Remarkably complete’ 3.8-million-year-old cranium of human ancestor discovered in Ethiopia

[gnostic]

There is a difference between assuming a uniform nature and interpreting according, and 'demonstrating' one. If we assume there was always this nature and forces in place, for example, then we would interpret isotope ratios as if there were. That is what science does. So of course it doesn't/can't prove anything. Yet it fills the planet with it's diabolical claims and fables.

You really do, don’t understand what you are writing about.

And you really don’t have the authority to judge what are science and what are not, and what are history and what are not.

You are also projecting your own ignorance, your own blind faith and your own errors, upon everyone else who disagree with you.

You don’t know or understand what science is. And clearly you don’t understand what is fable and what isn’t fable.

The Bible stories of the talking serpent, tempting Eve to eat the forbidden fruit, and the one about Balaam and his talking donkey, are both fables.

The fact that both narratives have talking animals that shouldn’t be able to talk, are indication to them have status of “fable”, just like many myths containing talking animals, or animals that do things that usually only humans would do.

The Qur’an have the King Solomon being able to understand and talk the languages of birds and ants.

One of the oldest stories that I know of, that including talking animals is the Epic of Etana, with an eagle and a snake being able to talk to each other, but also the eagle can talk to the king of Kish, Etana. Etana nursed the injured eagle to health, befriended theeagle, who assisted Etana by flying the king to heaven, to obtain a cure from an unnamed goddess - a cure so that he may sire a son and heir.

Although the story is only found among the clay tablets of Ashurbanipal’s library in Nineveh (7th century BCE), his name is found in the Sumerian King List, and there is ancient Sumerian seal that depicted the king riding on the back of eagle, tell us the story is much older than the surviving clay tablets. The seal itself dated back to the reign of Sargon of Akkad (c 2334 - c 2279 BCE), the founder of the Akkadian dynasty and empire.

But the animals don’t have to talk, to be in the fables. The story of Jonah being swallowed by either big fish or a whale, is considered a fable. Also fable is ravens fetching food for Elijah during the time of famine.

Fables have crossover to modern era as found in children’s story books, in comics and cartoons, both printed or in tv and movies, especially computer animation.

To give you some contemporary examples of modern fables, Garfield and Snoopy in Peanuts in comics, or movies, like all the Disney and Warner Bros cartoon characters, or more recent Finding Nemo, The Lion King, Bambi, Madagascar, Kung Fu Panda, The Angry Bird Movie, etc.

Snoopy never talk, but he play some characters in some of his fantasies, like one of the World War I’s pilots known as the Flying Ace from RFC (Royal Flying Corp) in a dogfight with the Red Baron. Or the college student Joe Cool, or the reporter with a typewriter.

Then you have older classics, like Francis the Talking Mule, or the tv show, Mr Ed.

These (above examples) are all modern fables.

There are no fables in science. You are putting wrong labels to biology, because biology isn’t fable.

 

[dad]

The vast amount of objective verifiable evidence has determined it is factual beyond any reasonable doubt.

Except, there is none at all. The evidence can be looked at in different ways, your beliefs need not be used at all. There is absolutely no evidence to the contrary, and no evidence that supports your same state past. You just have an obsession with splattering evidences with your godless belief set. Such self imposed ignorance does not magically make the past the same nature as today, it just makes you religious and fanatical as well as willingly ignorant and in clear denial.

Science does not prove anything, it is based on falsification based on evidence, and the physical objective verifiable evidence demonstrates a natural history with uniform time and laws of nature. You have failed to present a scrape of evidence to support your assumptions.

You defend science with science, and remember 'you only believe in the Bible,'

Still waiting . . .

Resorting to repeating cut and pasted blather simply cannot help your religion.

 

[shunyadragon]

Except, there is none at all. The evidence can be looked at in different ways, your beliefs need not be used at all. There is absolutely no evidence to the contrary, and no evidence that supports your same state past. You just have an obsession with splattering evidences with your godless belief set. Such self imposed ignorance does not magically make the past the same nature as today, it just makes you religious and fanatical as well as willingly ignorant and in clear denial.

