Do you mean to tell me all those science books and pappers I have been reading is not evidence of anything. Man I have wasted a lot of time.
Yes, those science books you have been reading are not evidence of anything except the printing press. The books are never the evidence. If they were we'd not have to do the research. We'd just write things into the books the way we'd like them to be: You can dam a river by sticking a marigold stem into the river bank: There, I could have saved Uncle Sam a gazillion dollars on the Hoover dam.
Scientifically there had to be one.
No there doesn't. The meaning of the word "beginning" breaks down at 10
-43 seconds.
All tuffers or you or anyone has to do to prove Gen 1:1 wrong is present the verifiable evidence for exactly what happened.
Firstly, I can prove that Rutherford Birchard Hayes, 19
th president of the United States of America, was not the kidnapper of the Lindbergh baby without presenting verifiable evidence for exactly what happened. Having to prove what did happen is a ridiculous standard of disproof of a fairy story. I read in a book I wrote that the Lost Squadron disappeared off the East Coast of the U.S. when a giant toad leapt out of the sea and gobbled them up. All you or anyone has to do to prove me wrong is present the verifiable evidence for exactly what happened.
Secondly, Gen 1:1 is the claim. The claim is the bit that evidence need be supplied for. Denial of a claim is not a claim. Else-wise, we're back to my toad story.
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.
- Thomas Jefferson
™ Version 4.2