you thought about all of that. I'm gonna withhold
my comments, definitely have some tell me what you think.
(31:38):
It's Dogma debate and today was Throwback Thursday. Thanks for
joining as Ford and please, as always drive let you
know each other
It's time again for Throwback Thursday right here on Dogma Debate.
Let's listen to an episode I've done in the past,
or at least a portion of it, and get your comments,
your feedback, what could I have done better? And if
you want to hear the full episode, it's always available
at Patreon. You can get there through Dogma Debate dot com.
(00:21):
Go sign up, give us all your comments, let us
know how you feel about how I did, what I
could have done better, and if I should ever talk
to this guest again. I think maybe Michael should handle
it now, who knows. I want to know your feedback,
how we should move forward, and how you thought the
episode went. It's Throwback Thursday right here on Dogma Debate.
Speaker 2 (00:38):
I'm Neil deGrasse Tyson.
Speaker 3 (00:39):
Hey, I'm Adam Caralaette.
Speaker 2 (00:42):
Not only listening, I'm a guest.
Speaker 1 (00:44):
I'll teller, and I am the fourth listener.
Speaker 3 (00:47):
And I am the fourth listener.
Speaker 2 (00:50):
And that must make me at least the fourth listener.
Speaker 3 (00:52):
To keep our three listeners coming back, we must be
doing something right. And if you're the fourth listener, we
thank you for the support. You can get every episode
with no ads at Patreon dot com. Slash David C.
Smalley and take advantage of your bourth listener status, and
we're going.
Speaker 4 (01:08):
To sue David Smalley for slander.
Speaker 3 (01:17):
With the world divided, it's time to resurrect to nuance
and remember the importance of conversation.
Speaker 2 (01:24):
He's an actor, he's a.
Speaker 3 (01:25):
Comedian, and he'll make you think this is David C.
Speaker 2 (01:30):
Smalley.
Speaker 1 (01:35):
So I want to start with the big one that
first really jumped out at me as a believer.
Speaker 2 (01:40):
When I was.
Speaker 1 (01:42):
As a kid, I remember doing they give me yarn,
and apparently you can do it with rubber bands as well,
and you can do this thing and make what's called
Jacob's ladder. And I remember asking, like, why would there
be a ladder? What was the latter thing about? And
my Bible study teacher told me that it had something
to do with, you know, Jacob's ladder, so we could
climb up to heaven in the firmament. And then again,
(02:05):
being an inquisitive kid, I was like, what's a firmament
and they were like, well, you know the dome over
the earth.
Speaker 2 (02:12):
And I went dome.
Speaker 1 (02:14):
And I was just like what. And I'm walking outside
and I'm looking and I'm going, that's the firmament, just
a kid, but I couldn't really wrap my head around it.
And then as I got into sort of studying about,
you know, the Bible, and I started working on blogs
that would eventually become my first book, I got into
(02:34):
the I started studying like what were the words behind
it and what was the Latin behind it? And yeah,
it seems that it was supposed to be like a
solid roof over the world, and it's talked about in
Genesis one six, and clearly that's untrue. And I think
that you know, this was written in a time you
(02:55):
know that they never thought we would be flying through
what they call the firmament now you know at thirty
forty thousand feet or that rain came from the firmament, right,
because also in Genesis it talks about the waters above
and below, because you know, rain would come down from
the clouds, and so I guess the assumption was that
there was water above the firmament and water below. So
(03:18):
we know the ocean was below us, but because rain
came down, we assumed that there was like an ocean
above the firmament. That's my best guess. And so now
that we know, there's not a solid roof in the sky.
Clearly the Bible has an error there.
Speaker 4 (03:33):
Right, Yeah, Well, you know that that's a common perspective,
and in fact, that idea of the firmament is advocated
by a number of Christians as the way to understand
you know, I think it's the second day of creation
in Genesis one, you know, and the I heard. I'm
(03:55):
not an expert in the ancient Near East, but that
idea apparently reflects ancient Near Eastern cosmology at which people
argue was essentially imported into the Genesis one creation account,
where they would argue, well, Genesis one is just really
a Hebrew version of the ancient Near Eastern mythologies that
(04:15):
were around, you know, at the time that scripture was written,
or at least at the time the Pentituke was written.
Speaker 1 (04:22):
Right, But it's still a scientifically inaccurate statement in the Bible.