Resorting to repeating cut and pasted blather simply cannot help your religion.

You offer my no other choice when you keep repeating your assertion 'You only believe in the Bible!'

Science does not prove anything, it is based on falsification based on evidence, and the physical objective verifiable evidence demonstrates a natural history with uniform time and laws of nature. You have failed to present a scrape of evidence to support your assumptions.

You defend science with science, and remember 'you only believe in the Bible,'

Still waiting . . .

 

[dad]

You really do, don’t understand what you are writing about.

I suggest you actually don't.

And you really don’t have the authority to judge what are science and what are not, and what are history and what are not.

Anyone that can read and is sane can do that.

You are also projecting your own ignorance, your own blind faith and your own errors, upon everyone else who disagree with you.

I know you are, but what am I?

You don’t know or understand what science is. And clearly you don’t understand what is fable and what isn’t fable.

Origins sciences and claims are not science, but are falsely called science. I know what they are. I know the basis. Deal with it.

The Bible stories of the talking serpent, tempting Eve to eat the forbidden fruit, and the one about Balaam and his talking donkey, are both fables.

False. Man could communicate with animals before the fall. Jesus spoke through the donkey, because of course He has that ability.

The fact that both narratives have talking animals that shouldn’t be able to talk, are indication to them have status of “fable”, just like many myths containing talking animals, or animals that do things that usually only humans would do.

The serpent was able to speak with Eve in some way, perhaps in a way man no longer remembers existed. God can do anything, so making an animal speak is easy for God. No fable, just consider it higher science!

The Qur’an have the King Solomon being able to understand and talk the languages of birds and ants.

Chapter and verse for Solomon?

Since you won't be able to do that, for the lurkers I will post the verse..

Pr 6:6 -Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise:

FYI, that means something other than having a tea and chatting with bugs!

One of the oldest stories that I know of, that including talking animals is the Epic of Etana, with an eagle and a snake being able to talk to each other, but also the eagle can talk to the king of Kish, Etana. Etana nursed the injured eagle to health, befriended theeagle, who assisted Etana by flying the king to heaven, to obtain a cure from an unnamed goddess - a cure so that he may sire a son and heir.

Although the story is only found among the clay tablets of Ashurbanipal’s library in Nineveh (7th century BCE), his name is found in the Sumerian King List, and there is ancient Sumerian seal that depicted the king riding on the back of eagle, tell us the story is much older than the surviving clay tablets. The seal itself dated back to the reign of Sargon of Akkad (c 2334 - c 2279 BCE), the founder of the Akkadian dynasty and empire.

Well, spirits were associated in ancient times like this with animals. Sometimes they were pictured as such. We can't really interpret the meanings of this stuff today.

But the animals don’t have to talk, to be in the fables. The story of Jonah being swallowed by either big fish or a whale, is considered a fable. Also fable is ravens fetching food for Elijah during the time of famine.

Jesus demonstrated that He ruled the animal kingdom, and had the fish obey Him for example. No fable.

There are no fables in science. You are putting wrong labels to biology, because biology isn’t fable.

Do you consider that you are actually related to flatworms and cockroaches and skunks and pigs? Ha.

 

[dad]

Science does not prove anything, it is based on falsification based on evidence, and the physical objective verifiable evidence demonstrates a natural history with uniform time and laws of nature. You have failed to present a scrape of evidence to support your assumptions.

You defend science with science, and remember 'you only believe in the Bible,'

Still waiting . . .

Real cracker of a tactic you have there.

 

[shunyadragon]

. . . but what am I?
One who believes only in the Bible,
and not science.

 

[shunyadragon]

Real cracker of a tactic you have there.

You can have all the crackers you want.

Science does not prove anything, it is based on falsification based on evidence, and the physical objective verifiable evidence demonstrates a natural history with uniform time and laws of nature. You have failed to present a scrape of evidence to support your assumptions.

You defend science with science, and remember 'you only believe in the Bible,'

Still waiting . . .

