The Truth of Genesis

People still ignore the flood

you either have to declare it was not earth wide or admit that any radiocarbon dating is only trustworthy up to the flood

Eternally Grateful said:

evening and morning first day

I think that is quite clear

Click to expand...

Genesis 1:3 "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Genesis 1:4 "And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

Genesis 1:5 "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

the Light is Called "DAY", and it's not sunlight. find out what the LIGHT is then you'll have your DAY.

and as for the evening and the morning, this only shows the beginning and an ending of a critical ecosystem being formed. again pertaining to the earth or the heavens, his creation.

this evening and mornig, the beginning, making of several ecosystems, and the end or completion of it's end . there are many ecosystem for this planet. just to name a few, Terrestrial ecosystems are land-based, while aquatic are water-based, and there are those that pertain to our atmosphere. man himself is an ecosystems all by himself. and other system that was created ... "Visible", and invisible". and there are powers and principalities that we have no clue of, all this done in Genesis.

so it's not that cut and dry.

PICJAG.

101G said:

Genesis 1:3 "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Genesis 1:4 "And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

Genesis 1:5 "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

the Light is Called "DAY", and it's not sunlight. find out what the LIGHT is then you'll have your DAY.

and as for the evening and the morning, this only shows the beginning and an ending of a critical ecosystem being formed. again pertaining to the earth or the heavens, his creation.

this evening and mornig, the beginning, making of several ecosystems, and the end or completion of it's end . there are many ecosystem for this planet. just to name a few, Terrestrial ecosystems are land-based, while aquatic are water-based, and there are those that pertain to our atmosphere. man himself is an ecosystems all by himself. and other system that was created ... "Visible", and invisible". and there are powers and principalities that we have no clue of, all this done in Genesis.

so it's not that cut and dry.

PICJAG.

Click to expand...

I guess God is limited

he can’t create a system Capable of sustaining his creation (mankind) in 6 days

it also says he rested on day 7. And he told Israel they too should rest on day 7. And work six just like he did

a day equals a day if Not God would have told us

reformed1689 said:

Care to share what was incorrect?

Click to expand...

You implied that carbon dating is used to date dinosaur bones to 100k years ago. Carbon dating is not used to date dinosaur bones and the method is only useful for items less than ~45k years old.

No, science cannot, in fact, test how humans originated. It is literally impossible.

Click to expand...

They can and have.

The rest of your statement is just nonsense and unrelated.

Click to expand...

Then you agree that an event doesn't have to be recreated in order for scientists to study it. Good.

reformed1689 said:

Proof?

Click to expand...

Do you care? If I show you examples of scientists testing human origins, will that matter to you?

That's not what I said at all.

Click to expand...

What did you mean when you said "science cannot show how we came about because it can't be tested and recreated"?

Justadude said:

Yes it is. You don't use C-14 dating on a living organism that is still taking in carbon, especially a marine organism. But I'm guessing you have no idea why that is.

Click to expand...

Explain why they, science, did it then.

I don't rely on religious websites for scientific information.

Click to expand...

How convenient. They cited a source and even show the report by the University of Arizona.

I'm quite familiar with the methods.

Click to expand...

If you were, you would have gone to the link to look for discrepancy.

I suspect that's the root issue here. You approach radiometric dating from a religious perspective, as in you evaluate the conclusions based solely on whether or not they mesh with your beliefs.

I obviously don't approach it that way.

Click to expand...

Right. You approach radio metric dating from an atheistic approach favoring a false science called the evolution theory.

Seen anything wrong with the definitions of microevolution and macroevolution when comparing against them all at dictionary web sites and universities? Some have them separate in definition, some have them blurring the mines between the 2 and a few are reading the same thing.

Did you know that Punctuated Equilibrium or Rapid Macroevolution was proposed because Gradual Macroevolution cannot be true? And now they are saying both are true?

Did you know that the "fact" that birds evolved from dinosaurs has now been changed to dinosaurs evolving from birds?

Or how about science only recently discovered that the sex organs of the dinosaurs are "internal" and yet the Bible testified to his stones wrapped in sinew before science did in describing a behemoth as a living dinosaur in Job 40:15-18 So how can anyone describe a dinosaur and have knowledge of his internal sex organs if supposedly nobody saw a dinosaur for hundreds of millions of years?

Job 40:15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. 18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.

It is too bad you are unwilling to play the skeptic when it comes to the evolution theory, but you should believe in the Bible.

Enow said:

Explain why they, science, did it then.

Click to expand...

You don't know? Why did you mention it if you don't know what they did or why they did it? How did you even find out about it in the first place?

How convenient. They cited a source and even show the report by the University of Arizona.

Click to expand...

Convenient and sensible. Why would I go to a religious apologetics web page for information about science? I can see why someone like you would, since this is a religious issue for you.

If you were, you would have gone to the link to look for discrepancy.

Click to expand...

No, because I don't care what a religious apologetics website says about a scientific subject.

Right. You approach radio metric dating from an atheistic approach favoring a false science called the evolution theory.

Click to expand...

Wrong. I take the science as it is without any religious considerations. Just because you're biased on this doesn't mean everyone else is too.