Speaker 4 (04:25):
Right, right. But you know, I heard a talk a
few years ago by a Christian scholar who actually was
arguing that that concept of the firmament never even really
existed in the ancient Near East, that this was essentially
a mistake on the part of people that were interpreting
(04:47):
ancient Near Eastern understanding of the ancient Near Eastern understanding
of cosmology. So that would be just simply the first
point that that I don't know that scripture is actually
teaching that. And you know, Genesis one one isn't the
only creation account in scripture. There are other creation accounts
that we can turn to to shed light on what
is actually being described on the second day of Creation. So,
(05:10):
for example, Psalm one O four is a creation psalm.
It is a psalm where the writer of that psalm,
presumably David, is reflecting upon God's work as creator and
is praising him for that. But the way that Psalm
one O four is structured is to correspond to the
(05:32):
Genesis one, where different portions of Psalm one O four
correspond to the different days of creation in Genesis one.
And what we see on the part that corresponds to
the Today two is that what clearly is being described
is what we would understands atmospheric phenomena. That is, if
(05:52):
you take that understanding that you see in Psalm one
O four and imported into Genesis one, you would not
understand it to be a firmament, but you would understand
it to be essentially the atmosphere as we know it. Also, Joe,
but the.
Speaker 1 (06:08):
Firm sorry, but the firmament. The ask, but the very
concept of the firmament was to be firm, it was
to be a solid roof. It's it's not, it was never.
I don't know how anyone could say that the firmament
was just atmosphere. I mean it literally talks about being
a solid roof.
Speaker 4 (06:30):
Yeah, and again that that interpretation is strongly influenced by
ancient Near Eastern cosmology. And again another creation account would
be in well, I don't know the specific you know reference,
but it's in Job thirty eight through forty forty one.
That's another creation account that again corresponds to Genesis one,
(06:53):
and there where we see it corresponding to the Second Day,
it clearly is speaking as how we would understand the atmosphere.
So my response would be, I don't think the Bible
is actually teaching the firmament or that something like the
firmament existed. And I think if we go elsewhere in
scripture and cross reference those passages to Genesis one, the
(07:16):
best interpretation is that it's describing an atmosphere as we
understand it, or as we know it.
Speaker 1 (07:22):
What's that Bible verse again, Job thirty eight.
Speaker 4 (07:24):
What.
Speaker 1 (07:24):
I don't want to pull it up round.
Speaker 4 (07:25):
I don't remember that that particular. If you, I think
I might have a thin I can find if I
just look it up real quickly, No, go for it.
Speaker 1 (07:34):
Yeah, I just Job thirty eight four.
Speaker 4 (07:39):
Okay, here we go. So uh yeah, Psalm one O
four verses one and two, and then also Job thirty
eight verses eight and nine, So that those three four chapters.
Speaker 1 (07:48):
Are I want to do one at a time job
Job thirty eight versus what eight and nine? Who enclosed
the sea behind doors? When it burst forth from the womb?
When I made the clouds its garment and thick darkness,
it's blanket.
Speaker 4 (08:05):
This seems poetic, poetic Job is, and the psalms are
also poetic as well. Right, it doesn't mean that they
don't contain well.
Speaker 1 (08:18):
Essentially, this seems to be that this is this is
God right talking back to Job. Yes, like basically this
is his whole thing of like, who the hell are you?
Speaker 2 (08:27):
Right?
Speaker 1 (08:28):
He's like, what are you? Where were you when I
laid the foundations of the earth. Tell me, if you
have understanding, who fixed the measurement? Surely you know who
stretched a measuring line across it? On where on? What
were its foundation set? Who laid its cornerstone? While the
move while the morning stars sing together, all the sons
of God shouted for joy? Who enclosed the sea behind
(08:49):
doors when it burst forth from the womb. When I
made the clouds its garment and thick darkness, it's blanket.
When I fixed its boundaries and set in place its
bars and doors, and I cleared, you have come this far.
You may have come this far, but no further here
you're proud. Waves must stop. So I don't know if
(09:10):
I was that. That sounds like he's being poetic, essentially,
just saying, where the hell were you when I created
all of this? You're a nobody on God, which he
does quite a bit in the Bible, But that doesn't
really Negate Genesis one sixs through eight, where it flat
out says the firmament, What is the psalm? Psalm?
Speaker 4 (09:28):
What?