 

[dad]

You can have all the crackers you want. what you believe.

Science does not prove anything, it is based on falsification based on evidence, and the physical objective verifiable evidence demonstrates a natural history with uniform time and laws of nature. You have failed to present a scrape of evidence to support your assumptions.

You defend science with science, and remember 'you only believe in the Bible,'

Still waiting . . .

You only believe what you believe. Make no pretenses it is anything else.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You only believe what you believe. Make no pretenses it is anything else.

dad, we can test our ideas. What reasonable test could refute your claims? If you can't think of one all you have is belief. You have yet to understand the difference between belief and knowledge. Mere belief is weak. It puts you in the same class as all of those that believe in a different God than you do.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The ancient Jews had one view of the Law as it was written. It was not ambiguous because the Law spelled everything out very concisely.

This is just nonsense. The law is NOT spelled out precisely. For example, we are not to work on the Shabbat. But the Torah never defines work. It took the religious authorities to nail down what precisely work was, so that we didn't run into the problem of one person interpreting it one way and another interpreting it another way.

And even with the Sanhedrin ironing things out, there were many details about the Shabbat that were still left unanswered even in Jesus day. You see Jesus arguing the school of Hillel position and the Pharisees of the school of Shammai arguing a different one.

There were no extremes in worship either way back then because the law did not allow for it

Sure there was. What do you think the Nazarite vows were, except a God sanctioned expression for extremists who wanted to go above and beyond?

It was when sects began to appear that the Jews lost the plot. By the time of Christ's appearance, the Pharisees had so altered and added to the meaning of God's written law by their ridiculous interpretations of it, that when Jesus came (around 400 years after the last prophet was sent to God's wayward people) there was 400 years worth of deviation that had crept in and Judaism was fractured into disunited sects, like it is to this day. The Pharisees had taken their own manufactured traditions and passed them off as Law. The people knew nothing else. So when Jesus exposed the Pharisees for the religious frauds that they were, it threw the whole Jewish nation into turmoil. But interestingly, Jesus was not sent to the leaders of Judaism, but to those who were "lost" because of them. He gathered these lost ones and led them to the truth of God's word.....something that had become out of reach for them because of the attitude of the Jewish leaders. Any wonder they hated Jesus enough to want him dead!

Wow, such vitriol.

Let's start with your accusal that the Oral Torah (which did not begin with the Pharisees) adds to the Torah. It does not. It clarifies the Torah -- Oral Torah is to Torah as Case Study is to Law. But what is even more important than the obvious logical necessity of Oral tradition, is the fact that God himself set it up in Deuteronomy 17:8-13.

ח כִּי יִפָּלֵא מִמְּךָ דָבָר לַמִּשְׁפָּט, בֵּין-דָּם לְדָם בֵּין-דִּין לְדִין וּבֵין נֶגַע לָנֶגַע--דִּבְרֵי רִיבֹת, בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ: וְקַמְתָּ וְעָלִיתָ--אֶל-הַמָּקוֹם, אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ בּוֹ. 8 If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, even matters of controversy within thy gates; then shalt thou arise, and get thee up unto the place which the LORD thy God shall choose.
ט וּבָאתָ, אֶל-הַכֹּהֲנִים הַלְוִיִּם, וְאֶל-הַשֹּׁפֵט, אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם; וְדָרַשְׁתָּ וְהִגִּידוּ לְךָ, אֵת דְּבַר הַמִּשְׁפָּט. 9 And thou shall come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days; and thou shalt inquire; and they shall declare unto thee the sentence of judgment.
י וְעָשִׂיתָ, עַל-פִּי הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר יַגִּידוּ לְךָ, מִן-הַמָּקוֹם הַהוּא, אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר יְהוָה; וְשָׁמַרְתָּ לַעֲשׂוֹת, כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר יוֹרוּךָ. 10 And thou shalt do according to the tenor of the sentence, which they shall declare unto thee from that place which the LORD shall choose; and thou shalt observe to do according to all that they shall teach thee.
יא עַל-פִּי הַתּוֹרָה אֲשֶׁר יוֹרוּךָ, וְעַל-הַמִּשְׁפָּט אֲשֶׁר-יֹאמְרוּ לְךָ--תַּעֲשֶׂה: לֹא תָסוּר, מִן-הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר-יַגִּידוּ לְךָ--יָמִין וּשְׂמֹאל. 11 According to the law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do; thou shalt not turn aside from the sentence which they shall declare unto thee, to the right hand, nor to the left.
יב וְהָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר-יַעֲשֶׂה בְזָדוֹן, לְבִלְתִּי שְׁמֹעַ אֶל-הַכֹּהֵן הָעֹמֵד לְשָׁרֶת שָׁם אֶת-יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, אוֹ, אֶל-הַשֹּׁפֵט--וּמֵת הָאִישׁ הַהוּא, וּבִעַרְתָּ הָרָע מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל. 12 And the man that doeth presumptuously, in not hearkening unto the priest that standeth to minister there before the LORD thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die; and thou shalt exterminate the evil from Israel.
יג וְכָל-הָעָם, יִשְׁמְעוּ וְיִרָאוּ; וְלֹא יְזִידוּן, עוֹד. {ס} 13 And all the people shall hear, and fear, and do no more presumptuously.

