Evidence to support this claim?
I'm sorry, but under my conditions that you just accepted, it is up to you to choose the debate topic. Pick your field and provide your topic.
Last edited:
A Challenge or Stripe - Can you defend one aspect of Creation Science of your choice?
- Thread starter CabinetMaker
- Start date
- Status
I'm sorry, but under my conditions that you just accepted, it is up to you to choose the debate topic. Pick your field and provide your topic.
Exodus 20
11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day.
Moses is speaking on behalf of God with absolute authority on the matter. The creator said six days, and six days it is.
A states statement of faith. There is nothing here to be discussed.
OK, sure.
HISTORY.
In Genesis, God is recorded as having created the world and everything in it in six days. This is backed up consistently throughout scripture, which utterly eradicates any place for evolution.
Darwinism is a non-starter from a historical perspective.
Lon
Well-known member
Verses 8-10 explain the necessity. You've explained that in the past, but I'm just adding to what you are saying here so it holds the same strength as when you've stated it in the past. 8-10 says "Like God created 6 days, you are to 'also' work 6 days, and rest on the 7th."
This is a statement of faith so there is nothing to be discussed. If it were to be an accidemic historical discussion then we would need more than one account and some sort of artifacts so that we could analyze the quoted source. Does the evidence support the recorded account?
In this case, you have presented one source and no supporting artifacts or other supporting evidence. As the source you cited is Scripture, and given that you take Genesis to be literally true, you have made a statement of faith and I respect your faith.
Nope. History, remember?
Sure. There are plenty of creation accounts. None of them stack up to Genesis though.
Not necessarily. Plenty of history is supported solely by written accounts.
Of course.
Nope. History, remember?
That I believe Genesis to be an accurate account history does not remove it from the body of evidence.
You really are going to have to do much better than this. Here's where you need to start: You need to declare that Genesis is not an account of history and show evidence that it cannot be.
Genesis is not a history of science, it is a history of God's early interactions with men. If you would like to treat it as a history of science then you need to present your evidence to support the science you claim Genesis represents.
This is an unsupported assertion on your part. By what standard do you measure ALL (that means Genesis too) creation accounts to determine which is the best. If Genesis is to be your standard, how did you determine that is the correct standard?
Generally more than one written account. Ancient history may have only one written account which leads to some problems in analyzing them. If one account is all we have then archaeologists, and others, will look for things to determine if what is written in the account is accurate. This can lead to problem with certain historical accounts as things such as gardens, hanging and other wise, towers, arcs, of at least two types, have not been found to date. As such, the book from which these accounts are taken, from an academic standpoint, cannot be considered a reliable source of early history.
You have presented no evidence is support of your position. This is another unsupported assertion.
See above.
The words "I believe" make this a statement of faith, not of fact. See above for the standard of care you must meat to prove that Genesis is an accurate history of the ancient world.
My reasons for seeing Genesis as an account of God's first interactions with men and not as an accurate history include:
The fossil record occurs in specific layers. Each layer contains increasingly more complex life forms. The fossil record starts with simple forms such as bivalve animals in the lowest levels. As we get nearer to the surface we see more complexity in the form of legs, eyes, feathers, etc. We see distinct separation between dinosaur bones and human bones that indicate they did not live at the same time.
There is no evidence of a single, global flood. Noah's Arc, as dimensioned in Genesis is of insufficient size to carry two to seven of each type of animal found on Earth. Noah's Arc, nor any piece of it, has never been found.
There are no ruins of the Tower of Babble.
We have a single person account of ancient history. We have ancient ruins that coincide with this period of history but none of those ruins support the accounts found in Genesis. This means that Genesis cannot be considered an accurate, detailed and complete history of that time. Archaeologists continue to search for ancient cities such as Babylon and satellite technology has begun to aid in the search and recently located a place where five rivers did come together. Research continues.
:AMR:
So it is an account of history, right?
Nope. There are numerous different creation accounts: Sumerian, Babylonian, Greek, Egyptian, American Indian, Chinese, Hindu, Maori...
Wait. So now you're admitting there are many accounts?
This is an example of you responding irrationally. When I assert the existence of history being based on single sources, you are not countering that assertion by asserting that "generally" there is more than one account.
So Genesis is an account of history, right?
You asked a question and I answered it. What you need to do is acknowledge that your question has been answered, not invent things, attribute them to me and answer your own imagination.
