And there it is, as predicted in post 110 and Stripe admitted to post 111. Stripe refusing to abide by the rules laid out in the OP, refuses to answer any questions put to him and then declares victory.
You seriously think he did a good job? Can you point to one post of Stripe's where he provided you with any information you can use to convince skeptics that Genesis is the most accurate history of ancient times? Please share with me the post number of that post. If you can't find such a post, can you honestly say Stripe truly "proved" that Genesis is what he claims?
Nope. I haven't broken any rules. I have answered questions. I haven't declared victory.
Nope. I made an assertion that I did support and you made a counter-assertion. We are trying to figure out the nature of your counter.
| C: Why not evolution? S: Genesis is history. C: Genesis is history, but not accurate. S: Is the Joseph account accurate? C: That cannot be determined. S: Is the Joseph account possibly accurate? |
The challenge I am answering is not to show that Genesis is the most accurate account of history, nor is it to even prove that Genesis is history.
| C: Why not evolution? S: Genesis is history. C: Genesis is history, but not accurate. S: Is the Joseph account accurate? C: That cannot be determined. S: Is the Joseph account possibly accurate? |
I said he had a good conclusion... "Genesis is an account of history that utterly eliminates the possibility of evolution."
It's an unfounded assertion, a statement of faith if you prefer. It is not an argument from reason and logic.
And you failed. You made an unfounded assertion to open the thread, a statement of faith. I have asked you several times to support that assertion. You have never responded to that which is a clear violation of the rules. If you disagree, then post the number of the post that contains the information I can show to a nonbeliever that will convince them that your claim regarding Genesis is a statement of fact. If you cannot point to such a post, then you failed to support that Genesis is accurate history.
Nope.
It was just an assertion.
| C: Why not evolution? S: Genesis is history. C: Genesis is history, but not accurate. S: Is the Joseph account accurate? C: That cannot be determined. S: Is the Joseph account possibly accurate? |
We disagree. It's a statement of faith based on the truth of God's Word. His Word tells us that faith is based on reason and evidence (Heb. 11:1, 1 Peter 3:15 etc) We are not to fall for the lies of those who deny the truth. "For we were not making up clever stories when we told you about the powerful coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. We saw his majestic splendor with our own eyes". Christianity is based on real events..... real people....real history. There always have been, and always will be those who deny supernatural events in God's Word. You seem to treat God's Word as if its a buffet table where you pick and choose what to believe.
None of this is part of the discussion. You were challenged to defend one topic of creation science. You chose history, made an assertion and then attempted ti argue as if your assertion had been accepted as fact. Here at the end you cannot point to a single post that can be used to prove that Genesis is what you claim it to be. That is a complete failure by you to defend your chosen topic.
So you can't point to a post that you can use to convince that Genesis is an accurate history. All you have is a statement of faith. That is fine, faith is a wonderful thing. Don't argue it as fact or established science.
Of course it is.
Nope. I was asked why evolution cannot be real.
Nope. I know you reject Genesis as an accurate historical account. I was trying to figure out what your stance on it was.
History?
Nope. I'm not on the defensive. It is Darwinism that has been shown incompatible with history.
No, its not. This was never a discussion about me. From the OP, this was about you defending your chosen topic of creation science.
When you assert something you must be prepared to defend it to have a conversation. This is not about my beliefs, this is about you defending your chosen field of creation science to scientific standards.
No, were NEVER asked this question. You chose the topic.
You know very little about what I believe about Genesis. This thread was never about what I believe, it was about you defending your chosen topic.
It has never been established, by you or anybody else, that Genesis is history. I was trying to get you to explain how you determined that it is the best History available to us. You refuse to answer that question. Hence, we have not determined whether Genesis is history or legend. Your failure to defend, not mine.
I strongly suggst you go back and look at the thread title again. You are ABSOLUTELY on the defensive here.
We're trying to figure out what your objection is. If you're not willing to back up your assertion that Genesis is not an account of history, we're just going to stick with mine. :up:
From OP:
Great! So defend your assertion that Genesis is not accurate.
Except in OP:
Nope. It is Darwinism on the block. Genesis cuts it off at the neck.
It has never been established that it is not accurate.
And we were trying to figure out what you think it is.
Sorry, no. You are trying to divert the conversation away from the challenge that was issued.
My bad and my apologies. Please note that you did not elect to defend that topic, you chose a different topic, history, and we proceeded with that topic.
