The Big Bang Theory is dead.

[YoursTrue]

Exodus 16, YoursTrue.

you are still ignoring the sabbath.

The sabbath is no longer in duration than that of any other day of the week - in which a new day start at the beginning of an evening.

here, in the west, with modern clock, our day starts at midnight. With Judaism, Jews begin their new day at the beginning of evening, eg sunset…and that include sabbath.

i am just following what Genesis say about the 7days, especially with regards to “there was evening and there was morning”, a cycle of period of “day”. You’re the one trying to interpreting the day as something else completely. You are the one taking Genesis 2:2 completely out of cont with your clumsy interpretation.

Seriously do you really ignore the context of what highlighted:

“On the sixth day God finished the work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all the work that he had done.”​

The context “on the sixth day…on the seventh day” tell us the seventh day is no longer or shorter than the 6th day, as Genesis 1:31 says “And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.” The context is very obvious, but of course, you will ignore that with whatever abs claim you like to make up.



And now you are being absurd again.

The laws or the torah were for Israelites and their ancestors, the Jews, to follow.

The law of sabbath were custom to benefit the Jews, not to benefit God.

You should know this better than me, since you are the one claiming to being a Jew while growing up, before your conversion to Jehovah’s Witnesses…or were you lying to us about the “Jewish” business?

That is true as I believe it, and apparently so do you -- specifically that the laws of the Torah were for the Jews to follow. This was not from the beginning as to Adam and Eve. The laws given to the Jews came way after Adam and Eve were created. And for them, there was basically one law that incurred the death penalty. That law was not about observing a Sabbath day once a week. Thank you for your thoughts on the matter.

 

[blü 2]

And all your long age dates are false.

Don't forget to lay out that credible evidence for your claim.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Don't forget to lay out that credible evidence for your claim.

I have and will be adding more.
Evolutionists claim that the complex eye evolved at least 150 times and yet that is impossible.

 

[Esteban X]

Evolutionists claim that the complex eye evolved at least 150 times and yet that is impossible.

And yet it happened.

 

[blü 2]

I have and will be adding more.

Let's take these points one at a time.

1
Please set out your demonstration that the age of the universe is NOT about 14 bn years.

Please state the age of the universe in your view, and demonstrate that your view is correcrt.

2
Please set out your demonstration that the age of the sun and the earth is NOT about 4.5 bn years.

Please state the age of the sun and the earth in your view. and demonstrate that your view is correct.

3
Please set out your demonstration that life on earth did not exist till later than 3.5 bn years.

Please state when in your view life on earth came into existence and demonstrate that your view is correct.

4
Please set out your demonstration that humans ─ H. sap sap ─ have NOT been around for maybe 500,000 years, and modern humans about 120-150,000 years.

Please state when in your view H sap sap appeared on earth and when in your view modern humans appeared on earth and demonstrate that your claim is correct.

5
Please set out your demonstration that Göbekli Tepe is NOT about 11,500 years old.

Please state when in your view Göbekli Tepe was built and demonstrate that your view is correct.

6
Please set out your demonstration that we do NOT have stories of Sumerian deities in Mesopotamia, and deities of Egypt, from at least the third millennium BCE.

Please state when in your view those stories were written and demonstrate that your view is correct.

7
Please set out your demonstration that the God of the bible is recorded in history earlier than about 1500 BCE.


No need for me to remind you, I trust, that assertion is not demonstration.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Let's take these points one at a time.

1
Please set out your demonstration that the age of the universe is NOT about 14 bn years.

Please state the age of the universe in your view, and demonstrate that your view is correcrt.

2
Please set out your demonstration that the age of the sun and the earth is NOT about 4.5 bn years.

Please state the age of the sun and the earth in your view. and demonstrate that your view is correct.

3
Please set out your demonstration that life on earth did not exist till later than 3.5 bn years.

Please state when in your view life on earth came into existence and demonstrate that your view is correct.

4
Please set out your demonstration that humans ─ H. sap sap ─ have NOT been around for maybe 500,000 years, and modern humans about 120-150,000 years.

Please state when in your view H sap sap appeared on earth and when in your view modern humans appeared on earth and demonstrate that your claim is correct.

5
Please set out your demonstration that Göbekli Tepe is NOT about 11,500 years old.

Please state when in your view Göbekli Tepe was built and demonstrate that your view is correct.

6
Please set out your demonstration that we do NOT have stories of Sumerian deities in Mesopotamia, and deities of Egypt, from at least the third millennium BCE.

Please state when in your view those stories were written and demonstrate that your view is correct.

