God Recreated the Earth 6,000 Years Ago!

[Thief]

the·o·ry
[ˈTHirē]
NOUN

1. a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained:
   "Darwin's theory of evolution"
   synonyms: hypothesis · thesis · conjecture · supposition ·

 

[outhouse]

chapter Two of Genesis has all the earmarks of a science experiment.

Only in your imagination, that is why you cannot make anyone else believe your rogue rhetoric

 

[outhouse]

if it were tested repeatedly....and affirmed......it's not a theory anymore.

Factually False.

This just shows severe lack of knowledge of this definition or fanaticism or both.

the·o·ry
[ˈTHirē]
NOUN

1. a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained:
   "Darwin's theory of evolution"
   synonyms: hypothesis · thesis · conjecture · supposition ·

Wow you can quote mine out of context! surprise surprise

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

if it were tested repeatedly....and affirmed......it's not a theory anymore.

A theory in science is an explanation with a strong basis, predictive power, and applicable usefulness. A proven theory is still a theory, as it still remains being an explanation with predictive power and application. What will stop Evolution from being a theory is disproving it, not proving it.

 

[Milton Platt]

if it were tested repeatedly....and affirmed......it's not a theory anymore.

Yes, it is. Some theories are so well substantiated they are also considered facts, such as the germ theory of medicine, or the theory of gravity. But they are still theories because they can still be modified with new information.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yes, it is. Some theories are so well substantiated they are also considered facts, such as the germ theory of medicine, or the theory of gravity. But they are still theories because they can still be modified with new information.

All conceptual representations of reality are just that....mental neuron firing patterns...sometimes considered as facts ...but they are never real (except as a conceptual representation), like that of the reality which they are meant to represent.. By reality I mean that which is exists on the other side of the conceptualization....

 

[Thief]

Yes, it is. Some theories are so well substantiated they are also considered facts, such as the germ theory of medicine, or the theory of gravity. But they are still theories because they can still be modified with new information.

we've had a lengthy debate over terms.....
what that boiled down to....
people call something theory for soooooooooo long.....
when it finally gels they simply continue to call the idea theory.

I stand by my previous post.

 

[Thief]

A theory in science is an explanation with a strong basis, predictive power, and applicable usefulness. A proven theory is still a theory, as it still remains being an explanation with predictive power and application. What will stop Evolution from being a theory is disproving it, not proving it.

I stand by my previous post.

evolution is a discussion sound enough to believe.....without a petri dish experiment.
it's a really good explanation.

 

[Thief]

Factually False.

This just shows severe lack of knowledge of this definition or fanaticism or both.



Wow you can quote mine out of context! surprise surprise

I used a common search.....surprise!

 

[gnostic]

chapter Two of Genesis has all the earmarks of a science experiment.

Nope.

Genesis 2 has all the hallmark of adaptation of Babylonian sources of myths, while the Babylonian myths were derived from the older Sumerian-Akkadian sources.

The whole creation of man from dust, just showed how seriously unrealistic unscientific this biblical creation myth is.

The creation from earth, alone, show how primitive Hebrew superstitions were, and it is sad when modern Christian creationist believe in it literally, and try to use pitiful pseudoscience to make it seem "scientific".

 

[Thief]

Nope.

Genesis 2 has all the hallmark of adaptation of Babylonian sources of myths, while the Babylonian myths were derived from the older Sumerian-Akkadian sources.

The whole creation of man from dust, just showed how seriously unrealistic unscientific this biblical creation myth is.

The creation from earth, alone, show how primitive Hebrew superstitions were, and it is sad when modern Christian creationist believe in it literally, and try to use pitiful pseudoscience to make it seem "scientific".

I know you've seen my discussion on this....repeatedly....

Chosen specimen, ideal living conditions, isolation, anesthesia , surgery, cloning, genetic manipulation,

and of course some test work to make sure the alterations took hold....
release into the environment.

 

[metis]

Nope.

Genesis 2 has all the hallmark of adaptation of Babylonian sources of myths, while the Babylonian myths were derived from the older Sumerian-Akkadian sources.

The whole creation of man from dust, just showed how seriously unrealistic unscientific this biblical creation myth is.

The creation from earth, alone, show how primitive Hebrew superstitions were, and it is sad when modern Christian creationist believe in it literally, and try to use pitiful pseudoscience to make it seem "scientific".

Unless one takes it as allegory, and probably most of us in Judaism now take it as such.

 

[Thief]

Unless one takes it as allegory, and probably most of us in Judaism now take it as such.

I read it as is.
I believe Man took a sudden divergence from the rest of the animals
the reading of Genesis has all the tokens that cash in on that notion

God did it

 

[leibowde84]

chapter Two of Genesis has all the earmarks of a science experiment.

Why do you think that? There is no experiment described in it.

 

[leibowde84]

if it were tested repeatedly....and affirmed......it's not a theory anymore.

That is incorrect. Look up what a "scientific theory" (not merely a "theory" or "hypothesis") and get back to me.

 

[Thief]

Why do you think that? There is no experiment described in it.

stop knee jerking and go read it.
think chosen specimen....first.

 

[leibowde84]

stop knee jerking and go read it.
think chosen specimen....first.

I read it. No experiment noted. And "experiment" is "a scientific procedure undertaken to make a discovery, test a hypothesis, or demonstrate a known fact." Can you specify why you think one is described in Genesis?

 

[Thief]

I read it. No experiment noted. And "experiment" is "a scientific procedure undertaken to make a discovery, test a hypothesis, or demonstrate a known fact." Can you specify why you think one is described in Genesis?

grow a bit.....
we humans experiment to test what we are...

God can do the same.
alter the body....control the formation.....work the situation....
release the specimens.....

 

[leibowde84]

grow a bit.....
we humans experiment to test what we are...

God can do the same.
alter the body....control the formation.....work the situation....
release the specimens.....

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. There is no experiment mentioned in Genesis 2. What is the hypothesis that is being tested? What evidence is being considered?

 

[McBell]

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. There is no experiment mentioned in Genesis 2. What is the hypothesis that is being tested? What evidence is being considered?

Seems the "hypothesis" is that there is an experiment in Genesis 2....