So when it is necessary for the understanding of the law, the religious authorities, such as the Levites and the Elders/Judges/Pharisees/Rabbis (as they are called in their respective ages) have God given authority to establish these traditions that have the force of God-given law. Jews are required by God not to even question them.

As to "wanting Jesus dead," you have to understand that Caiphus was corrupt as were his cronies. He was so corrupt that the Talmud remembers him as notoriously corrupt. If you take your own gospels at their word, you will note that the religious trial of Jesus was not the full Sanhedrin and was done illegally. It was a farce. The Sanhedrin cannot be blamed for it, nor can Jewish law.

Finally, they did not themselves put Jesus to death for blasphemy. It was the Romans who put Jesus to death for riling up the people with his messiah talk. So if you want to blame someone for his death, look solidly to the Romans, who were notorious for these sorts of executions.

"I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness!’"

This is basically what Jesus also told the Pharisees. (Matthew 23:37-39)

I'm not sure if I've said this to you before or not, but although I find the Christian Scriptures (what you call the NT) intellectually interesting, they are no authority to me. I think they mix history with legend, and are theologically corrupt.

So what is a Jew? Is it a religion or a nationality?

A Jew is a member of a TRIBE, the Children of Israel. The easiest way to become a member of this tribe is simply to be born into it. However, as with most tribes, people are sometimes adopted in. With us, this is done via conversion to Judaism. Iow, this conversion process doesn't mean that you merely take on the religion, but also that you become a member of the tribe, b'nei Yisrael.

[/quote]Can you stop being God's people?[/quote]
No, you cannot stop being a Jew. Even if you become a terrible sinner, you are still part of God's people, the Children of Israel. If you are born a Jew and grow up to be an atheist or a Buddhist, you are still a Jew. If you apostatize and lose all rights as a Jew, you are still technically a Jew.

And again, what John the Baptist says, holds no authority on the matter. Jewish halakha (Jewish Law) is the only authority on this issue. How would you like it if Mormons came around and started telling you who was and who was not a "real" Christian?

True worship is identified by its unity and balance....never by its unbalanced extremes.

If true worship is identified by its unity, then Christianity is out of the running.

The apostles who were present saw Jesus as the glorious King of God's kingdom. His promise was fulfilled, just not as you think it should have been. It was a "vision" that they were forbidden to speak about until after Jesus' death and resurrection.

I don't buy this. Not in the slightest. The Kingdom of God is known in the heavens, where the angels and the celestial bodies like the stars and planets, all obey God's commands. That is not true here on earth -- YET. Someday that will change, and the Kingdom of God will exist here on earth, but like I said, it hasn't happened yet, that much is obvious.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The traces of the former nature are mistaken by men who assume that this present is the key to the past.