7
Please set out your demonstration that the God of the bible is recorded in history earlier than about 1500 BCE.


No need for me to remind you, I trust, that assertion is not demonstration.

All of the ages that you are giving are based on a set of false assumptions and circular reasoning.
I have given ample refutations of these.
But I will in the near future go after the dating techniques and show they all refute billions of years or are unreliable.
Right now I am concentrating on macro evolution.
Since That did not happen, the age of the rock layers is collapsed to a single worldwide event which is the worldwide flood.
That means the earths surface is only thousands of years old and the earth is only thousands of years old.
That makes the moon only thousands of years old.
And that refutes all those dating techinquest.

 

[Polymath257]

I have and will be adding more.
Evolutionists claim that the complex eye evolved at least 150 times and yet that is impossible.

If you think something is impossible, yet it actually happened and has evidence to support that it happened, then the problem is with how you arrived at the idea it was impossible in the first place.

You claim it to be impossible, but you use faulty reasoning to get to that conclusion. Furthermore, it is clear you do so because of a prior commitment to a disproved idea.

That is not the way of wisdom.

 

[Polymath257]

All of the ages that you are giving are based on a set of false assumptions and circular reasoning.

Please give details about how you know those assumptions are false and/or circular.

I have given ample refutations of these.

No, you have not. You have, instead, pointed to flawed popular articles, bad reasoning, and serious misunderstandings of what the science actually says. You have also shown a significant lack of understanding of how science actually works.

But I will in the near future go after the dating techniques and show they all refute billions of years or are unreliable.

OK, let's see it.

Right now I am concentrating on macro evolution.

And you seem not to understand the difference between evolution, Big Bang cosmology, and abiogenesis.

Since That did not happen, the age of the rock layers is collapsed to a single worldwide event which is the worldwide flood.

Why would you think that? The ages of the rocks is independent on the theory of evolution.

That means the earths surface is only thousands of years old and the earth is only thousands of years old.

No, it does not. Even if the dates of the rocks are wrong, that would NOT mean that they are only a few thousand years old. You would have to find dating techniques that are shown to be accurate and also date those rocks to thousands (as opposed to millions ) of years old.

This is one of your biggest mistakes: you seem to think that if you show some aspect of the modern view to be wrong, then the only alternative is Biblical cosmology. And that simply isn't the case.

That makes the moon only thousands of years old.

No, it does not. Again, you would need a separate dating method that gives this number. But you would also have to indepdently show that dating method is accurate.

Good luck.

And that refutes all those dating techinquest.

Not even close.

Once again, Biblical cosmology is not the only alternative to modern science. In fact, it is the least likley alternative in most cases.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

i did say they were created with adult bodies, and they have already have the abilities to walk and talk, so they are not toddlers.

However, they haven't been living long in eden, before the event which they disobeyed God.

So not very long, which would means their experience in life, less than a week? Less than a month? A year?

I was talking about the length of time, and the amount of experience each would have in that time, before eating those fruits that were forbidden to them. Certainly not long enough to witness death. And if they haven’t witnessed death, how could they possibly know what death mean when God told Adam?

Genesis 2 & 3 doesn’t say how long, but if Eve was so easily persuaded or manipulated to eat the fruit, then she wasn’t old at all.

And as I am talking about the amount of experience each would have in the amount of time he or she have lived, then a comparison to them being like children is apt.

realistically the entire Eden event is a total myth, because only in myth, human was created as adult without being born naturally. From the moment they were created, they were already adult bodies, automatically being able to talk. That’s not natural.

he from the soil of earth, with body of adult…unnatural.

she from Adam’s rib, already a “woman”…again, unnatural.

Hence…IT IS A MYTH!

Adam and Eve may already skip learning, but each Ofer experience were in matters of days, so they were children, and like children, you can warn them all you like, they will disobey, because they don’t have the experience, nor the capacity to know what‘s right or wrong. If you don’t understand nature don’t work the Genesis say, then you’re really naïve, because you already buy the BS of this story.

It would have taken Adam a long time to study the animals and then choose a name for them - Genesis 2:20 - before Eve became Adam's wife.
Just a guess, but in scripture a male was considered as an Adult at age 30, so to me Adam would have been at least age 30 at marriage.
Also, Eve did Not sin right away.

 

[blü 2]

All of the ages that you are giving are based on a set of false assumptions and circular reasoning.
I have given ample refutations of these.

I don't think that's correct. But it doesn't matter. Address each point, refutation of the evidence-based view, followed by your own view AND your demonstration that your view is correct.

It is of course NOT the case that if the scientific view is wrong, your view is automatically right.

And as I said, not your assertion, your demonstration.

And so on through each item in the list.