Nope. This is another example of how utterly irrational you are. My statement consisted of two elements: First, the existence of a historical account; second, my opinion of it. My opinion does not remove the account from the body of evidence. This bolded part is not a statement of faith, it is a fact.
Are we going to be able to saw off everything you claim as true from the body of evidence you present?
This is a false dichotomy.
Which means Genesis cannot be an account of history how?
Which means Genesis cannot be an account of history how?
Which means Genesis cannot be an account of history how?
Which means Genesis cannot be an account of history how?
Which means Genesis cannot be an account of history how?
Sure, there is.
Making up your own story does nothing to show that Genesis is not an account of history.
Arguments from ignorance are irrational.
Arguments from ignorance are irrational.
Nope. Genesis has about 10 authors.
Nope. The oldest structures date to post-flood.
Unfortunately for your assertion, we can read it.
It is detailed.
That it does not record everything is no failing.
And your assertion of inaccuracy is to be ignored.
Uh, OK. :idunno:
So, is Genesis an account of history?
Asked and answered.
This is one of your key tactics for derailing any attempt at conversation with. You intentionally misinterpret peoples statements and twist them to avoid answering. Let me rephrase for you. You stated, "None of them stack up to Genesis though." to which I replied, "This is an unsupported assertion on your part." You asserted that Genesis was the best without supporting that statement hence, you made an unsupported assertion.
My response was not irrational. A simple statement of fact about how historians approach their subject is not an irrational statement. If you have one account of something, how do you verify that that account is indeed accurate? A second account of the the same events is always helpful. If that is not available, other methods must be brought to bear.
Where you err is that you state there is single account of ancient history and you define that source to be 100% accurate with no attempt to verify it. That is a statement of faith, not a statement of scientific or historical fact. If you wish to make such a statement of faith I will not argue with you, I will respect you for your faith. On the other hand, if you wish others to see your statement as a statement of historical and/or scientific fact, then I will ask you to defend your statements to the same level of academic rigor as any other person in the field will be held.
It is my belief (that means this is a statement of faith) that Genesis is an account of God's earliest interactions with mankind. I believe that the account is a "historical fiction" of you please, The events happened but maybe not in the exact way that Genesis explains them.
I acknowledged that you answered my question by stating that your answer was incomplete and lacking support. I asked you to support your answer.
As soon as you use the words, "I believe," you have made a statement of faith, not fact. Saying that it is your opinion does not mean that it is not a statement of faith.
This is another tactic you use to turn conversations away from topics you do not wish to discuss. You say that there is a historical account and then make statements based on that account. Trouble is, you assume that the account is 100% accurate yet have provide no support for that position nor has that position been accepted as a reliable source by all parties in the debate. If you are going to introduce a source then both sides must accept that source. If I were to introduce a text book on evolution with the claim that it is 100% accurate, would accept that as source of information for the debate? Why or why not?
This is another of your tactics to derail conversations. No dichotomy was presented. You asked me, "You really are going to have to do much better than this. Here's where you need to start: You need to declare that Genesis is not an account of history and show evidence that it cannot be." I answered your question and you attempt say that my opening sentence is wrong simply because you do not agree with my position.
The fossil record indicates that much more time than six 24 hour periods elapsed during God's act of creation. I base my statement on the evidence that God left for us to find and examine.
There is evidence of local flooding that inundated large areas but there is evidence that these floods were indeed global. If you disagree, please present your evidence that the flood encompassed the entire globe.
I didn't make up my own story. God gave Moses very specific dimension for the Arc.
| God spells out to Noah the dimensions of the ark: 300 cubits by 50 by 30. Using the longer "Egyptian royal cubit" of 529mm, this works out at 158.7m long by 26.45m wide by 15.87m high (520 feet 8 inches long by 86 feet 9.3 inches wide by 52 feet 0.8 inches high). |
For comprison:
A good sized ship, to be sure, not nearly big enough to carry two to seven of each animal on Earth. Unless you would care to define exactly what biblical "kinds" of animals are and how those "kinds" became all the animals we see today. By the way, what happened to the dinosaur "kind"?
Another of your petty tactics for derailing conversations. You claim that I am ignorant of something. Your implication is that you know something that I do not. If so, please show us your evidence of Noah's Arc or the Tower of Babel. If you cannot do that, then I did not make an argument from ignorance. My argument is based on what has been found in the archeologically record to date.
And yet another tactic to avoid the discussion. You employ this overly literal interpretation of what people say so that you can make these meaningless quips. I was referring to the fact that Genesis is a single book, a single account. I believe that you are actually smart enough to understand the distinction that I was making but chose to be deliberately obtuse.
