What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

[AV1611VET]

Why should I? What does that claim have to do with the age of Methuselah?

Well, being that some claim the modern era started around AD 1600, and someone in 2348 BC dies at the age of 969, I'd say your claim is only about 4000 years off the mark.

 

[Speedwell]

Well, being that some claim the modern era started around AD 1600, and someone in 2348 BC dies at the age of 969, I'd say your claim is only about 4000 years off the mark.

No, that's your claim that someone in 2348 BC died at the age of 969. You are making it now. Isn't now modern enough for you?

 

[AV1611VET]

No, that's your claim that someone in 2348 BC died at the age of 969. You are making it now. Isn't now modern enough for you?

I'm not even going to dignify this with an answer.

 

[Speedwell]

I'm not even going to dignify this with an answer.

Your claim is that a single individual named Methuselah died at the age of 969 years exactly, expressed in base 10 numbers without any numerological significance. If you can show me that someone made this claim before the modern era (i.e. before 1600 AD) I will be glad to consider it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your claim is that a single individual named Methuselah died at the age of 969 years exactly, expressed in base 10 numbers without any numerological significance.

If my claim (plus what you added to it) is wrong, it can take a hike.

The Bible said it, that settles it.

And the Bible says ...

Genesis 5:27 And all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine years: and he died.

In fact, let's go deeper.

Genesis 5:21 And Enoch lived sixty and five years, and begat Methuselah:

Genesis 5:22 And Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah three hundred years, and begat sons and daughters:

Genesis 5:25 And Methuselah lived an hundred eighty and seven years, and begat Lamech:

Genesis 5:26 And Methuselah lived after he begat Lamech seven hundred eighty and two years, and begat sons and daughters:

Genesis 5:27 And all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine years: and he died.

(And don't think I don't know what you're talking about with that "base ten" stuff you added.)

 

[VirOptimus]

If my claim (plus what you added to it) is wrong, it can take a hike.

The Bible said it, that settles it.

And the Bible says ...

Genesis 5:27 And all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine years: and he died.

In fact, let's go deeper.

Genesis 5:21 And Enoch lived sixty and five years, and begat Methuselah:

Genesis 5:22 And Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah three hundred years, and begat sons and daughters:

Genesis 5:25 And Methuselah lived an hundred eighty and seven years, and begat Lamech:

Genesis 5:26 And Methuselah lived after he begat Lamech seven hundred eighty and two years, and begat sons and daughters:

Genesis 5:27 And all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine years: and he died.

(And don't think I don't know what you're talking about with that "base ten" stuff.)

And you read it with a modern understanding of ”truth” that the writers didnt have.

The text isnt as clearcut as you think.

 

[Shemjaza]

Seriously, it's one of the most debated finds. I sure wouldn't put any stock in it.

That's not a source. Or evidence . Or even a point.

Hotly debated is about what exact hominid or australapithicine species it should be linked with and the precise nature of how much time in trees this upright ape spent.

As a comparison, if you can find a whole lot of experts debating fine details of evidence arguing about a number being anywhere from 26859 to 26902... you can't turn around and say: "Ha! See, it's hotly debated! The number is really 4. I am a scientist."

 

[renniks]

That's not a source. Or evidence . Or even a point.

Hotly debated is about what exact hominid or australapithicine species it should be linked with and the precise nature of how much time in trees this upright ape spent.

As a comparison, if you can find a whole lot of experts debating fine details of evidence arguing about a number being anywhere from 26859 to 26902... you can't turn around and say: "Ha! See, it's hotly debated! The number is really 4. I am a scientist."

No, the problem is they never had a skeleton, just isolated bones. Mixed with many species, including human bones. Habilis was established as a taxon based on extremely scanty evidence. A few finger bones, a deformed jawbone and a few skull fragments, found scattered over a large area. And they initially misidentified monkey bones as part of a hand.
"Homo habilis is an empty taxon inadvertently proposed and should be formally sunk." ( Paleoanthropologist Loring Bruce)

 

[Lion IRC]

It seems as if you are being very disingenuous. It should be obvious to a master apologist like you that when being asked about the definition of "kind" in a discussion involving the ark tall tale that the first entry for "kind" is irrelevant.
And I'm betting you are well aware of this and are just playing games

If/since you accuse me of being disingenuous and 'just 'playing games', and plagiarizing (a ubiquitous definition found in hundreds of dictionaries,) it's probably best we conclude our interaction.

You asked me what definition of the word "kind" I use/prefer. Then you attempt to mock me about the 'low bar' set by apologists when I answered your request for a definition.

 

[Speedwell]

If my claim (plus what you added to it) is wrong, it can take a hike.

So you are certain your claim is correct that 969 was expressed in base ten numbers with no numerological significance? Or is it just your assumption?

The Bible said it, that settles it.

The Bible said it in Hebrew composed in an entirely different cultural context than the one you take for granted.

 

[Lion IRC]

Can we get Lion to agree?
Helloooooo. Lion IRC?

Im happy to defend a young Earth Flood timeline. If you want.
But why would atheists want to make it hard for themselves by effectively arguing that God couldn't do THAT.

I dont assert any specific Flood timeline. I dont have to.
Let me know what specific year, decade, aeon Flood date you think I should defend.

 

[Speedwell]

Im happy to defend a young Earth Flood timeline. If you want.
But why would atheists want to make it hard for themselves by effectively arguing that God couldn't do THAT.

I dont assert any specific Flood timeline. I dont have to.
Let me know what specific year, decade, aeon Flood date you think I should defend.

The question isn't what God could do, but what he did do. No one here is arguing that God could not cause a global flood, and it's not just atheists that you're up against.

 

[Lion IRC]

The question isn't what God could do, but what he did do....

Great. Thats even easier.
He caused a global flood and all the apparent consequences.

 

[Lion IRC]

The text isnt as clearcut as you think.

That's a double-edged sword.
If the text isn't clear enough, then you can't use it emphatically either.

 

[AV1611VET]

So you are certain your claim is correct that 969 was expressed in base ten numbers with no numerological significance? Or is it just your assumption?

969 = 969

Nothing more, nothing less.

The Bible said it in Hebrew composed in an entirely different cultural context than the one you take for granted.

LOL -- I knew what you were getting at.

You know as well as I do what language I think Genesis was written in.

 

[Speedwell]

969 = 969

Nothing more, nothing less.LOL -- I knew what you were getting at.

You know as well as I do what language I think Genesis was written in.

Another modern claim.

 

[Speedwell]

That's a double-edged sword.
If the text isn't clear enough, then you can't use it emphatically either.

That's the point.

 

[Speedwell]

Great. Thats even easier.
He caused a global flood and all the apparent consequences.

An event for which there is no evidence. OK.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Great. Thats even easier.
He caused a global flood and all the apparent consequences.

What apparent consequences?

 

[AV1611VET]

What apparent consequences?

Death, destruction, and a reboot of the human race.