ICANT'S position in the creation debate

You cannot prove that the invisible pink unicorn, or the flying spaghetti monster does not exist. Why don't you hold them in the same regard?

Gaia and Ouranos are written about in a similar fashion, yet you do not believe in them. Surely you are not equating "really old" with "true"? After all, there are many old writings that are clearly false; for instance the Earth is not flat, or on the back of a giant tortoise.So, what is the real reason? It sure would! But it goes both ways, right? If we can prove God didn't do other things he said he did, then we can cast significant doubt on the Genesis story as well, correct?But before we get to that we still need to figure out why we are trying to disprove this particular story, and not going after Gaia. So tell me ICANT, why is this particular old story so much more trustworthy than any other?

So you actually consider the story of Gaia, the Christian God, and the archaeological record to be on the same level as evidence?Well... there's your problem! See, science does not have to "take them all out at once" because it simply does not include them as preconceived notions. Instead we simply present the evidence and *then* decide what a reasonable explanation is based on said evidence.Currently, the evidence we have indicates that the Christian God's creation story, as well as Gaia's, are not accurate in explaining what actually occurred. Note that science is not intentionally "disproving" such stories, its findings simply do not match up with what those stories claim.There are many things that we do not know about our reality, but if you claim to know something about it you have to back that claim up with evidence. It is not the responsibility of others to prove you wrong.

And you neglected to reply to my question about if "It was written a long time ago" is equivalent in your mind to "It is true." You appear to be favoring one story over all others, so why is that? Also, can you clarify why you consider the Bible to be similar evidence as the archaeological record? Yes, and Yes. Definitive observation of the event, forming a conclusive and complete understanding? No.Scientists didn't come up with the big bang theory without observing background radiation and the expansion of the universe. Scientists didn't come up with their theories about the origin of life without studying the chemical makeup of life, and the fossil record. All of that is evidence (and there is much, much more) that leads scientists to their most popular theories about what happened. Is the understanding complete at this point? No, but it is enough to tell us how it didn't happen.You have fixated on one very old story over other, similarly unevidenced and old stories and persist in evading the question why.

It is a quality they share, yes, but it isn't quite the entire picture. For instance: I just wrote today that I became the ruler of the world. Investigation of that writing isn't the same as the investigation of current events; the distinction should be clear. The correction is in that last part: I am saying "no, we do not have scientific "proof" how the universe or life began to exist." This is because what you are asking for is probably impossible, and not something that science can provide. Furthermore the entire question is irrelevant; just because we don't completely understand the process does not mean that your concept is correct. In fact, an incomplete understanding can indicate fairly well that you are wrong. Irrelevant, in fact it supports the theory because observations matched the predictions of the theory. If the observations matched your theory better then it would be accepted over the current one... Oh wait, you don't *have* any observations that support your theory! Now you are just pulling things out of your rear. Not that it is unusual behavior mind you, but it bears pointing out. The "Book of I Just Made This Up" says "In the beginning Dubble Bubble Gum created the heaven and the earth". Can you give any reason other than "The Bible is older" that my version isn't just as good? Heck, it is even better given that we can tell that Dubble Bubble actually exists. No, this is wrong. Again you make the mistake of thinking that math makes things true, or that your understanding of something is integral to its existence. In essence this stems from the childlike concept that if you close your eyes the world ceases to exist. This seems to be a manner in which you consistently err.Our math DESCRIBES reality, it does not make reality. Most of our formulas have a range of situations over which they provide accurate results, beyond which are required other methods. If you go back far enough our math that describes the current state of things starts giving silly answers, if it works at all. This does NOT mean that "there is 'no thing' there", it means that our descriptions need to be modified.It would be wonderful if we could come up with Grand Unification Theory, a formula that works in all situations and provides accurate results in all... but we are not there. No, that isn't the scientific answer. The answer is: "We have lots and lots of data, and many ideas. The currently accepted one is the Big Bang Theory, and research is ongoing to either support or replace it. Check back for more updates!"Your answer is: "I have a book here that says vague stuff, and I make up details as I see fit. It must be true because the book is really old, and I am convinced!" Really, so you are claiming that all of the math that gets so close to your much-parroted "T=0" isn't based on any data at all? Is that what you are claiming?

---