Answers in Genesis (AiG) state that the flood happened about 4359 years ago. Tumulus of Bougon, France – around 4800 BC. A group of five Neolithic barrows located in Bougon, France. The oldest structures of this prehistoric monument date to 4800 BC. The structure dates to well before the date provided by AiG. One example is all it takes to prove that your assertion is wrong. Any structure built before 2343BC would disprove your statement, There are more.
Sure we can read it. But reading it proves nothing. We have to go beyond reading it and look for the evidence that supports the accounts. If you read it and believe it, it is an act of faith. If you read it and then investigate it then it is no longer simply faith.
Just thought it was an interesting development. I also thought it interesting that those you would label Darwinist and Evolutionist are actually out looking for support of the earliest biblical accounts and get excited when they find something.
Asked and answered. See above.
Nope. I declare it to be an account of history. You invented a distinction between "history of science" and "history of God's interaction with man." I ask is it history or not.
I agree that it is a history of God's interaction with man and is not an account of the history of science. However, you seem to think that because it is a history of God's interaction with man that it is not history.
So, again: Is Genesis an account of history?
Nope. My assertion was that Genesis is an account of history. You asserted that there needs to be multiple accounts before it could be considered history. This, of course, is a ridiculous assertion — plenty of single accounts are sufficient to be used in the study of history. However, I then refuted your challenge by showing that there are many accounts.
Instead of conceding that your objection is invalid, you seized upon an irrelevant side issue, pretending that now I have to justify my belief that Genesis is the best account. Nope. First, you have to clarify what you believe the nature of Genesis is — is it an account of history? Then you have to recant your assertion that there needs to be more than one account, while acknowledging that there is more than one account.
Then perhaps you would have the rational foundation to ask for evidence that my belief in the primacy of Genesis is justified.
Sure, it was. You responded as if I had presented a belief when I had asserted a fact. If you disagree with my assertion of fact, tell us why we should remove a body of evidence because someone believes that material to be true.
Are we going to be allowed to saw off every piece of evidence you provide that you claim to believe is true?
Of course. However, this has nothing to do with what I said.
You asserted that I had presented a belief, when I made a statement of fact.
This stems from your challenge to my evidence: "As the source you cited is Scripture, and given that you take Genesis to be literally true, you have made a statement of faith." I have not made a statement of faith. Genesis is an account of history. You seem to agree with this — saying it is "history of God's interaction with man" — yet you still want to argue. :idunno:
Nope. Multiple accounts, remember? Constantly getting what I have said wrong shows that you're not taking this conversation seriously.
What you need to do is retract this statement. :up:
We could talk about that if you would construct a rational counter to the assertion that Genesis is an account of history. So far you've invented a couple of categories of history and put Genesis into the "God's interaction with man" box as if that proved it is not an account of history. I'm waiting for you to explain why you think Genesis is not history through your action of defining it as history.
So you think Genesis is not an account of history, right?
That which you assert without evidence, we are justified in ignoring without evidence.
Nope. The fact I presented did not have "I believe" as the primary element. Fact: that a man believes A does not remove A from the body of evidence.
Are we going to be allowed to saw off everything you claim to believe?
Nope. I have not made any claims of truth based on the assertion of Genesis as historically accurate. That would be to commit the fallacy of begging the question. What we are trying to determine is whether you think Genesis is history. So far you've made up two categories and placed it in one of them as if calling scripture "the history of God's interaction with man" proves it is not history.
So, tell us. Is Genesis an account of history?
This discussion is how the Genesis account utterly refutes Darwinism. What you need to show is that Genesis cannot be an account of history.
So far, you have admitted that it is history — at least as far as I can tell. :idunno:
Nope. I do not make false accusations of logical failings.
When you say: "My reasons for seeing Genesis as an account of God's first interactions with men and not as an accurate history," this implies that it cannot be both. I would say that Genesis is an accurate account of God's dealings with man over the first few thousand of years of history.
That's nice. I have evidence from the fossil record that utterly eliminates evolution as a possibility. However, I'm sticking to one argument at a time. In this one, we're still trying to figure out whether you think Genesis is history.
We have a very specific challenge that has been presented to your Darwinism. Your tactic seems to be to invent ideas in order to make the conversation as unwieldy as possible. I won't be sucked down any rabbit trails. What you need to do is clarify your stance on Genesis: Is it history?
