Modern man like footprints found, evolution theory in doubt.

[gnostic]

Wrong. The record was here before Gigglymish was.

That was very post flood. Ho hum.

Post flood. Gong!

Post flood, all.

Post flood, post flood, post flood...etc, etc, etc.

You are missing the points, dad1.

There are NO HEBREW WRITINGS during the Bronze Age, so there are no Judaic or Hebrew literary records before the 9th century BCE.

Although, according to Jewish and Christian traditions that Moses SUPPOSEDLY said to have written Genesis, Exodus and other books, known as the Torah or Pentateuch, no such evidences exist that Moses was ever real historical person, let alone be author to the 5 books.

This attributions to Moses being an “author” of anything, is false.

The only texts of the Old Testament books existing, has only been dated to 7th century BCE, the fragmented schools from the cave of Ketef Hinnom, known as the Silver Scrolls. That would mean it is dated to the time of king Josiah, or even later.

These are the earliest evidences that any book of Moses.

So that’s also mean the only evidences for Genesis and other books existing are in the Iron Age, hence these are dated centuries after your predicted flood occurring 4500 years ago, hence “post flood”.

And you are wrong to being no writings before Babel.

Egypt hieroglyphs and hieratic exist as early as 3100 BCE, so about 5100 years ago. They are the same writing systems that exist in the New Kingdom period of Egypt (c 1530 - 1077 BCE).

The Sumerian civilisation began around 3050 BCE, with cuneiform writing developed around the same time.

Actually, Sumerian cuneiforms evolved from an earlier form proto-Sumerian cuneiforms from the city of Uruk, dated to 3400 or 3300 BCE.

Uruk (or Erech) is a city, according to Genesis 10, supposedly didn’t exist until the grandson of Ham built it.

So the existence of Uruk in the the 4th millennium BCE, actually refute Genesis 10, about Nimrod being its founder. The oldest (Neolithic) settlement in Uruk, is actually dated to 5000 BCE. Newer town were built over older town.

Again, my point about the Epic of Gilgamesh and Epic of Atrahasis, showed that vessel building to survive the Deluge, including the bird finding leaf episode, existed in writings almost 2 millennia before the 1st appearance of Genesis.

If the Flood did happen, then that would make the writing of Genesis also post flood, nearly 2000 years post flood.

But no such global flood ever existed.

 

[dad1]

So, we don't.

I do, don't know about you.

 

[dad1]

The theory of evolution doesn't do that, so great!

Can you define "blind faith" now?

Science does, so great. When you believe the universe popped out of nothing for no apparent reason, that is blind faith. When you believe the past was the same state, that is blind faith.

 

[dad1]

According to physics I have read, the heat generated by all that rainfall would have raised the temperature of the earth and boiled that tiny ark. Sorry. Science.

I know, luckily the nature/laws were not the same eh? Never happened.

You'll have to explain how there was no physics. Sounds like "done by magic" to me.

You'll have to explain how there was physics as we now see it. Sounds like "done by magic" to me

So the Bible is not only ripe with errors, fundamentalists can rewrite it too

No errors, save in your comprehension of it.

. Every kind of animal sounds like every kind of animal to me. It doesn't say every kind, but dinosaurs. How about those animals that don't have mates?

Good thing for us there is more than one verse in the bible then eh? Context.

You believe that there was a flood. You haven't got any evidence there was one.

You believe that there was not a flood. You haven't got any evidence there was not one. I have the time tested, proven Scripture record there was one. I win.

You are the one making the initial claim of a flood. It is up to you to provide the valid evidence to support that claim.

If science could cover that you might have a point. Too bas science can't. Your opinion is wishful doubting for no reason.

 

[dad1]

There are NO HEBREW WRITINGS during the Bronze Age, so there are no Judaic or Hebrew literary records before the 9th century BCE.

Why should there be? You thought God has no records in heaven? You thought God didn't speak to some men?

