The Literal Genesis Account of Creation

ICANT, Biblical Genesis is a hypothesis contradicted by science. It is not evidence of itself. That's like saying that the evidence of General Relativity is Einstein's paper on it. Or that "Origin of Species" is proof of evolution, & so on.So, no, the book of Genesis isn't evidence, any more than all the books on science are evidence, either. In fact, you commit a logical fallacy; circular argument by even claiming such a thing. You have to make an argument of the form "I believe the biblical account because the bible is true, how do I know it's true? Because it says so". Ultimately you have to accept your conclusion in order to accept your premise.Evidence is any data that supports a theory, so what data supports the Genesis hypothesis? Absolutely none, in fact the data contradicts it, not supports it.So, why do you accept Genesis as being factually true? It is certainly not evidence, matey. It's a "feeling", something associated with your religions feelgood factor.If you can have Genesis as evidence of itself, then can I have Watership Down as evidence of talking rabbits?Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

ICANT, This is irrelevant as to whether Genesis itself is evidence. This is not evidence at all. This is irrelevant as to whether Genesis itself is evidence. This is not evidence at all.Now, please address my last post.MarkEdited by mark24, : No reason given.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

ICANT, I know what you said, I'll repeat my response here:"Biblical Genesis is a hypothesis contradicted by science. It is not evidence of itself. That's like saying that the evidence of General Relativity is Einstein's paper on it. Or that "Origin of Species" is proof of evolution, & so on.So, no, the book of Genesis isn't evidence, any more than all the books on science are evidence, either.Evidence is any data that supports a theory, so what data supports the Genesis hypothesis? Absolutely none, in fact the data contradicts it, not supports it.So, why do you accept Genesis as being factually true? It is certainly not evidence, matey. It's a "feeling", something associated with your religions feelgood factor.If you can have Genesis as evidence of itself, then can I have Watership Down as evidence of talking rabbits?" No, it says there is a big bang, it also makes claims on what existed before it, as per Brane Theory. As far as we are aware branes have always existed. Firstly it's in no way clear that this is true, secondly, you have a 50/50 chance anyway so it can hardly be called quality information. It's like calling 1-3 on a die roll & claiming that god exists 'cause you got it right.But the nature of the beginning of this universe, ie. a big bang, blows the genesis account out of the water. In other words, the evidence contradicts genesis yet you still believe it. No it doesn't. Scientific evidence agrees the earth is 4.5 billion years old, the bible says ~6,000. The bible gets it wrong by a factor of 750,000. In other words, the evidence contradicts genesis yet you still believe it.In other words, as crashfrog points out, you have a feeling that genesis is true that not even evidence can erode.MarkEdited by mark24, : No reason given.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

ICANT, You can't be serious? Because science doesn't know something genesis must be true? For fucks sake, even the religiously deluded can't be that logically myopic!Moreover, inferring from the bible the universe is only 6,000 years old, science says it's billions, therefore your own statement contradicts itself, science disproves the bible, not proves it.MarkEdited by mark24, : No reason given.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

ICANT, Certainly. Nope, it's what the bible claims. I never mentioned string theory. Yes it does, you've said so yourself, "Gene 1:1 (KJV) In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth". Everything can't have a beginning & always been there. What are you playing at? This was the very point you made, that genesis said there was a beginning & so did science. Are you that illogical that something having a beginning can also not have had a beginning?Any port in a storm, eh? Good grief, science concludes that all the energy & matter in this universe appeared in an instant from a singularity, then underwent a massive expansion where particles & forces distilled as the energy levels dropped. Matter then accreted into stellar bodies, galaxies & clusters as millions & billions of years elapsed. The bible has a tired old creator do in 6 days by divine fiat.The two accounts are different, one is supported by evidence the other account therefore is contradicted by it. The "other" is the biblical account being trumped by science. What you say is contradicted by the evidence. You therefore only accept the biblical position because it "feels" right for you.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

ICANT, You asked for chapter & verse from the bible. The holy book of your religion infers that the universe is 6,000 years old. Stick your head in the sand for as long as you want, the KJV says the same, that's why KJV totin' YEC's claim the earth is 6,000 years old.You asked for chapter & verse, you got it. That you can't be bothered to check your own bible is your problem, not mine. Correct, you then said that it was consistent with the universe having always existed. What's so hard to digest? It can't have a beginning if it always existed, can it? According to the FUCKING BIBLE!!!! Have you read it? He created the universe then had to rest. You have to be the most disingenuous fuckwit to grace these boards.Where does science conclude that the universe was created in situ in 6 days? Where does the bible mention expansion? Where does the bible mention the distillation of particles & forces? Where does science mention that god made things in the same order as the bible.What a prick. You are beneath my contempt & an utter waste of time & effort.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

ICANT, Yes you did, you said the two accounts were IDENTICAL. Resting is because of tiredness. The bible doesn't say "& lo, god was as fresh as a daisy & just stopped because he was finished". It sais he rested. Yes it does, I checked the ch/verses I provided against an online KJV. They are operationally the same.Clearly you are in the business of putting your head in the sand because YOUR bible provides a chronology from Adam to Joseph & it lasts ~4000 years, add 2ky since Jesus & you have the YEC ~6ky. It's not my fault YOUR bible says this. You asked for chapter & verse, you got it, so at best you are being disingenuous.This is why you are such a pointless waste of time. If I said black you'd say white. Again the bible is at odds with science. The bible says they were stretched out like a curtain. It wasn't, the fabric of space & its temporal dimensions expanded, unlike a curtain.One more reason the two accounts are not identical.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't