Speaker 2 (09:28):
Psalm?
Speaker 4 (09:30):
Yeah? And the Hebrew word there is rakia. I think
that is translated as firmament. And and so there's other.
I mean, you could translate it as sky right or
you know, so sorry. The other was one Psalm one
O four verses one through three, Right, But my point
(09:50):
is is that again, yeah, I mean, you're right, these
are poetic passages, but in Hebrew poetry works differently then
how we're accustomed to poetry where the poetry was in
effect thought rhyming, And so it's a lot of fun
reading Hebrew poetry.
Speaker 1 (10:10):
And oh for sure, oh yeah.
Speaker 4 (10:12):
Different ways the ideas kind of relate to each other.
And of course there is metaphorical language and simile in
that type of stuff being used. But I think there's
still real information being communicated in the framework of poetic structure.
So I think it's not fair to just simply dismiss
(10:33):
the content as being poetic.
Speaker 1 (10:35):
Okay, no, well, so Psalm one four, I'm going to
start with one and read through four. Bless the Lord,
oh my soul, oh Lord, my God, you are very great.
You are clothed with splendor and majesty. He wraps himself
in light, as with a garment. The garment he stretches
out the heavens like a tent, which still implies a
(10:57):
covering or roof, laying the beams of his chambers in
the waters above, making the clouds his chariot. Walking on
the wings of the wind. That's clearly poetic. He makes
the winds his messengers, flames of fire his servants. I
mean he's clearly being metaphorical there. I mean that is
(11:18):
clear metaphor. And even within the metaphor, he says stretches
out the heavens like a tent, which implies some sort
of solid roof.
Speaker 2 (11:28):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (11:28):
I think you know, it would be fair to go
ahead and read Genesis. And God said, let there be
a vault between the waters to separate the water from
the water. So God made the vault and separated the
water under the vault from the water above it. And
it was so God called the vault sky. And there
(11:48):
was evening and there was morning the second day. So
this is Genesis one six through eight. I think a
vault is pretty darn solid. I don't know if I was.
What do you say here? I'll give you the last
word on this before we move on. But I think
it's pretty clear that they are claiming in Genesis one
six through eight that there is something clearly solid above
us that separates us from water above our heads.
Speaker 2 (12:13):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (12:13):
Well, and I would you know acknowledge that that that
is a common interpretation of what's going on in the
second day of Creation Genesis one, you know, six through eight.
But I would argue that again, I think there it's
possible to look at that and see that as essentially
(12:34):
referring to the atmosphere as we would understand it. So
I guess you know, when I look at again some
one O four in Job thirty eight, I think that
those passages actually mitigate against that that being referring to
a solid, you know, structure.
Speaker 1 (12:54):
Okay, speaking of shining light on a subject, let's talk
about the planetary four nation because in the Creation story,
and again I've argued against Young Earth creationists in favor
of Old Earth creationism in a weird way to say that,
you know, the Genesis account is poetic. It's designed to
(13:15):
say who did it, not necessarily all the details of what,
which could be an argument against my last my last
challenge to you. You know, if it's if it's poetic,
if it's just saying, you know, I'm the guy that
did it, let's write a song about it.
Speaker 2 (13:29):
Then.
Speaker 1 (13:29):
Okay, we do that all the time. We say you know,
I rode your your tear drop down to Earth. We
say I flew through the walls, or I walked on water,
or you know when we kissed, I was in the clouds.
We use metaphorical language and song all the time, but
if it's in errant, if it's literal, well that that
poses a problem I think for science or those who
(13:52):
defend the science in the Bible, because that same creation
account that talks about the firmament also says that the
Earth was formed before the Sun. I believe the Sun
is formed on the fourth day. Yeah, but there were
three mornings and evenings before the Sun was created, which
gives us a huge problem with photosynthesis because plants already existed.
(14:15):
But despite all that stuff, it just flatly goes against
any nebular hypothesis of stellar formation. We know that that,
you know, the Sun existed first and then planets come
around because of gravitational pool. So what do you say
about that As far as Genesis making the claim that
Earth was created first and then three days later the
(14:36):
Sun was formed.
Speaker 4 (14:38):
Yeah, well that's that again is a common objection to
you know, the again the scientific credibility of Genesis one.