Yes. You made a statement of faith that you have never made any effort to defend and support. That fails the challenge you accepted. You have not provided ANY information that can be used to convince those who do not believe as you that what you say is correct.
No, its not. You cannot show me where you have supported your assertion that Genesis is what you say it is. Point to the post where you did if don't agree/
I already stated my reasons for saying the Genesis is not an accurate and factual account of history/creation. My answer has not changed.
This is a statement of faith and neither refutes evolutionary theory nor "proves" Genesis is what you claim. This is nothing more than another baseless assertion by you that you will not defend. Again, I have nothing that I can take back to a skeptic and show them that Genesis beats Evolution. You fail.
You want to attempt that fallacy? In any case, it has never been that is accurate. At best, it is indeterminate.
I am not here to defend anything, you are. Remember? Thread title? {paraphrased} Stripe, can you defend creation science?
Its not your challenge to issue. You chose the topic, now defend it. You said the Genesis is the best, by far, of the creation accounts. How did you determine this? Are the other creation accounts also historical?
The challenge that was issued was to provide something that refuted Darwinism. History refutes Darwinism. End of challenge, unless you are prepared to show how the accounts of history are not accurate.
Defend what topic? And I was never going to pick a topic to defend. It is Darwinism that is on the chopping block. You are on the defensive, something I made explicit from the beginning and which you also allowed and did not contest — until now.
Nope. History, remember?
First, I'm not the one required to defend anything; second, I have supported the historicity of Genesis. We're trying to figure out what your opposition is so we can advance the discussion. Was Joseph a real person?
I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything; I never do. I'm here to put ideas to the test and figure out what needs to change about me. That has always been my approach. You can believe whatever you like, as long as you're willing to engage rationally over its veracity.
It's somewhere in this thread. :idunno:
Your reasons were without evidence. That which you assert without evidence, we are justified in dismissing without evidence.
Nope. History, remember? Anyone can open Genesis and read how it refutes Darwinism. Not a shred of "belief" is required. If you want to contend that Genesis is not an account of history, then you need to present your reasons.
What fallacy?
So you don't know. Which leaves open the possibility that Genesis is an accurate account of history.
Then we can safely ignore you. Genesis defeats Darwinism. Your belief that it is not accurate is not part of the conversation.
lain:
The challenge that was issued was to provide something that refuted Darwinism. History refutes Darwinism. End of challenge, unless you are prepared to show how the accounts of history are not accurate.
Defend what topic? And I was never going to pick a topic to defend. It is Darwinism that is on the chopping block. You are on the defensive, something I made explicit from the beginning and which you also allowed and did not contest — until now.
Nope. History, remember?First, I'm not the one required to defend anything; second, I have supported the historicity of Genesis. We're trying to figure out what your opposition is so we can advance the discussion. Was Joseph a real person?
I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything; I never do. I'm here to put ideas to the test and figure out what needs to change about me. That has always been my approach. You can believe whatever you like, as long as you're willing to engage rationally over its veracity.
You don't engage rationally. You make up rules to use as escape clauses, you add new ones when you think you need some help and you present nothing but nonsense as a defense of what you believe.
It's somewhere in this thread. :idunno:
It was a response to one of your many rabbit trails. The conversation, if you would allow it to advance, will bring out defenses of the historicity of Genesis. However, you won't tell us the nature of your opposition.
Your reasons were without evidence. That which you assert without evidence, we are justified in dismissing without evidence.
Nope. History, remember? Anyone can open Genesis and read how it refutes Darwinism. Not a shred of "belief" is required. If you want to contend that Genesis is not an account of history, then you need to present your reasons.
However, you demand that Genesis be not considered as evidence because someone believes it to be true. This was the first piece of nonsense that I tried to deal with in this thread. And you're still peddling this insane position.
Are you willing to remove every piece of evidence from consideration if you believe it to be true?
And I'm not trying to give you anything to convince an atheist.
What fallacy?
So you don't know. Which leaves open the possibility that Genesis is an accurate account of history.
Given that you have not given evidence that shows Genesis to be false and believe it is impossible to show it false, we're just going to stick with my assertion. :up:
Then we can safely ignore you. Genesis defeats Darwinism. Your belief that it is not accurate is not part of the conversation.
I guess I win.
Nope.
| C: Why not evolution? S: Genesis is history. C: Genesis is history, but not accurate. S: Is the Joseph account accurate? C: That cannot be determined. S: Is the Joseph account possibly accurate? |