Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8857 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-20-2018 2:28 AM
200 online now:
Heathen, PaulK, Pressie, Tangle (4 members, 196 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: rldawnca
Post Volume:
Total: 837,098 Year: 11,921/29,783 Month: 943/1,642 Week: 51/306 Day: 6/45 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
3839
40
4142
...
46Next
Author Topic:   ICANT'S position in the creation debate
Perdition
Member (Idle past 1100 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 586 of 687 (525096)
09-21-2009 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 572 by ICANT
09-21-2009 10:42 AM


Re: space and time
There is no such thing as empty space as it is said to be inhabited by dark matter.

Now you're throwing in another concept you don't seem to understand. Dark matter doesn't permeate all of space. It probably exists much like normal matter, clumping due to gravity. Also, one of the defining characteristics of dark matter is that it doesn't interact with photons (thus the name "dark) so it would have no effect on the speed of light other than due to it's gravity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 572 by ICANT, posted 09-21-2009 10:42 AM ICANT has not yet responded

    
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 1708
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 587 of 687 (525099)
09-21-2009 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 584 by Minnemooseus
09-21-2009 2:15 PM


Re: Spinning a bucket of water
A real physics type can surely explain it better.

no you're correct, the problem is me trying to post with too little sleep.


It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor
This message is a reply to:
 Message 584 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-21-2009 2:15 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 4164
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 588 of 687 (525101)
09-21-2009 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 572 by ICANT
09-21-2009 10:42 AM


Re: space and time
I am told it is a property of the universe. Which is a concept of man.

The Universe is a concept of Man???? Do tell.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 572 by ICANT, posted 09-21-2009 10:42 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 593 by ICANT, posted 09-22-2009 6:11 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 813 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 589 of 687 (525103)
09-21-2009 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by ICANT
08-21-2009 10:48 PM


Hi ICANT, I guess I'm late to the party seeing as how the thread has distanced itself a bit, if not completely, from your OP.

So if I may, I'd like to just deal with your OP.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

You qualify that with:

ICANT writes:

Science has no evidence concerning how the universe began to exist.

Let just start with the BB, and not go beyond that point (so that you don't get confused in a sematics battle).

Cosmologist have a very factual understanding of how this (the BB) occured and it does not include the conception of planets (ie. earth) - So, with the evidence provided by science, Gen. 1 is wrong. "In the beginning" (the BB) the earth was not created.

That disproves that...

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

You qualified that with:

ICANT writes:

Science has no evidence of how life began to exist.

There is factual evidence that shows the first life on earth was a single cell organism, and it does NOT show the first form was human. Further, no evidence exists for man being formed from dust, it shows a clear evolvement from a common ape ancestor to all apes. So, with the evidence provided by science, Gen 2.7 is wrong.

That disporves that...

Therefore Science has not proved God did not create the universe and life as presented in Genesis.

There is no need. Science shows that the earth was not created "In the beginning" and it shows that humans are not the first life forms and were NOT formed from dust.

Conclusion:
Gen. 1 and Gen. 2.7 are scientifically proven wrong.

Where am I missing your point, ICANT?

[ABE] Just to rehash your old arguments and your complete misunderstandings, the universe did not begin to exist from nothingness. The reason no one will explain to you "how it began" is because it didn't "begin." You and you alone hold to this ridiculous point. Prove to us that there was nothing and then something began, you can't, you know you can't, so put that tired argument to rest.

You're talking about the speed of light and time dilation as if you actually have a clue as to what you are describing. You use terms like "time stops at the speed of light," which is a complete misunderstanding, and shows nothing but ignorance on the subject when you speak of it with authority. You say things like "gravity causes time to slow down," which is also a complete misunderstanding, and again shows nothing but ignorance on the subject when you speak of it with authority.

You have sadly wasted yet another thread trying to grasp concepts and use terms for which you nothing about. Instead of trying to learn, you waste time confusing things. You don't know what you're talk about when you reference anything in GR or SR. You don't know what you're talking about when you talk about the dimension of time and the dimensions of space. You could, though. You could really have a good basis for understanding what cavediver and guys with his knowledge are talking about; this has been made available to you many times over. But you seem to be more concern with your "idea" of what certain terms and theories mean, rather than learning the proper use of them, so once again you have proven to be a waste of time and effort.