And you know, I would draw on the work that
that Hugh Ross has done to kind of respond to
that and the first point would be that when you
look at Genesis one two, that actually is setting the
(15:03):
frame of reference for us in terms of how we
should think about the Genesis one creation account. So in
Genesis one too, it talks about the spirit of God
hovering over the surface of the waters, and so that
tells us that our frame of reference would be as
hypothetical observers residing on the surface of the earth, looking
(15:24):
outward and looking upward. And so when we go to
the First Day of Creation, we see that it talks
about the light being separated from the darkness, and the
light called day, the darkness called night. Uh, and uh.
The the the word that that is used there to
(15:45):
talk about what the the let the light appear is
in effect the word hiyah, which means to let, to
let to appear, let let something appear, let something come
to pass. So the point is on the first day
of Creation, God isn't creating the light. The light already exists.
(16:06):
It's that God is doing something to the earth in
such a way that sets up a light dark cycle.
You could argue, presumably changing the atmosphere so that light
could penetrate to the surface of the earth. So day
four is using that same word hi yah. So it's
not God creating the sun, moon, and stars, but rather
(16:26):
letting the sun, moon, and stars appear. So the implication
is that they already exist. It's just that as a
hypothetical observer on the surface of the Earth for the
first time, you would see that the sun, moon, and
stars appear. And again going back to Job thirty eight,
there is a portion that corresponds to I think the
(16:49):
first day of Creation, where it would be versus I
think verse seven. Here Job thirty eight seven that says, well,
read verse six on what were its footing set or
who laid its cornerstone? While the morning stars sang together
and all the angels shouted for joy. So in other words,
(17:11):
it's describing, you know, what's happening when the Earth's foundation
was laid. The Earth was literally coming into existence, And
here it talks about the stars being witnessed to that event.
So the implication there is that there were already stars,
the sun was already present when the foundations of the
(17:31):
Earth were laid.
Speaker 1 (17:34):
Well, that's not what Genesis said. So which one do
you think is right? Do you think Job is right
or do you think Genesis is.
Speaker 4 (17:39):
Right, No, I think what Genesis is saying is that again,
if the word there is high yah, that is not
saying that God created the sun, moon, and stars, but
that they appeared for the first time. So let me see,
I let me pull up.
Speaker 1 (17:55):
So while you're doing that, let me read just the
first few words of the Bible and then have a
follow up question. In the beginning, God created the heavens
and the earth. Now, the earth was formless and empty.
Darkness was over the face of the deep, and the
spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said,
(18:15):
let there be light. And there was light. God saw
that the light was good, and he separated the light
from the darkness. God called the light day, and the
darkness he called night. And then there was evening and
there was morning the first day. The sun has not
yet been created, but there was light. So from a
(18:38):
scientific perspective, my question to you is where was this
light emanating from if it existed with no sun?
Speaker 4 (18:48):
Yeah? Well, I mean, the way I would look at
the first few verses of Genesis would be Genesis one one.
In the beginning, God creates the heavens and the earth,
And that expression is kind of a you might say,
it's a summary statement or it's essentially a statement making
the point that the sum total of reality was brought
(19:10):
into existence by God.
Speaker 1 (19:12):
So he says in the introduction I made everything. And
then beginning in verse three, he starts telling you, I guess, wait, well,
maybe verse six, then he starts saying, here's how I
did it, step by step.
Speaker 4 (19:25):
Well, but then you moved to Genesis one two, which
is giving you a depiction of the Earth in its
primordial state. So, in other words, if you take Genesis
one one as being, you know, a referrent to the
beginning of the universe, right, which you know, some people
see the connection between that verse in Big Bang cosmology.
(19:45):
What it's basically telling you is that, you know, much
of cosmic history is not even discussed in Genesis one
its beginning, which makes sense at the Earth in its
primordial state. And and then, as I said in the
First Day, God is is not creating the light, but
(20:06):
rather is is doing something so that the light appears
for the first time on the surface of the Earth.
And the word there is high yah in distinction from
words like barrah, which means to originate something new that's
never existed. So in Genesis one one. In the beginning
God Barrah and the word create there is translated from barrah,
(20:30):
which means to originate something that's never existed. There's also
words like a saw yatsaw banaw, which means to create
something new from pre existing material. Well, the word high
yah isn't really describing creation, but rather something coming to pass.
(20:51):
So on the first day it says, let there be light.
