Creation: Genesis contradictions? - by Don Batten

[HitchSlap]

Again, let me make it clear that I am not a theistic evolutionist.

I'm just a little surprised that theistic evolutionists are letting HitchSlap's remark slide without challenging it.

Maybe they know something you don't.

 

[AV1611VET]

Maybe they know something you don't.

I'm more interested in what you know that they don't.

 

[HitchSlap]

Catch up, chief.

I'm calling HitchSlap out on post 189.

If you have what theistic evolutionists don't have ... let's see it.

Anyone can call Genesis 1 a myth.

Anyone can call Genesis 1 a myth, based on scientific evidence.

Let's see what you have that theistic evolutionists don't have.

Weren't you the one who asked me to give your myth special consideration? I asked you what made yours different from any other creation myth?

Catch up, indeed.

 

[HitchSlap]

I'm more interested in what you know that they don't.

Who is they?

 

[AV1611VET]

Try and have a good day, HitchSlap.

Let me give you a piece of advice, my friend:

I'd watch going around brandishing the term "creation myth" like it's some kind of valid term.

Someone might call you out on it.

 

[HitchSlap]

Try and have a good day, HitchSlap.

Let me give you a piece of advice, my friend:

I'd watch going around brandishing the term "creation myth" like it's some kind of valid term.

Someone might call you out on it.

Here's a piece of advice AV, I wouldn't go around telling adults that creation myths are literal history.

Someone might call you out on it.

 

[OzSpen]

It's not a presupposition if you have evidence to the contrary.
I suggest you profer actual evidence, as special pleading will get you nowhere. Out of curiosity, how did you determine your creation myth was more likely than any other?

How do you determine the creation narrative in Genesis 1-2 is a myth?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Catch up, chief.

I'm calling HitchSlap out on post 189.

Watch the language. And what is there to "call out" HitchSlap on? He was the one that challenged theistic creationists to show some evidence. One does not need evidence for an event to demand it. In fact that is usually why people challenge others to provide evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

Here's a piece of advice AV, I wouldn't go around telling adults that creation myths are literal history.

Someone might call you out on it.

I gave you a chance.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How do you determine the creation narrative in Genesis 1-2 is a myth?

Easy, reality does not support that narrative at all. All of the scientific evidence out there supports the theory of evolution.

 

[HitchSlap]

Easy, reality does not support that narrative at all. All of the scientific evidence out there supports the theory of evolution.

Judging by my last exchange with him, I'm not sure he's aware of this.

 

[HitchSlap]

I gave you a chance.

A chance to claim your creation myth is no more prescient than any other?

 

[AV1611VET]

And what is there to "call out" HitchSlap on? He was the one that challenged theistic creationists to show some evidence.

Here is post 189 again:

It's not a presupposition if you have evidence to the contrary.
I suggest you profer actual evidence, as special pleading will get you nowhere. Out of curiosity, how did you determine your creation myth was more likely than any other?

Once again, SZ ...

Theistic evolutionists look at the same evidence as non-theistic evolutionists do and claim the universe is configured exactly the same way and by the same processes.

What exactly do you see that allows you to call their beliefs a "myth," and yours "science"?

 

[AV1611VET]

A chance to claim your creation myth is no more prescient than any other?

For what?

The third time?

I'm not a theistic evolutionist.

I'm giving you a chance to show theistic evolution is a myth.

Do it if you can.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here is post 189 again:
Once again, SZ ...

Theistic evolutionists look at the same evidence as non-theistic evolutionists do and claim the universe is configured exactly the same way and by the same processes.

They may "look" at the same evidence, but that does not mean that they have any evidence that supports their ideas. One of the ways that people are forced to properly support their beliefs in science is through the use of scientific evidence. If you don't have a testable hypothesis or theory to start with you don't have any scientific evidence by definition. So I can quite correctly point out that creationists do not have any scientific evidence since all of them to date have been too afraid to put their own ideas to the test.

What exactly do you see that allows you to call their beliefs a "myth," and yours "science"?

The fact that all of the reliable evidence supports the theory of evolution. And for this by reliable evidence I am using scientific evidence. If someone is so afraid of failure that they will not put their own ideas to the test then their ideas are of no merit.

 

[Subduction Zone]

For what?

The third time?

I'm not a theistic evolutionist.

I'm giving you a chance to show theistic evolution is a myth.

Do it if you can.

Actually just pointing out the lack of evidence for that belief is enough to do so.

I don't have any evidence of Sasquatch, except of videos of him dunking balls for the Super Sonics. So it is quite reasonable for others to call him a myth. Sorry Squatch.

 

[HitchSlap]

For what?

The third time?

I'm not a theistic evolutionist.

I'm giving you a chance to show theistic evolution is a myth.

Do it if you can.

OK chief, I'll bite. Why do you think a TE's creation myth is more prescient than yours?

 

[AV1611VET]

They may "look" at the same evidence, but that does not mean that they have any evidence that supports their ideas. One of the ways that people are forced to properly support their beliefs in science is through the use of scientific evidence. If you don't have a testable hypothesis or theory to start with you don't have any scientific evidence by definition. So I can quite correctly point out that creationists do not have any scientific evidence since all of them to date have been too afraid to put their own ideas to the test.



The fact that all of the reliable evidence supports the theory of evolution. And for this by reliable evidence I am using scientific evidence. If someone is so afraid of failure that they will not put their own ideas to the test then their ideas are of no merit.

Um ... are you aware that theistic evolutionists believe all this too?

(I do so wish a TE would chime in here. Why are you guys being silent?)

 

[OzSpen]

Easy, reality does not support that narrative at all. All of the scientific evidence out there supports the theory of evolution.

That's a red herring. You still have not provided evidence that the creation narrative is a myth. All you did was spin off into what you wanted to discuss, i.e. 'all the scientific evidence' supports evolution.

You mentioned not a word about how the scientific evidence could develop methodology that would test how a supernatural being could create ex nihilo. Not a word was stated by you about the scientific evidence for the Big Bang, etc.

You conveniently leave out what doesn't fit your paradigm.

Oz

 

[AV1611VET]

OK chief, I'll bite. Why do you think a TE's creation myth is more prescient than yours?

Nice try.

I already let you off the hook and stopped badgering you for an answer.

Quit squirming please.