Sure, you did. Unless you can show where the Bible says the ark had to carry "every type of animal on Earth." Unless you meant to say "created kind" instead of type, you've made up the idea that the ark had to carry — for example — lions and tigers when the evidence shows these are of the same kind.
And regardless, this is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Pretending you do not know the definition of kind is a dishonest tactic. That makes you dishonest. How about you accurately repeat the definition of kind, apologize for your dishonesty and drop this attempted rabbit trail.
We're still waiting on you to clarify your stance on the historicity of Genesis.
Nope. An argument from ignorance is not to claim you are ignorant of something. It is a logical fallacy that attempts to portray an idea as wrong because a piece of evidence has not been found. In these cases, you demanded that the ark and the Tower of Babel be provided, implying that our ignorance of their whereabouts is reason to doubt the Biblical account. These are arguments from ignorance, not an insult. In fact, the ignorance is on our part. We do not have the evidence you demand.
However, the logical fallacy — a far more damning failing — is on your part. Add to it that your fallacies are designed to pad out a wild goose chase. My challenge is very specific and so far, you are yet to clarify your stance on Genesis. Is it history?
I know that your arguments from ignorance are logical fallacies that might reveal ignorance in me. You have now revealed that you are ignorant over what an argument from ignorance is.
Arguments from ignorance are still logical fallacies.
Or perhaps you just need to be more careful with your words. When you say Genesis is "a single person account," that makes it seem very much like you think only one person wrote it, when that would be impossible — assuming, of course, that it is an account of history.
Sure, it does. Reading Genesis would reveal its details, exposing as incorrect your assertion that it is not detailed.
We're still trying to figure out your opposition. Is Genesis an account of history?
Matthew 24
37 But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. 38 For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, 39 and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.
The Lord Jesus Christ said Noah and the flood are real. Of course CM is outside the faith and cares not what the Lord Jesus Christ says.
37 But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. 38 For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, 39 and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.
The Lord Jesus Christ said Noah and the flood are real. Of course CM is outside the faith and cares not what the Lord Jesus Christ says.
Greg Jennings
New member
So Stripe complains about "Darwinists" refusing to discuss evidence, then gets the perfect opportunity to discuss evidence of his choice with a "Darwinist" and he turns it down.
I wonder why? :think:
My favorite Stripe-related thread I've ever come across: http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?108259-Problems-for-evolution-%97-squid-recodes-its-own-RNA
I wonder why? :think:
My favorite Stripe-related thread I've ever come across: http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?108259-Problems-for-evolution-%97-squid-recodes-its-own-RNA
Asked an answered. You declared it to be history. I told you that Genesis is history of God's early interactions with men. It is an incomplete history of even that. My answer has not changed. I do not agree with you that Genesis is a complete and accurate history nor was it intended to be.
I never denied that there are many historical accounts. I asked you how you determined that Genesis was the best. You have not answered that question. How did you determine that Genesis is the best creation account?
I have already told you what I believe Genesis to be. If you wish to argue that Genesis is the best account and whole accurate because you believe it to be so, then there is nothing more to be discussed. That is a position of faith. On the other hand, if wish to argue that Genesis should be the standard for the early history of the world and for scientific research into how the universe was created, then you have stepped out of the realm of faith and into academics and you need to prove to academia that Genesis is qualified to be the standard. You will need to back up the events of Genesis with evidence that the events recorded happened as described.
How about you quite dancing on the head of a pin and actually provide the evidence that belief in the primacy of Genesis is justified.
Anything you assert with out support is an assertion, not a fact. You are attempting to present your beliefs as established fact but have never provided your rational and evidence that move your beliefs from the realm of faith to the realm of established fact.
I noted when I said something that I believe and stated clearly that it was faith, not fact. Ignore that if you wish. When I say something and provide references to support what I have said, then you will have to refute the sources I cite to make that case that I was wrong.
It is an account of history. What I am trying to get you to establish is that is indeed an accurate account of history. You have asserted that it is, but you not provided any reason other than your belief that it is accurate. Research into this period of history has not been able to establish that the events in Genesis have occurred as described in Genesis.
Keep in mind what you seem to be trying to accomplish here: you want the world to accept Genesis as the complete and accurate history of the world. The only argument that you have presented to date is the the world should accept Genesis the complete and accurate history because you believe it to be so.
There is no reason to retract my statement. You consistently misrepresent what I said in order to avoid answering the question I actually asked . I acknowledged that there are multiple accounts. You made and unsupported assertion the Genesis is by far the best. You have not yet supported that position. Why is Genesis the best? What standard did you use to determine that it is the best?