You don't know what you're talking about, you sadly, probably, never will.

But one thing is for sure, Gen. 1 as you quoted it and Gen. 2.7 as you quoted it, has been scientifically proven wrong, so you lose this debate hands down, dude. [ABE]

- Oni

Edited by onifre, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ICANT, posted 08-21-2009 10:48 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 594 by ICANT, posted 09-22-2009 6:17 PM onifre has responded

    
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 3079 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 590 of 687 (525193)
09-22-2009 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 577 by ICANT
09-21-2009 11:53 AM


Re: space and time
ICANT writes:

Explain how an apple changing from green to red is a movement in space.


Actually, it can be thought of movement of the individual molecules as different chemical processes take place to change the color of the apple from green to red. In order for the color change to take place, the molecules need to move, energy needs to be added, etc. In a world without time, nothing would move so there would be no chemical processes because molecules would not move.

ICANT writes:

Grandma is slow but she has existed a lot longer than you have.

That dude is traveling at a snail's pace.

But that guy in the red car is traveling as the cheetah runs.

You are as slow as a turtle.


What is a snail's pace. How fast does a cheetah run? How can you express those analogies without resorting to time? We know a cheetah runs fast because over time, a cheetah goes a very long distance. We know a snail is slow because over time, a snail goes a very short distance. Tell me how I can define a snail's pace or the speed of a cheetah without using, "over time."

ICANT writes:

When did man's concept of math begin to exist?


When did man's concept of God begin? Does that mean God doesn't exist?

I can appreciate you trying to put things in a philosophical light, but I saw a brilliant non sequitur strip that shows that sometimes you don't want to philosophical.

"There is no up or down, only the presence of where you are at the moment" is analogous to your contention that "there is no past or future, only the presence of when you are at the moment."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 577 by ICANT, posted 09-21-2009 11:53 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 591 by ICANT, posted 09-22-2009 5:38 PM Izanagi has responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5878
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 591 of 687 (525250)
09-22-2009 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 590 by Izanagi
09-22-2009 10:02 AM


Re: space and time
Hi Izanagi,

Izanagi writes:

How can you express those analogies without resorting to time?

That was the reason man came up with the concept of time so he could be a little more specific.

So man built sundials but they weren't much good for a 100 yard dash.

But they did keep track of the hours of the day. But when the sun went down you were on your own.

Man built hour glasses to time shorter times.

Then man figured out if the earth's rotation was divided up into 24 equal periods and you could divide those 24 periods up into 60 minutes each then divide those minutes up into 60 seconds, and then divide those seconds up into hundred's. You could now build a time piece that could measure the duration of an event, such as that 100 yard dash.

Izanagi writes:

When did man's concept of God begin?

With the first created life form, the first man that walked and talked with Him.

That still doesn't answer the question, "When did man's concept of math begin to exist?"

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 590 by Izanagi, posted 09-22-2009 10:02 AM Izanagi has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 602 by Izanagi, posted 09-23-2009 4:09 AM ICANT has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5878
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 592 of 687 (525254)
09-22-2009 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 581 by Modulous
09-21-2009 12:45 PM


Re: Light
Hi Mod,

Modulous writes:

To clarify this point, I meant to make it clear that the ship was approaching earth. If the light seems to be travelling from them at 300,000km/s and they seem to be travelling towards earth at 150,000km/s then it should take less than a year for the light to travel a year.

Well if relativity as it has been explained to me in this thread is correct the light is traveling 300,000 m/s from the ship. When you add that the ship is traveling towards the earth at 150,000 m/s you have light traveling at 450,000 m/s

Since the maximum speed of light is 300,000 m/s something is wrong with the theory.

Would you care to explain what that problem is to me?

Modulous writes:

Observation shows that this doesn't happen with light.

Are you talking about something that is observed with the natural eye?

Or that is perceived to be observed in math?

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 581 by Modulous, posted 09-21-2009 12:45 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 596 by JonF, posted 09-22-2009 7:50 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 601 by Modulous, posted 09-23-2009 1:39 AM ICANT has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5878
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 593 of 687 (525257)
09-22-2009 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 588 by JonF
09-21-2009 4:05 PM


Re: space and time
Hi JonF,

JonF writes:

The Universe is a concept of Man???? Do tell.