Although, according to Jewish and Christian traditions that Moses SUPPOSEDLY said to have written Genesis, Exodus and other books, known as the Torah or Pentateuch, no such evidences exist.

So why doubt it? No recod exists in the form of a video of God writing on the tablet of stone either..so?

This attributions to Moses being an “author” of anything, is false.

How would you know either way?

So that’s also mean the only evidences for Genesis and other books existing are in the Iron Age, hence these are dated centuries after your predicted flood occurring 4500 years ago, hence “post flood”.

?? Books need not have existed on earth. We had contact with the Great Record Keeper and Book Keeper.

Egypt hieroglyphs and hieratic exist as early as 3100 BCE, so about 5100 years ago. They are the same writing systems that exist in the new Kingdom period of Egypt (c 1530 - 1077 BCE).

There may have been different original nuances and meanings in some cases that got lost for all we know. But who cares?

The Sumerian civilisation began around 3050 BCE, with cuneiform writing developed around the same time. Actually, Sumerian cuneiforms evolved from an earlier form proto-Sumerian cuneiforms from the city of Uruk, dated to 3400 or 3300 BCE.

People moved all over after Babel, and had to communicate the best they could.

Uruk (or Erech) is a city, according to Genesis 10, supposed didn’t exist until the grandson of Ham built it.

You sure it was the same city? Prove it.

So the existence of Uruk in the the 4th millennium BCE, actually refute Genesis 10,about Nimrod. The oldest (Neolithic) settlement in Uruk, is actually dated to 5000 BCE.

Hilarious. Show how you cooked up the dates!? Let me guess radioactive decay?

Again, my point about the Epic of Gilgamesh and Epic of Atrahasis, showed that vessel building to survive the Deluge, including the bird finding leaf episode, existed almost 2 millennia before the 1st appearance of Genesis.

Wrong. Your dates are unsupported. You have no clue what verbal records we had either.

If the Flood did happen, then that would make the writing of Genesis also post flood, nearly 2000 years post flood.

Nope. It would make your dates wrong.
No news there.

 

[gnostic]

Why should there be? You thought God has no records in heaven? You thought God didn't speak to some men?

If God is all-knowing, then why would there need to be writings or records?

And the Pentateuch or Torah were written by men, not God, not angels. And the only old writings in Hebrew, only start appearing in the 9th century BCE, which is near the start of the Iron Age.

You are making baseless assumptions about God, as you usually do.

If you have (literary) evidences there are older Hebrew writings than the 9th century BCE, then present them.

So far, you have presented excuses against history that are just as baseless as your claims about your God, your bible.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Science does, so great. When you believe the universe popped out of nothing for no apparent reason, that is blind faith. When you believe the past was the same state, that is blind faith.

Nobody claimed the universe "popped out of nothing for no apparent reason."

Believing that processes in the past operate as they do today isn't based on blind faith, it's based on evidence that that is indeed the case.

Can you please actually define blind faith. Because as far as I can tell, you're referring to the reliance on empirical evidence as blind faith when it is nothing of the sort. In fact, I'd say it's the opposite.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I know, luckily the nature/laws were not the same eh? Never happened.


You'll have to explain how there was physics as we now see it. Sounds like "done by magic" to me

No errors, save in your comprehension of it.
Good thing for us there is more than one verse in the bible then eh? Context.

You believe that there was not a flood. You haven't got any evidence there was not one. I have the time tested, proven Scripture record there was one. I win.
If science could cover that you might have a point. Too bas science can't. Your opinion is wishful doubting for no reason.

No, you don't win. You claim there was a global flood. The Bible claims there was a global flood. So far, all you have are claims. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. Get busy.

 

[dad1]

If God is all-knowing, then why would there need to be writings or records?

Why not? People do read and write now.

And the Pentateuch or Torah were written by men, not God, not angels. And the only old writings in Hebrew, only start appearing in the 9th century BCE, which is near the start of the Iron Age.

