Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In other words, you have no scientific evidence to actually prove that "In the beginning God created the heavens and earth" is wrong.
Nor do you have any scientific proof that any of Genesis is wrong. Please provide the actual science. I want to read peer-reviewed works actually PROVING scientifically that Genesis is wrong.
You are being crafty. There are no scientific peer -reviewed papers setting out tp prove that genesis is wrong or that God did not create heaven and earth. You are doing the old trick of asking irrelevant questions (like 'prove dogs come from cats').
What there is - and you know this very well - is peer reviewed papers on geology showing that the strata and dates are such that (when compared) undermine the genesis account. There are papers showing that the fossils in them match date with with observed development of fossil forms. This debunks the Genesis account. There are scientific papers on the formation of mountains, oceans and continents that (when compared) debunk the flood account.
The question is not whether God did it all, but whether Genesis is factually correct. For other reasons I don't think a god exists. So the odd suggestion that I am somehow saying it did create heaven and earth is not the issue either.
I am not going to be sent on a wild goose chase of even searching out peer reviewed papers on those subjects. The science is there and you can find it easily if you want (like talk origins and your reaction to that will tell me what eliance you will place on peer reviewd papers on Geology or palaeontology). What you want is to shift the burden of proof and I am not falling for it. The science says such and such and you know that well enough. You find peer reviewed papers that say otherwise.
Nor is it even on topic. Transitional hominid (or whatever the term is now) forms is the subject. Though really, all that can be said has been said. The suggestion that it's an early erectus will (perhaps) be discussed. The suggestion that it is an ape skull that has been faked to look human is what I'd expect from someone who accused evolutionists of lying about what evolution was and a few evolution skeptics who got together to say cats came from dogs are the only reliable experts on evolution.
Eusebius, old mate, your credibility in this area is long since shot. But I admire the skill you show in debate. For example, scoring tiny tactical points with:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
Thank you! But can we keep with the subject of the thread.
Which is not whether God created heaven and earth. So you are in no position to criticize.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 09-17-2015 at 11:43 AM..
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,925,051 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
In other words, you have no scientific evidence to actually prove that "In the beginning God created the heavens and earth" is wrong.
Nor do you have any scientific proof that any of Genesis is wrong. Please provide the actual science. I want to read peer-reviewed works actually PROVING scientifically that Genesis is wrong.
Negatives are never proven, and you know that.
YOU can't prove that there is not a colony of space critters circling the earth. Go ahead. Prove they are not.
Prove I don't know the formula for making gold out of lead. Go ahead. Prove that I don't.
Prove that there is not a gold teapot circling Mars. Go ahead. Prove that it is not.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,925,051 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
I don't want to get involved in another Noah/world-wide flood debate and have to show all you folks wrong again. But actually there are two world-wide floods recorded in Genesis, not just the one which occurred in Noah's day.
And no, there doesn't have to be a suspension of any laws of physics for there to be a world-wide flood.
Richard Dawkins is an idiot. The Bible is quite clear that, in Genesis 1:2 "The world BECAME chaos and vacant." And in 1:2 onward is God making the earth habitable again. The earth was not created 6,000 years ago. It was made habitable again 6,000 years ago. The earth could be millions of years old prior to the katabole or down casting of the world in 1:2.
Now then, since the world was BECAME chaos and VACANT of all life prior to 6,000 years ago, it is impossible for the animals, humans and plants of today to have somehow miraculously evolved from a single celled amoeba in only 6,000 years.
It could be that what some of these fossil finds are from is prior to the 6,000 years ago re-start of the earth's inhabitants.
You must be a special kind of intellectual to still think the imagination of a bronzed aged people becomes today's reality.
I don't want to get involved in another Noah/world-wide flood debate and have to show all you folks wrong again. But actually there are two world-wide floods recorded in Genesis, not just the one which occurred in Noah's day.
And no, there doesn't have to be a suspension of any laws of physics for there to be a world-wide flood.
Richard Dawkins is an idiot. The Bible is quite clear that, in Genesis 1:2 "The world BECAME chaos and vacant." And in 1:2 onward is God making the earth habitable again. The earth was not created 6,000 years ago. It was made habitable again 6,000 years ago. The earth could be millions of years old prior to the katabole or down casting of the world in 1:2.
Now then, since the world was BECAME chaos and VACANT of all life prior to 6,000 years ago, it is impossible for the animals, humans and plants of today to have somehow miraculously evolved from a single celled amoeba in only 6,000 years.
It could be that what some of these fossil finds are from is prior to the 6,000 years ago re-start of the earth's inhabitants.
But scientists have proven that man has continually been alive in North America for about 15,000 years.
You are being crafty. There are no scientific peer -reviewed papers setting out tp prove that genesis is wrong or that God did not create heaven and earth. You are doing the old trick of asking irrelevant questions (like 'prove dogs come from cats').
What there is - and you know this very well - is peer reviewed papers on geology showing that the strata and dates are such that (when compared) undermine the genesis account. There are papers showing that the fossils in them match date with with observed development of fossil forms. This debunks the Genesis account. There are scientific papers on the formation of mountains, oceans and continents that (when compared) debunk the flood account.
The question is not whether God did it all, but whether Genesis is factually correct. For other reasons I don't think a god exists. So the odd suggestion that I am somehow saying it did create heaven and earth is not the issue either.
I am not going to be sent on a wild goose chase of even searching out peer reviewed papers on those subjects. The science is there and you can find it easily if you want. What you want is to shift the burden of proof and I am not falling for it. The science says such and such and know that well enough. You find peer reviewed papers that say otherwise.
Nor is it even on topic. Transitional hominid (or whatever the term is now) forms is the subject. Though really, all that can be said has been said. The suggestion that it's an early erectus will (perhaps) be discussed. The suggestion that it is an ape skull that has been faked to look human is what I'd expect from someone who accused evolutionists of lying about what evolution was and a few evolution skeptics who got together to say cats came from dogs are the only reliable experts on evolution.
Eusebius, old mate, your credibility in this area is long since shot. But I admire the skill you show in debate.
Here is the dialogue:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius No, it is why all of the Genesis account is true.
AREQUIPA replied:
Quote:
Which it demonstrably is not.
Eusebius' reply:
By "demonstrably" I wanted you to **demonstrate** the Genesis account is not true.
So far all you have done is demonstrate an utter lack of proof.
You must be a special kind of intellectual to still think the imagination of a bronzed aged people becomes today's reality.
I didn't know Adam worked in bronze.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The science says such and such and you know that well enough. You find peer reviewed papers that say otherwise. 