I am as bad as Doc I need to get me some no doze pills.

I was still referring to the it which is time being a concept of man sorry for the confusion. Although it did give you a chuckle.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 588 by JonF, posted 09-21-2009 4:05 PM JonF has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5878
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 594 of 687 (525258)
09-22-2009 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 589 by onifre
09-21-2009 4:27 PM


Re: Going back
Hi oni,

onifre writes:

Let just start with the BB, and not go beyond that point (so that you don't get confused in a sematics battle).

I thought you said you wanted to deal with my OP.

My OP is concerning the origin of the universe.

The BB is an attempt to tell us what happened after the universe was in existence, not how it came to exist.

If you can't tell me how it began to exist, how can you know what happened after it began to exist?

onifre writes:

So, with the evidence provided by science, Gen. 1 is wrong.

What evidence?

This thread was started because I was told science had proved Genesis creation which takes place in Genesis 1:1 was proven false. At your post 589 not one shred of evidence has been forth coming.

All you have to do to prove Genesis 1:1 wrong is explain how the universe came to exist as that is what Genesis 1:1 does.

onifre writes:

There is factual evidence that shows the first life on earth was a single cell organism,

Then you should have no problem giving evidence of how that first life began to exist.

That is what Genesis 2:7 does.

It is a fact life produces life.

It is a fact non life has never produced life after 150 years of trying with the best equipment possible man has not produced life from non life.

Genesis 2:7 says God breathed life into a form and it became a living being. Thus life produced life.

Scientific facts require that there be a life form to produce the first life.

Thus we have scientific evidence for a life form that produced the first life as we are here.

onifre writes:

You say things like "gravity causes time to slow down,"

You won't find where I made that statement. You can find where a lot of posters said it but not me.

I said gravity slows the pulse rate of the atomic clock thus the clock runs slower not time. You put the clock in a satellite and it runs faster than a clock at sea level on earth because of the effect of gravity and velocity.

onifre writes:

But one thing is for sure, Gen. 1 as you quoted it and Gen. 2.7 as you quoted it, has been scientifically proven wrong, so you lose this debate hands down, dude. [ABE]

Then lay out the evidence for everyone to examine.

But that would be a waste of your time wouldn't it?

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 589 by onifre, posted 09-21-2009 4:27 PM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 595 by onifre, posted 09-22-2009 7:16 PM ICANT has responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 813 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 595 of 687 (525271)
09-22-2009 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 594 by ICANT
09-22-2009 6:17 PM


Re: Going back
The BB is an attempt to tell us what happened after the universe was in existence, not how it came to exist.

I'm sorry, ICANT, but you are incorrect on that. There is no point in which there was no universe or existance, that is a religious point of view that you can't seem to shake off. You're already coming into it with the idea that there was a time when there was nothing and then suddenly something appeared. That is simply wrong, and something to which you and only you are seeking an answer to.

The problem is that you have no evidence that can show us nothing then something actually took place, so it's a bare accertion that no one will be able to answer.

The problem you are having in understanding what certain words mean is that you're taking them in the layman definition.

"Begin" has no place in cosmology when describing our universe. It is finite in origin, it also has no point where it began to exist from.

That is a fact that you'll either have to learn to understand, or ignore as you have been.

But whether you "get it" or accept it doesn't change the fact that Gen. 1, as you quoted it, is refuted with the scienctific evidence for the BB (it doesn't matter that you can't understand the evidence). The universe exists and came to be without a moment of creation from nothingness to something, AND, in the beginning the Earth didn't exist. No "creator" needed, no moment of "creation" from nothingness.

Genesis 2:7 says God breathed life into a form and it became a living being.

Oh lets not be modest, ICANT. I believe the Lord did more than just "breath life into some nondescript life;" your quote seemed to indicate much more than that.

Lets look at Gen. 2.7 and see why, AS YOU QUOTED IT, it is refuted.

Genesis 2:;7 And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Humans are not created from dust, according to science they are an evolved primate which came from Old World monkeys, and so forth. This is why scienctific evidence (whether you agree with it or not) refutes Gen. 2.7.

Nor were humans the first organisms on this planet. According to scientific evidence, single cell organisms were. That is why science refutes Gen. 2.7 (whether you agree with the evidence or not).

It doesn't say "God created a single cell organism" does it?

