The following are claims made by IamJoseph.
They are mostly from debates I have had with him but some are from other debates where people have advised they have not received an answer. He asked me to start the threads on whatever I wanted him to discuss in more detail.
I cannot seem to make head or tail of most of IamJosephs claims and he is making some claims that are outside my field.
Would it be possible for individuals who know about the subject matter to respond to these claims?
IamJoseph, here are the statements you have made that I wish to discuss.
I have learnt most from Genesis in understanding the sciences. It contains knowledge not yet seen in science or ignored: like the universe could not have been initiated with a pristine singular enetity
The very premise of science was ushered in with Genesis, which is a document based only on laws as the fulcrum factor. This is also seen in its laws of Judiciary, Morality, ethics, etc. It is not a 'belief' based document.
Genesis is not a christian work, although Christianity upholds it as sacred [theologically]. One cannot describe Genesis as myths - that is why we are not discussing Zeus, head bashing dieties and a flat earth in this forum. We are discussing a finite universe, the advent of laws and which document lists light as the primodial entity. However, I am not posing these issues theologically, which I don't subscribe to; instead I am positing them only from a scientific premise.
the Genesis creation narrative - Whether one agrees or not, it remains a viable, scientific premise by Genesis and I happen to agree with it. I know of no other alternative to it.
Genesis predates what became known as theologies, but is generically cast away in the same green bag. The new theologies have nothing to say on scientific premises. I am not using theology, instead I am saying that Genesis is humanity's primal scientific treatise, a mysterious document which confounds how a group of savage slaves and desert wanderors could come up with such a set of books; it gave birth to science and is the only ancient document which can stand up to state of art science today. One must argue Genesis on scientific premises, not in a disdain mode referring to all theologies, a common trend with athiests.
One can find millions of evidenced historical, geographical, scientific and judiciary stats in the verses of the Hebrew bible - more so than any other book in existence. Over 70% has been scientifically proven. Try to nominate anything which can measure against those stats.
Our science cannot account for existing data. We know zero/nothing about the origins of anything.
Most all products we call science stems from the Hebrew bible; it KO'd Zeus and Jupiters when humanity was ready and introduced Monotheism, which made man think who/what is behind all this universe; how was it done; etc. It declared the universe as finite and gave a follow-up scenario of a lawless void with no form, then a lawbased universe with form [science]; it stated the first product was light, separated from the void because of specific laws [science]; then listed an array of separation actions which aniticipated life [science].
The first categorising of life form groups and their correct protocol has nothing to do with Darwin - its in Genesis, in its correct place [science]. How can evolution kick off without first having something to evolutionize [non-science]? And how can it operate without pre-actions which direct it to do so [non-science]? Which is the real science - Genesis - or ToE? One cannot even utter the words species; evolution; finite universe; etc - without mentioning Genesis as its introduction.
I am saying there is no alternative to Creationism, and that this is most evidenced scientifically.
the Hebrew bible, which has thus far safely verified over 70% of its historical content as vindicated by archeology, and most of our sciences is derived from this source
I studied all the state of art sciences, pondered them deeply, and concluded: THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC ALTERNATIVE TO CREATIONISM.
Its very simple to answer, and sorry to bust your bubble. I would nominate the lack of any scientific peer paper based on any scientific research which can offer any alternative (to creation).
Science evolved, via ups and downs, but it had to begin somewhere, by a compelling, challenging tought - which is the OT (Old Testament). Unless someone can posit another previous or near the same time, even a document a 1000 years later than the OT, which makes stats which leads to science? I find literally millions of stats in the OT words and verses as scientifically, historically and geographically vindicated, while it displays such with bold, specific dates and names.
Genesis is 100% vindicated.
™ Version 4.2