Seen anything wrong with the definitions of microevolution and macroevolution when comparing against them all at dictionary web sites and universities? Some have them separate in definition, some have them blurring the mines between the 2 and a few are reading the same thing.

Did you know that Punctuated Equilibrium or Rapid Macroevolution was proposed because Gradual Macroevolution cannot be true? And now they are saying both are true?

Did you know that the "fact" that birds evolved from dinosaurs has now been changed to dinosaurs evolving from birds?

Or how about science only recently discovered that the sex organs of the dinosaurs are "internal" and yet the Bible testified to his stones wrapped in sinew before science did in describing a behemoth as a living dinosaur in Job 40:15-18 So how can anyone describe a dinosaur and have knowledge of his internal sex organs if supposedly nobody saw a dinosaur for hundreds of millions of years?

Job 40:15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. 18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.

It is too bad you are unwilling to play the skeptic when it comes to the evolution theory, but you should believe in the Bible.

Click to expand...

Like I said before, it's obvious this is a religious issue for you in that you apply a religious test to everything that comes from science. If it disagrees with your beliefs, it's wrong. End of story. I approach the subject in an opposite manner.

Because of that, there's nothing to be gained by the two of us debating the topic. We approach it from completely different perspectives, we don't trust each other's sources (you don't trust scientific sources, I don't trust apologetic sources), you have very high stakes (your religion). Plus, this "debate" is old and stale, and is largely irrelevant. No one really cares if conservative Christians deny the science behind evolution. Shoot, conservative Christians have denied all sorts of science throughout history, so what's one more?

To reiterate, the science denialism of conservative Christianity is one of the reasons the faith is in steep decline. If you want to further that process, that's fine with me.

reformed1689 said:

Yes, now quit stalling and provide some.

Click to expand...

Error - Cookies Turned Off

I said what I said.

Click to expand...

This is one of the main reasons why these "debates" are so boring. The creationist says something, gets questioned on it, then does everything he can to not answer questions or explain himself.

If you guys would just debate openly and honestly, it'd be worth doing.

reformed1689 said:

This is not proof. This is a hypothesis that has not been proven, just showing statistical possibilities.....Sorry, eyewitness testimony trumps this.

Click to expand...

This is what I mean about the pointlessness of this "debate". You said scientists couldn't test how humans originated. I just showed you where they have. But do you admit your mistake? No, you go straight to the fallacy of moving the goalposts by saying it's not proof of human origins, apparently hoping I would forget that your original statement was that scientists hadn't and couldn't even conduct tests.

You're so wrapped up in protecting your religious beliefs you can't admit even the smallest mistake. There's no point in debating or even discussing with someone like that.

My statement was clear. You are the one that twisted my words so don't talk to me about debating honestly.

Click to expand...

See how absurd this is? You said "science cannot show how we came about because it can't be tested and recreated", and I read that as you saying since we can't recreate human origins, science can't study it. When I even went out of my way to ask you what you meant by that you only responded with "I said what I said" and nothing else.

And now you accuse me of twisting your words.

If you don't see the problem with your own behavior there, I don't know what else to say.

reformed1689 said:

No that is not what you showed in that test. They created a statistical analysis of a hypothesis that is based on presupposition and not reality.

Click to expand...

You said they couldn't test human origins. I showed where they have. You were wrong. You're not infallible, get over it.

Science has no way of figuring out our origin or the origin of the universe. It can't be done.

Click to expand...

Scientists don't care about your opinion.

Justadude said:

You don't know? Why did you mention it if you don't know what they did or why they did it? How did you even find out about it in the first place?

Click to expand...

Mocking to deflect from the issue now are we? Science did it. So stop denying it as if you know what science does or don't do.

That link was provided for the report at the University of Arizona. You did not want to bother with it and that is your loss.

To reiterate, the science denialism of conservative Christianity is one of the reasons the faith is in steep decline. If you want to further that process, that's fine with me.

Click to expand...

It is in decline only because they believe the lies of man over the words of God. That is what they get for not being rooted in His words to know better.

If they do not know the method of macro evolution, then they can't say it is proven, but they are and I call that lying. If you can't see the forest for all the trees, for all the other "facts"; hence lies, that are changing with time ... I can't help you then, because you want to believe it in spite of all the common sense to the contrary.

Enow said:

Mocking to deflect from the issue now are we? Science did it. So stop denying it as if you know what science does or don't do.

Click to expand...

I'm not mocking. You cited the snail study so I assume you know what they did and why. If you don't, just say so. What's the big deal?

That link was provided for the report at the University of Arizona. You did not want to bother with it and that is your loss.

Click to expand...

Why not just go straight to the UofA? I see no reason to get my information on science from a religious apologetics website.

It is in decline only because they believe the lies of man over the words of God. That is what they get for not being rooted in His words to know better.

Click to expand...

Further evidence that this is a religious issue for you. Nothing wrong with that as long as you're honest about it.

If they do not know the method of macro evolution, then they can't say it is proven, but they are and I call that lying. If you can't see the forest for all the trees, for all the other "facts"; hence lies, that are changing with time ... I can't help you then, because you want to believe it in spite of all the common sense to the contrary.

Click to expand...

I hope you understand that when it comes to scientific topics, I'm not going to base my positions on what you say. I'll stick with relying on scientists when it comes to scientific topics.