I don't have to show you evidence of life emerging from nonlife, I just have to show you that humans aren't made out of dust, weren't the first organisms on this planet, and don't come into existance by way of breathed air, they are reproduced.

I said gravity slows the pulse rate of the atomic clock thus the clock runs slower not time. You put the clock in a satellite and it runs faster than a clock at sea level on earth because of the effect of gravity and velocity.

No. This is wrong. There is no "effect of gravity," gravity is not a force, it doesn't do anything. Gravity is curved space, space is cuved due to mass. Period. That's all gravity is. SPEED is what affects the clocks, velocity! Period.

But this is off topic! See that's what you do, you drag it off topic into talks about showing you how life comes from nonlife and crap like that.

Your thread is about Gen. 1 and Gen. 2.7 being refuted scientifically (WHETHER YOU AGREE WITH THE SCIENCE OR NOT, DOESN'T MATTER).

Then lay out the evidence for everyone to examine.

But that would be a waste of your time wouldn't it?

Not at all, the waste of time comes when YOU drag YOUR thread off topic. That is where the waste of time comes in, when people try to explain things to you and you waste time trying to refute it when you know NOTHING about it.

As my post shows, for anyone to see and weigh in on it, Gen. 1 and Gen. 2.7 are refuted scientifically.

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 594 by ICANT, posted 09-22-2009 6:17 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 598 by ICANT, posted 09-22-2009 9:03 PM onifre has responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 4164
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 596 of 687 (525276)
09-22-2009 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 592 by ICANT
09-22-2009 6:00 PM


Re: Light
add that the ship is traveling towards the earth at 150,000 m/s you have light traveling at 450,000 m/s

Since the maximum speed of light is 300,000 m/s something is wrong with the theory.

Would you care to explain what that problem is to me?

You have misunderzstood the small amount of relativity that has been explained here, and you don't have a clue about the vast majority of thetheory.

One of the facts explained early on in all treatments of relativity is the fact that you can't add one velocity to another and come out with an exactly right answer. Most of the time you're close enough … but when you are dealing with velocities that are a significant fraction of the speed of light, you need to use the correct formula:

V = (v1+v2)/(1+(v1*v2/c2)

where V is the total velocity you measure, v1 is your velocity, v2 is the velocity of the thing you are measuring, and c is the speed of light. Tjis formula has been experimentally verified over and over agian.

Try v1 = 150,000 and v2 = c, and see what you come out with.

Are you talking about something that is observed with the natural eye?

Yes, as much as anything ever is. We don't believe the math without experimental testing.
The problem is your abysmal ignorance.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 592 by ICANT, posted 09-22-2009 6:00 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5878
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 597 of 687 (525295)
09-22-2009 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 585 by Straggler
09-21-2009 2:26 PM


Re: What Is Your Point?
Hi Straggler,
Straggler writes:

It is difficult to take anything that someone in denial of around 300 years worth of established scientific fact says as being anything other than nonsense.
It would be desperately funny if it were not so sadly true.

You have made the statement, "established scientific fact" several times.

It is time to present the established scientific fact's.

We will start with inflation, which is absolutely necessary for the Big Bang Theory.

Which of these hypothesis is "established scientific fact"?

1. Guth's 1979 inflation hypothesis that had an exit problem
2. The modified 1982 version hypothesis, exit problem solved.
3. The Chaotic Inflation hypothesis.
4. Linde's 1986 Eternally Existing Self-Reproducing Chaotic Inflationary Universe," hypothesis.

5. Guth's Eternal inflation.

Now other questions.

The physical equations governing the big bang predict that such a universe would be very small. Since our universe is very large, how do you fix that problem?

Why doesn't the theory explain why different regions of the universe resemble each other. In a Big Bang universe all the matter could have wound up in one section of the sky.

Why does it happen that our universe worked out to be the way it is?

Where were the laws of physics written if there was no space and no time to write them?

How were the laws of quantum mechanics written before creation?

Why is cavediver on record as saying we need a new theory?

Why did Linde propose a new theory in 1995?

You can assume none of these problems exist or that they have been solved. But they will still be there.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 585 by Straggler, posted 09-21-2009 2:26 PM Straggler has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5878
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 598 of 687 (525304)
09-22-2009 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 595 by onifre
09-22-2009 7:16 PM


Re: Going back
Hi oni,

onifre writes:

I'm sorry, ICANT, but you are incorrect on that.