That means that that that the light wasn't created, then
it was already existing. It was now again as a
hypothetical observer, you were now beginning to see that separation
of light from darkness, or the light would now penetrate
to the surface of the earth. The fourth day of creation,
(21:13):
which it starts in verse fourteen, that again is using
that same verb hyah. And so it's not God creating
the sun, moon and stars, but let it come to
pass that they now will appear in the sky.
Speaker 1 (21:32):
So where were they then, if they weren't in the.
Speaker 5 (21:34):
Sky, they were there, they just weren't observable to somebody
hypothetically that would have been present on the surface of
the earth, because again the frame of reference would be
on the surface of the earth.
Speaker 1 (21:49):
That just doesn't make sense to me. How could the
stars in the Sun and the Moon all be there
where they are today yet not visible from planet Earth.
Speaker 4 (22:01):
And this is where I think some work in the
formation of the Solar system actually becomes helpful. You know.
I find Genesis one, too, is a remarkable passage of
scripture because it I think presents a scientifically correct depiction
of the Earth in its primordial state. You know that
it's saying there was darkness everywhere. The Earth was a
(22:24):
water world. The whole surface was covered with water, which
would be true very early on in Earth's history and
the Earth if you were a hypothetical observer on the Earth,
you would not initially see sunlight penetrating the surface of
the Earth because of the very thick primordial atmosphere and
the high level of interplanetary debris. And once that debris
(22:46):
gets swept into the sun and there are impact events
that strip away the atmosphere. Now for the first time
sunlight penetrates the surface. But it doesn't mean that the
atmosphere it would be transparent. It would be you know, translucent,
but not transparent. And it's on the fourth day where
the atmosphere becomes transparent, and so now what's in the
(23:09):
heavens is now visible hypothetically on the surface of the earth.
Speaker 1 (23:13):
So that's how So what you're saying is, whenever it
says God created the sun and the moon and the
sun would rule over the day, and he didn't really
create it, you're saying that the word there used means
he made it visible by clearing out debris.
Speaker 4 (23:28):
Well, I would say that as creator he did. You know,
ultimately he's responsible for the creation of the sun, moon
and stars. It's just that that pattern the fourth day
of Creation isn't describing their creation.
Speaker 2 (23:45):
I don't know if it was.
Speaker 1 (23:46):
That sounds like a stretch to me, but I understand
where you're coming from. I just think that's a really
complicated way for God to do it and to not
explain it. If that's really what he meant, why not
say God created everything, but there was debris so no
one could see it from the earth if you had
been there, And then so he wipes out all of
this debris and now hear it. I mean, it just
(24:07):
it it seems like it's a you're in a difficult
position to, you know, explain away some poetic verses with science,
and I commend you for attempting to do so. I
just think those those scientific explanations fall short. But you're
not trying to convince me. The listeners are are are
very interested in what you're saying. I'm sure, and and
you know, I don't really know what to say to that,
(24:27):
other than I guess we could just move on. The
next verse. I really want to want to push on.
Is something that I mentioned in passing from time to time,
but I never really dive into. And I don't even
think I think I've quoted the verse and got the
verse wrong in the past. This is how lightly I've
used it. But it's in Joshua ten, and this is
(24:47):
something that I think I brought this up one of
the times Nilda grass Tyson was on the show because
he doesn't get into religious arguments, but he did laugh
about this one, and that explained scientifically what would have
happened if this actually did take place. But it's Joshua ten.
I guess the direct verse would be ten thirteen, but
(25:12):
I'll read from twelve to through fourteen, just so that
we have contacts before and after. It says on the
day that the Lord gave the emirits over to the Israelites.
Joshua spoke to the Lord in the presence of Israel,
Oh Sun stand over, Gilbeon, Oh moon over to the
valley of Agelon. Who knows? So the sun stood still
(25:37):
and stopped. Sorry, And so the sun stood still and
the moon stopped until the nation took vengeance upon its enemies.
Is this not written in the book of Jasar. So
the sun stopped in the middle of the sky and
delayed going down about a full day. There has been
no day like it before or since when the Lord
(25:58):
listened to the voice of a man, because the Lord
fought for Israel. So not only are we saying this
is the first and last time God listened to the
voice of a man and changed something he was gonna do,
which then brings into all sorts of other issues with
prayer and whatever, but it does call into question did
(26:21):
the earth actually stand still and the moon stopped for
an entire day? Neil de grass Tyson talked about the
catastrophic consequences that if the moon or sun actually froze
in the sky, what that would do to our tides
and our spin and our our axial tilt and everything else.
