Counterfeits.

[Tassman]

What was the observation or experiment used to do this? Please give the example.

The Genesis creation narratives including the making of Adam and Eve.

What was the hypothesis tested.

That God created the heavens and the earth in six days.

[37818]

The Genesis creation narratives including the making of Adam and Eve.

Would it be fair to say you simply find the story untenable? The accepted perspective, for you, being from the Darwinian view point.

That God created the heavens and the earth in six days.

Well that is one interpretation of Genesis 1:1 given the following context. I find that interpretation untenable. I hold the interpretation of a "beginning," Earth not having a defined form, and the 6 days forming earth and placing life on it. The "beginning" and latter 6 days in the same way as the resurrection - as direct acts of God.

[Sparko]

The Genesis creation narratives including the making of Adam and Eve.



That God created the heavens and the earth in six days.

so what was the scientific experiment that showed this to be false? How did they test it and did you repeat the test to see if it was repeatable and accurate?

[Tassman]

so what was the scientific experiment that showed this to be false? How did they test it and did you repeat the test to see if it was repeatable and accurate?

The massive accumulation of scientific evidence obtained over decades, renders the Genesis creation narratives entirely unsupported as fact. This is beyond doubt. Alternatively, what evidence do you have that god-did-it?

[Sparko]

The massive accumulation of scientific evidence obtained over decades, renders the Genesis creation narratives entirely unsupported as fact. This is beyond doubt. Alternatively, what evidence do you have that god-did-it?

So no experiments or falsifications that you can replicate? You are taking other people's word for it? second- and third-hand documentary evidence? You? Say it ain't so Joe!

Did you get your evidence from a text book? Did you check out the sources and replicate the experiments? How do you create an experiment that proves there was no Adam or Eve? Is there some sort of Genealogy database that goes back that far? Other than the bible, that is.

[Tassman]

So no experiments or falsifications that you can replicate? You are taking other people's word for it? second- and third-hand documentary evidence? You? Say it ain't so Joe!

Did you get your evidence from a text book? Did you check out the sources and replicate the experiments? How do you create an experiment that proves there was no Adam or Eve? Is there some sort of Genealogy database that goes back that far? Other than the bible, that is.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...o-creationist/

There is abundant, undeniable evidence that totally undermines the Creationist story and none that supports it, other than a holy book deriving from Bronze Age mythology.

You have no argument

[Sparko]

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...o-creationist/

There is abundant, undeniable evidence that totally undermines the Creationist story and none that supports it, other than a holy book deriving from Bronze Age mythology.

You have no argument

still dodging?

You were the one who said that God needed to have solid evidence for him existing, and that there was no scientific evidence. I even asked you what kind of evidence it would take and you said no evidence would convince you. Yet you seem to be convinced by "science" that it proves that Adam and Eve did not exist. You always go on about science and how it is repeatable and falsifiable, and you reject evidence such as eye witness and secondhand knowledge that you only know from someone else. Yet apparently that is exactly the type of evidence you are taking to believe that science has disproven Adam and Eve existing. There can be no experiment that proves they didn't exist. You sure can't repeat it. The only documentary evidence we have says they did exist. There is no historical evidence you can use to show they didn't. You personally have done no research into the matter. So you are just taking someone else's word that science has disproven Adam and Eve. Without any evidence.

Quite a double standard there. From rejecting ANY evidence, even first hand evidence for God, yet accepting some vague thirdhand or further removed evidence regarding Adam and Eve existing.

[seer]

still dodging?

You were the one who said that God needed to have solid evidence for him existing, and that there was no scientific evidence. I even asked you what kind of evidence it would take and you said no evidence would convince you. Yet you seem to be convinced by "science" that it proves that Adam and Eve did not exist. You always go on about science and how it is repeatable and falsifiable, and you reject evidence such as eye witness and secondhand knowledge that you only know from someone else. Yet apparently that is exactly the type of evidence you are taking to believe that science has disproven Adam and Eve existing. There can be no experiment that proves they didn't exist. You sure can't repeat it. The only documentary evidence we have says they did exist. There is no historical evidence you can use to show they didn't. You personally have done no research into the matter. So you are just taking someone else's word that science has disproven Adam and Eve. Without any evidence.

Quite a double standard there. From rejecting ANY evidence, even first hand evidence for God, yet accepting some vague thirdhand or further removed evidence regarding Adam and Eve existing.

[Tassman]

still dodging?

You were the one who said that God needed to have solid evidence for him existing, and that there was no scientific evidence. I even asked you what kind of evidence it would take and you said no evidence would convince you.

seeming

Yet you seem to be convinced by "science" that it proves that Adam and Eve did not exist. You always go on about science and how it is repeatable and falsifiable, and you reject evidence such as eye witness and secondhand knowledge that you only know from someone else. Yet apparently that is exactly the type of evidence you are taking to believe that science has disproven Adam and Eve existing. There can be no experiment that proves they didn't exist. You sure can't repeat it. The only documentary evidence we have says they did exist. There is no historical evidence you can use to show they didn't. You personally have done no research into the matter. So you are just taking someone else's word that science has disproven Adam and Eve. Without any evidence.

The only "documentary evidence" we have about Adam and Eve is mythical, you have no credible evidence that says otherwise.

Quite a double standard there. From rejecting ANY evidence, even first hand evidence for God, yet accepting some vague thirdhand or further removed evidence regarding Adam and Eve existing.

http://www.npr.org/2011/08/09/138957...f-adam-and-eve

[Sparko]

seeminghttp://www.npr.org/2011/08/09/138957...f-adam-and-eve

so amazingly you are merely taking someone elses word as evidence. The exact same thing you mocked Christians for.

[Tassman]

so amazingly you are merely taking someone elses word as evidence. The exact same thing you mocked Christians for.

[Sparko]

so you are NOT even taking someone else's word as evidence, you are taking their word that there can not be any evidence because they (and you) merely assume there is nothing supernatural. So you reject any evidence that can prove you wrong because you have already decided that any evidence is wrong.

You are as bad as Jorge! He rejects any evidence that evolution is true because he has decided that evolution never happened so any evidence is by definition false.

You are the flip side of the Jorge coin. Same fundamentalist attitude, but just flipped to the opposite pole.

completely ridiculous.

[Tassman]

so you are NOT even taking someone else's word as evidence, you are taking their word that there can not be any evidence because they (and you) merely assume there is nothing supernatural. So you reject any evidence that can prove you wrong because you have already decided that any evidence is wrong.

Oh, you have verifiable evidence of the supernatural existing. No? OK come back when you have some. I can't be bothered with your hypotheticals.

You are as bad as Jorge! He rejects any evidence that evolution is true because he has decided that evolution never happened so any evidence is by definition false.

You are the flip side of the Jorge coin. Same fundamentalist attitude, but just flipped to the opposite pole.

completely ridiculous.

False equivalence! Jorge rejects Evolution despite the abundant empirically verifiable evidence supporting it. I reject deities because there is NO empirically verifiable evidence supporting their existence.

[JonathanL]

I reject deities because there is NO empirically verifiable evidence supporting their existence.

No you don't. You reject deities because you just like Hume have made up your mind to reject any evidence for the supernatural a priori. You already "know", just like Hume, that the natural is all there is, so any occurence that might seem to suggest something supernatural must have a natural phenomenon behind it. Whether or not evidence for a deity exists doesn't really make a difference in the matter.

[Tassman]

No you don't. You reject deities because you just like Hume have made up your mind to reject any evidence for the supernatural a priori.

Oh, so you have verifiable evidence of the supernatural?