A rational basis has been laid. We can have a discussion if you wish to. At this point, you are doing everything you can to avoid answering any specific question asked.
Asked and answered. Several times.
That means that we can ignore everything you have said in this thread to this point. Also note that the statement I made was a statement of faith. I did not offer it as a fact that needed support. Interesting how you ignored that fact.
Nor does it make it true. People believe that vaccines cause autism. They do not but people believe it anyway. You believe that Genesis is perfectly accurate. That does not mean that it is. And you have made a positive assertion which means it is your job to support that assertion with support evidence so that others will also accept it as true.
I have stated what I beleive Genesis to be. My answer has not changed. What I find puzzling is your steadfast refusal to acknowledge what I said and move forward from there. If you think I;'m wrong, present your case.
Asked and answered.
I have told you what I understand Genesis to be. It is now your task to move forward based on what I have already said.
You do so quite frequently. You use it as a tactic to avoid dealing with the actual topic.
Who did Cain and Able marry? How did you arrive at that conclusion? Was Genesis complete enough in detail to provide that answer or did you have to make assumptions to determine your answer?
I'll be interested to see if you ever actually present this evidence.
Asked and answered. You will have to respond based on the answer I have already given you. If you do not agree with what I have said, start there. Why I am wrong?
King James Bible
Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
No mention of kinds.
I do not know the definition of kind as used in scripture. Please provide me a clear and concise definition of the kind as used in scripture. Once we have this definition it will make our discussion clearer as we will be working from a common definition.
An argument based on known facts is not an argument from ignorance.
Once it has revealed its details, those details need to be tested, researched and examined if you want Genesis to be accepted as the accurate and complete history of Earth. Ball is in your court.
You are assuming facts not in evidence about my faith. That I am willing to play devils advocate does not mean that I do not have faith in God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
You have to learn to answer my questions, not make up your own to answer.
Is Genesis an account of history?
We can argue over how accurate it is once you have clarified what you believe it to be. We will of course be ignoring your claim that it is incomplete, which, while true, is utterly irrelevant.
You insisted that: “If it were to be an academic historical discussion, then we would need more than one account.”
There is more than one account, but that is irrelevant, as your demand for more than one account is utter nonsense. Plenty of history is founded upon a single account.
Only as an attempt to derail the conversation. You’re not justified in demanding more things when you’ve been shown wrong on the initial demand.
Retract your nonsense assertion that there needs to be more than one account. :up:
We are still trying to clarify whether you think Genesis is an account of history. You seem to think it is an “incomplete,” “not accurate” “history of God's early interactions with men.”
What we need to know is whether it is an account of history. Quit equivocating and spell it out.
I’m supposed to assert what I believe. However, when I present a fact, you are required to deal with it as if it is a statement of fact, not as if I presented a belief.
It is not a belief to say: “My opinion does not remove the account from the body of evidence.”
The bolded part is not a statement of faith, it is a fact.
Are we going to be able to saw off everything you claim as true from the body of evidence you present?
No need. You contradict yourself at every turn. We can’t even get a sensible answer out of you over whether Genesis is an account of history.
All right! :thumb:
Since you deem it not accurate in parts, let’s find out what you believe first.
Genesis finishes with the account of Joseph. Is that accurate history?
It pays to stick with the conversation instead of inventing what I’m going to say next.
Sure, there is. You said: “Where you err is that you state there is single account of ancient history.” I said the exact opposite.
You should retract your statement in quotation marks there.
Nope. Your words, remember?
“Where you err is that you state there is single account of ancient history.”
Now that you’ve accepted my correction, you should retract your assertion that I said the opposite of what I did say. :up:
If you like. :idunno:
However, you haven’t ignored it. You’ve twisted it, misrepresented it, lied about it and asserted that I said the exact opposite. Why would you do that? The written account is right there.
I have no problem with people telling me what their ideas are. :idunno:
Is this a tacit admission that my admonishment of you has been taken to heart?
Can you say it explicitly?
Does a body of evidence need to be thrown out if someone says they believe it to be true?
You said it is an account of history clearly for the first time in this post.
Your words are important. If I do not understand what you are talking about, I will press you to clarify.
Nope. I do not make accusations of logical failings lightly. When I accuse you of a logical fallacy, you should carefully examine your words to clarify exactly what you mean. I will not build a discussion upon such a sandy foundation as the complete nonsense you have responded with mostly.