It was given by God and in the disposition of angels.

Acts 7:53 -Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.

If you have (literary) evidences there are older Hebrew writings than the 9th century BCE, then present them.

There need not have BEEN written records for God's record to His people to be older.
Get over it.

 

[dad1]

Nobody claimed the universe "popped out of nothing for no apparent reason."

No? So where do you claim the universe was of before the big bang? Was anything here? The little hot soup...where did it come from? Why did it come to exist? Ha.

Believing that processes in the past operate as they do today isn't based on blind faith, it's based on evidence that that is indeed the case.

No it isn't. That is circular reasoning. You first try to look at what is here and how it works, then wind that backwards.

Can you please actually define blind faith. Because as far as I can tell, you're referring to the reliance on empirical evidence as blind faith when it is nothing of the sort. In fact, I'd say it's the opposite.

Blind means not seeing. Faith means belief. So when you believe what we can't see that is blind faith.

 

[dad1]

No, you don't win. You claim there was a global flood. The Bible claims there was a global flood. So far, all you have are claims. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. Get busy.

You claim there was no flood. Pony up. God already proved the bible, so we can believe that. You prove nothing you cannot be believed.

 

[Looncall]

You claim there was no flood. Pony up. God already proved the bible, so we can believe that. You prove nothing you cannot be believed.

What do mean by "God proved the bible"?

To those whose intellects have not been degraded by religion, the bible is clearly a collection of folk tales and religious and political propaganda. Why would anyone refer to it to decide a question of science?

 

[Sapiens]

What do mean by "God proved the bible"?

To those whose intellects have not been degraded by religion, the bible is clearly a collection of folk tales and religious and political propaganda. Why would anyone refer to it to decide a question of science?

Why would anyone refer to it to decide a question, any question?

 

[Looncall]

Why would anyone refer to it to decide a question, any question?

Yes, quite. Reliably unreliable, eh?

 

[Sapiens]

Yes, quite. Reliably unreliable, eh?

More than unreliable, more than out of touch with reality, it's internally and externally inconsistent.

 

[dad1]

What do mean by "God proved the bible"?

If you don't know, look into it.

To those whose intellects have not been degraded by religion,

Science is religion.

the bible is clearly a collection of folk tales and religious and political propaganda.

Uninformed biased opinion.

Why would anyone refer to it to decide a question of science?

Because they had half a brain.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No? So where do you claim the universe was of before the big bang? Was anything here? The little hot soup...where did it come from? Why did it come to exist? Ha.

My claim is nothing more than "I don't know." I'm not even sure that "before" the big bang makes any sense, given that time came into existence at the big bang.

No it isn't. That is circular reasoning. You first try to look at what is here and how it works, then wind that backwards.

No it isn't, not when it's demonstrable.

Circular reasoning is "The Bible is true because the Bible says its true."

Can you provide some demonstration that processes operated differently in the past than they do now?

Blind means not seeing. Faith means belief. So when you believe what we can't see that is blind faith.

And you think belief in a god is the same type of belief that says the sun will rise tomorrow? Or that belief in a demonstrable process is the same as belief that the Bible is an actual recording of the words of a god?

Because I think they're quite different.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You claim there was no flood. Pony up. God already proved the bible, so we can believe that. You prove nothing you cannot be believed.

No, YOU claim there was a global flood. I say, "Can you demonstrate that?" It's on you to back it up your own claims. We don't just have to all believe anything anybody says unless we can prove it wrong. Sorry.

 

[metis]

Science is religion.

Which clearly indicates that you really don't know even basic science and how it's conducted. But then, maybe you don't know much about religion either. Here's a simple formula to help you remember:

religion: faith

science: evidence

 

[SkepticThinker]

If you don't know, look into it.
Science is religion.
Uninformed biased opinion.
Because they had half a brain.

Science is soooooo not religion. I'm curious to know why you think it is though.