Right now I am concentrating on macro evolution.

Where is your demonstration that macro evolution has never happened?

What do you say happened instead?

Where is your demonstration that what you say instead is correct?

 

[YoursTrue]

I have and will be adding more.
Evolutionists claim that the complex eye evolved at least 150 times and yet that is impossible.

I reread a few of your many questions at the beginning and I find them astute. (Can't really read all of them there are so many, but yes, cells are amazing and yes, how did the first cell multiply? I almost hate to ask because I'm afraid someone will give an answer like they know.)

 

[SavedByTheLord]

I reread a few of your many questions at the beginning and I find them astute. (Can't really read all of them there are so many, but yes, cells are amazing and yes, how did the first cell multiply? I almost hate to ask because I'm afraid someone will give an answer like they know.)

The will dance around it.
Obviously a tough crowd.

 

[Mock Turtle]

The will dance around it.
Obviously a tough crowd.

Tough crowd, but just happens to be a (sensible) majority - if one likes ad pop evidence.

 

[YoursTrue]

Please give details about how you know those assumptions are false and/or circular.

No, you have not. You have, instead, pointed to flawed popular articles, bad reasoning, and serious misunderstandings of what the science actually says. You have also shown a significant lack of understanding of how science actually works.

OK, let's see it.

And you seem not to understand the difference between evolution, Big Bang cosmology, and abiogenesis.

Why would you think that? The ages of the rocks is independent on the theory of evolution.

No, it does not. Even if the dates of the rocks are wrong, that would NOT mean that they are only a few thousand years old. You would have to find dating techniques that are shown to be accurate and also date those rocks to thousands (as opposed to millions ) of years old.

This is one of your biggest mistakes: you seem to think that if you show some aspect of the modern view to be wrong, then the only alternative is Biblical cosmology. And that simply isn't the case.

No, it does not. Again, you would need a separate dating method that gives this number. But you would also have to indepdently show that dating method is accurate.

Good luck.

Not even close.

Once again, Biblical cosmology is not the only alternative to modern science. In fact, it is the least likley alternative in most cases.

In some cases I have read about, the age notation of writing and human fossils is strongly linked to rocks.

I have never said 24 hours.

all I have said is what Genesis having b written 6 times in Genesis 1 - “there was evening and there was morning” - a duration of a day. Not this bloody strawman 24 hours BS.

you are twisting my words with your craps.

This is why I don’t trust creationists, they think that they can put lies in another person’s mouth. That’s your lie, not mine.

stop with 24 hours bs. Try understanding what I wrote: evening & morning, not 24 hours.

Did you ever think why I don’t believe in the Bible anymore? because I have to put up with bs interpretations from creationists who have no qualms about lying to others.

I was reviewing your answer when I opened up my computer today and am still wondering exactly why you were so upset. Yes, you are certainly correct in referencing evening and morning for each of the six days. Except for -- one of the seven days. But it's certainly interesting because I am reading the creation account again and it is refreshing. Thanks, but please don't be so upset. I did not mean you were saying each day of creation had 24 hours, not at all. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Yes -- each of the first six days of creation are said to have an evening and a morning. It does say in Genesis chapter 2, "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 2And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done. 3So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all his work that he had done in creation." But it does not say in chapters 1 or 2 that it had an evening and a morning. Sorry that I upset you so much.

 

[YoursTrue]

Let me get some popcorn.

You are just wrong. So wrong. You haven't demonstrated your claims.

OK, now you tagged me mentally. So can scientists explain how the first cell duplicated itself?

 

[Polymath257]

In some cases I have read about, the age notation of writing and human fossils is strongly linked to rocks.

I don't even know what this is supposed to mean. Can you give an example so I can clarify?

 

[Polymath257]

OK, now you tagged me mentally. So can scientists explain how the first cell duplicated itself?

Spheres that form naturally from protenoids or lipids will spontaneously bud and divide into two such spheres. This process happens *long* before there is actual life.

 

[YoursTrue]

Spheres that form naturally from protenoids or lipids will spontaneously bud and divide into two such spheres. This process happens *long* before there is actual life.

You're sure that's how the first cell replicated itself? Can you please show how spheres that form natural etc go through the process using evidence that scientists provide confirming what you said before there is life please?

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't even know what this is supposed to mean. Can you give an example so I can clarify?

Talking about dating fossils and other things like inscribing on caves.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Spheres that form naturally from protenoids or lipids will spontaneously bud and divide into two such spheres. This process happens *long* before there is actual life.

Beat me to it. And since life is an emergent process there will probably be no exact "first life". At least none that everyone can agree on is life.