But you, as a scientist who studies this and says
(26:43):
that the Bible is an errant. What do you say
about this verse purely poetic or do you think this
actually happened and somehow Earth survived it?
Speaker 4 (26:53):
No, I actually would agree with Neil de grass Tyson's assessment.
I mean, I think if something like what seems to
be described at face value in the text took place,
then it would just be absolutely catastrophic, right, and for
the reasons that Neil deGrasse Tyson, you know, suggests, And honestly,
(27:14):
I I'm not completely sure I know what's going on
in this particular passage is scripture. Uh. And you know,
Hugh Ross, who is the founder and the president of
the organization I work for, has done an analysis of
this passage of scripture and argues, by looking in detail
(27:35):
at the at the Hebrew words that this is he
thinks some kind of meteorological phenomena, not necessarily you know,
the sun and the moon standing in place, you know where.
He argues that it was a meteorologic meteorological phenomena that
would be interpreted by the Israelites as the sun and
(27:56):
the moon standing still. You know, I I It's been
a while since I've read through his analysis, so I
don't have the specifics unfortunately at my fingertips. Uh. But
I I just look at this as being a passage
that to me is mysterious. I felt like Hugh had
an interesting argument, as he often does. Uh, and he
(28:20):
very well, may you be correct.
Speaker 1 (28:22):
He's very interesting when he was on. When he was
on the show, we mostly talked about aliens and ouiji
boards and we had a blast doing it. So he's
a very interesting guy. I like him a lot.
Speaker 2 (28:32):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (28:33):
Yeah, So so I guess, you know, I guess you
know point in your column, you know, and and and
to be you know, to to be fair here is
that you know. The way I look at a passage
like this, or let's say the passage where the whale
swallows Jonah right, and he's in the belly of the
whale for three days, I just don't know what, honestly
(28:56):
to make of that passage scientifically speaking, But I will
say that there are so many other passages in scripture
that I see consistent with what we've discovered scientifically about
the world around us, or passages that I think at
minimum harmonize with scientific discovery or can be interpreted in
(29:17):
such a way that they harmonize with scientific insight, And
so I choose to look at those passages that to
me are mysterious as being mysterious and not really having
an explanation for them. But I don't know that I
would say that that necessarily, in my view, undermines the
credibility of scripture soon if I don't necessarily have that explanation.
Speaker 1 (29:41):
No, Look, I appreciate that level of mystery because that's
the same view I hold with the origins of life.
And I guess the question is, why isn't that your
view on origins? Why isn't it just something that's mysterious
and you're continuing to look for a cause rather than
saying God's the best explanation, let me see how God
did it?
Speaker 2 (30:00):
Right?
Speaker 1 (30:01):
Like, why why isn't that same level of I guess
Mulligan given to the you know, origin of species on Earth?
Speaker 4 (30:10):
Well, I mean I would for for somebody who is, uh,
you know, holds your perspective. I think if you say, hey,
this is a mystery and we're going to you know,
the jury is still out, let's let science try to
figure this out. I'm perfectly comfortable with somebody, you know,
taking that position, you know, but I would argue that
(30:31):
I'm coupling that that the fact that that we the
original life at this point doesn't have a ro you know,
an explanation that is compelling from an evolutionary perspective, coupling
that with what I see to be incredible design in
biochemical systems as tipping the scale in favor of of
a creator. Right right, and so.
Speaker 1 (30:55):
Well, I have two more again. I think we could
probably write a book together to be on it. I
feel like I could come up with seventy five or
one hundred of these and you could give your best,
you know, explanation, and I could tell you why that
explanation doesn't sit well with me. This could be, This
could go on forever. All right. That concludes this episode
of Throwback Thursday for Dogma Debate. Let us know your
(31:15):
thoughts in the Patreon comments, and if you're not signed up,
you want to engage in the comments, and you want
to hear the entire episode in the archives. It's available
at Dogma Debate dot com. Just click to sign up
through Patreon and join our lovely community. Let us know
what you thought about all of that. I'm gonna withhold
my comments, definitely have some tell me what you think.
(31:38):
It's Dogma debate and today was Throwback Thursday. Thanks for
joining as Ford and please, as always drive let you
know each other
Popular Podcasts
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com