The standard BBT requires a beginning to exist.

GR requires a beginning to exist.

I know the EvC Theory does not require a beginning to exist but it has been modified to the Hartly/Hawking no boundary universe. Thus it comes out of imaginary time.

You know I have no problem with a universe that has always existed in some form. It has been stated in this thread several times.

onifre writes:

It doesn't say "God created a single cell organism" does it?

If you want to get specific it does not say what the creature in Genesis 2:7 looked like. It simply calls it mankind.

Since that was in the beginning of eternity and the present earth is supposed to only be 4.5 billion years old and the universe was as small as a pin point and very, very hot what trace of those life forms would you expect to find?

onifre writes:

As my post shows, for anyone to see and weigh in on it, Gen. 1 and Gen. 2.7 are refuted scientifically.

Assertions are not evidence.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 595 by onifre, posted 09-22-2009 7:16 PM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 600 by onifre, posted 09-23-2009 12:45 AM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 608 by onifre, posted 09-23-2009 3:47 PM ICANT has responded

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 599 of 687 (525331)
09-23-2009 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 578 by ICANT
09-21-2009 12:05 PM


ICANT writes:

quote:
I just keep looking for the lens cleaner and a few good wipes to clear away a litle of the mud so a little light can shine through, so I won't be so confused.

The first step would be to stop trying to drive when you don't even know what a car is.

An object in uniform circular motion isn't undergoing acceleration? Did you really say that? That physicists the entire world over, depsite having successfully invented the wheel and used it to develop untold numbers of rotary tools, have completely misunderstood circular motion?

You mean bicycle riders actuall fall down when they lean into a turn since there is no acceleration in uniform circular motion?

Acceleration is change in velocity. Velocity, however, is a vector. Therefore, change in velocity does not require a change in speed. Instead, it can be the result of a change in direction.

When a constant force is applied perpendicularly to the direction of motion, an acceleration is experienced perpendicularly and the object moves in a circular path.

Again, ICANT, I highly recommend that you sit down and watch The Mechanical Universe in order to get a basic understanding of simple physics.





http://www.microsoft.com/Windows/MediaPlayer/"
src="http://www.learner.org/vod/asx/ca-usc/Mechanical_Universe_09.asx" name="Player" width="320" height="304" ShowStatusBar="1">


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 578 by ICANT, posted 09-21-2009 12:05 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 603 by ICANT, posted 09-23-2009 9:06 AM Rrhain has responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 813 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 600 of 687 (525335)
09-23-2009 12:45 AM
Reply to: Message 598 by ICANT
09-22-2009 9:03 PM


Re: Going back
Hi ICANT,

The standard BBT requires a beginning to exist.

Wrong; you're terminologies are incorrect. What you wrote is nonsensical.

The Big Bang theory is not a "thing" that requires anything; it is a collection of theories that support the observed evidence.

The Big Bang, as in the "event" is also not a "thing." It is a name given to the moment when the universe expanded beyond a finite point (a singularity). The theory explans how it expanded.

As you can see, up to now, no creator is necessary.

But this is OFF-TOPIC.

Gen. 1 states "In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth."

According to the general concensus amoungst scientist, which is what you asked for in your OP, no moment of creation from nothingness happened, and the Earth was not formed in the beginning of the BB.

Gen. 1 is disproven scientifically (whether or not you agree with the scientific evidence, that doesn't matter. You asked for the evidence).

If you want to get specific it does not say what the creature in Genesis 2:7 looked like. It simply calls it mankind.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that "mankind" is not refering to man? How can you, in good faith, lie in that fashion just to win a debate?

Lets look at what Gen 2.7 says as per YOUR quote:

quote:
Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Look ICANT, we've debated a lot you and I, I think we can both honestly say that we won't see eye to eye on many things, but you know very well that Gen. 2.7 is talking about humans.

Humans are not made from dust, they were not the first organisms, they come to life after a process of reproduction. Therefore Gen. 2.7 is scientifically refuted.

Assertions are not evidence.

And an honest person would debate in an honest fashion, and admit when they have been shown that their position is wrong.

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 598 by ICANT, posted 09-22-2009 9:03 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
3839
40
4142
...
46Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018