So far we have progressed this far:
| C: Why not evolution? S: Genesis is history. C: Genesis is history, but not accurate. S: Is the Joseph account accurate? |
Those four lines are a perfect summation of where this conversation is at. That it is in reality hundreds of times longer than that is almost entirely your fault.
:chuckle:
One would have thought you would learn. This is another argumentum ad ignorantiam. However, this time you have exposed your ignorance. Try Genesis 6:20. :up:
How about you accurately repeat the definition you have been given numerous times. :thumb:
And to be clear, this is irrelevant to the conversation.
Nope. You are further exposing your ignorance of argumentum ad ignorantiam.
You should go read up on it and stop using them. :up:
And back to where we are in the conversation — it’s four lines long, remember: Is the account of Joseph accurate?
Last edited:
Since you are determined to do waver thing you can to needlessly drag this out, I will only respond to a few points that are actually worth a response. Maybe it will make this more manageable.
Genesis is an account of God's earliest interactions with man. It is not an accurate history of science and it is incomplete with regards to all the details of God's interactions. To wit, who did Cain and Able marry? How did you determine your answer? Was it found directly in Genesis?
Facts do not start with the words "I believe" Thies words indicate an opinion or a statement of faith.
Your opinion is a belief, not a fact. A fact is something that is the same for everybody all the time. An opinion is something people believe such as republicans make better presidents. There is no way to prove that opinion is true for everybody all the time. You are welcome to your opinion but don't expect me to accept it as established fact simply because it is your opinion.
I will wait till you address Cain and Able.
Do you accept any of those other creation as history?
I cannot in good faith retract my statement. You said there are multiple accounts but you completely reject all but one. My statement stands.
If the evidence is a persons opinion, yes. Opinion is not established fact.
. I have never once been provided with a definition of a biblical kind. I am asking you to provide that definition now. As you claim that you have provided the definition many times I am hoping that it will be easy for you to copy and paste the definition.
Who did Cain and Able marry? I will answer after you have answered my question.
Nope. In fact, I made every effort to explain exactly where the conversation is at:
| C: Why not evolution? S: Genesis is history. C: Genesis is history, but not accurate. S: Is the Joseph account accurate? |
Is it accurate history? Was Joseph a real person? Are the stories about him accurate?
Nope.
Possibly you are just incapable of normal comprehension.
That I believe Genesis to be an accurate account history does not remove it from the body of evidence.
The bolded sentence is a statement of fact, not a statement of opinion. You are only rationally justified in responding to that statement by either agreeing with it or denying it. Calling it a belief is just plain stupid.
Here, let me reword it so it doesn’t have the dreaded “I believe” so near the start (heck, the actual first word — that — should have clued you in that this is a compound statement).
Genesis should not be removed from the body of evidence just because someone says they believe it to be true.
Irrelevant. I presented a fact. If you disagree, tell me why I’m wrong. Quit pretending I presented an opinion. I didn’t. It is a fact that Genesis should not be removed from the body of evidence when someone says they believe it to be true.
I expect you to agree with the fact I presented. I expect you to believe that an idea should remain in the body of evidence, even if someone claims it to be true.
You’re just emoting. You should be able to read the sentence I challenged your statement with and retract or reword your line saying: “As the source you cited is scripture, and given that you take Genesis to be literally true, you have made a statement of faith.”
I have not made a statement of faith. I have made a claim that Genesis is an account of history. You need to deal with what I actually say, not with what you wish I had said. :up:
We’ll get there.
Was Joseph a real person? Are the stories about him accurate?
:darwinsm:
Your statement was: “Where you err is that you state there is single account of ancient history.” It looks like you’ve retracted that statement right here. I underlined your two contradictory statements about what I believe.
This is what is known as not respecting your opponent. I have ideas. You disagree with my ideas, but you argue with things you make up, presenting me as having said things I would never say. You need to go have a good, long lie down and think your approach through very carefully, because it gets real boring real quick having to wade through the multiple layers of your misrepresentations.
Or perhaps you simply are not reading my posts?
Oh, and by the way, I did not say I completely reject all but one. You have to respond to the words I commit to paper, not invent things to reply to.
Can you at least agree that Genesis is not my opinion? :AMR:
Lying is bad for you.
One of the reasons you were on ignore for so long was because of your fallacy-filled challenge to the definition that you launched after finding out that interbreeding proves two organisms are of the same kind. That thread has been deleted, but you certainly know what the definition of kind is.
However, this is not relevant to the conversation over the nature of Genesis.
Was Joseph a real person?
- Status