I give up trying to talk to you on a rational level. You are not interested in evidence.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Reading comprehension? You are not saying that scholars who see things different to what you prefer, are incompetent, are you?

I'm wondering though, whom do you think controls this system? Do you believe what 1 John 5:19 states?

I'm saying anyone that says Genesis 2 has no chronological order is no scholar at all but is a poser.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The theory of evolution does not make sense; Is not testable; Does not stand up to scrutiny.
In case you are shocked, please understand what the theory of evolution is.

Wrong on all three counts.

What facts do the theory of evolution explain?

Biological diversity, genetics, the nested hierarchy of the fossil record.

Surely not the facts of how life got here.

Of course not, because that's not what it's trying to explain.

Have you considered that other alternatives may be "perfect" explanations, but may be rejected, for various reasons.

Such as...?

They may, also not be testable, but neither is the theory of evolution.

False. Evolution is testable, and observable,

That is not true. You rejected the links where I pointed them out to you.

False. You've presented not a single one.

I won't post them again. The problems in the evolution theory are real, although supporters of the theory tend to "hide themselves in underground caves", so as not to see them.

Then what are they?

1) In contrast to the slow and gradual process of evolution, as was suggested, "new species" - practically all major groups of organisms, appear on the scene = appear in the fossil record, remain unchanged or without any significant change.

False. Firstly, evolution is not necessarily slow and gradual - change can be punctuated. Secondly, the fossil record shows species changing and diversifying over time. For what you say here to be true, you have to ignore literally all of the fossil evidence.

2) They don't know if evolution took place gradually / slowly, or quickly. They don't know how it happened. Yet they say, it happens given enough time - millions / billions of years small changes add up.

Because we observe it today. We know living populations change through reproduction and mutation, and we know these changes add up to speciation. Currently, we have no other explanation for biological diversity, and the fact that all living things share the same genetic lineage demonstrates it.

This sounds more like an imagined thing - imagination and wishful thinking. Rather than it being science, it takes the form of a dictatorship political system - No explanation necessary. Just accept it.
...and yet, it is known that only very slight modification occur, due to the fact that mutations are random, rare, and need to be specifically located, in order to be passed on. They also know that mutations are non-adaptive in nature.

This is all just plain false, and you should know better by now. Mutations occur EVERY TIME a living thing reproduces, they are not rare and they don't need to be "specifically located" to be passed on. We inherit the vast majority of our genes, with over 200 of our own entirely unique mutations from birth, and that is true for every living thing that was ever produced. And we have directly observed speciation. We know that mutations can make one population of a single species divide into two populations that can no longer interbreed and cannot be considered the same species. We know that occurs.

I don't find that to be true at all.

Then you are wrong, and you should learn more about it.

Just as there are tests in science, which may result in different opinions, due to different interpretation, as in the case of what we are discussing here, the same applies where testing the Bible is concerned.
As I mentioned here.

Then please present a scientific explanation of the fossil record other than common ancestry that suitably explain all of the facts without claiming magic.

That just shows you did not even bother to look at the links, which had nothing to do with Darwin. Not good practice, but typical...

Since we've been debating, the only thing you've quoted is Darwin. If you've posted links elsewhere, present them here.

Dissecting posts in this way can cause confusion, and result in questions not related to what was said.

Actually, it prevents that. All you have to do is click the arrow next to the quote and you can read the post I was responding to.

Why can't what require evolution?

Your alleged creation.

Don't hurt your head.

Don't patronize me.

Well I think I did.

Then you are blatantly wrong. I asked you "Do you have any examples of a complex organ which could not possibly has formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications?"

You have yet to answer that question. Last time, you answered that question with another question, which isn't an answer.

Did you not ask, "Do you have any examples of a complex organ which could not possibly has formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications?"
So it seem obvious to me that if I ask you if you can describe how the cell formed, my answer must be... the cell has not been demonstrated to have "formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications".
So can you answer my question, please?

Asking a question is not answering a question. I'm asking YOU for something DEMONSTRATED TO HAVE NOT been produced by successive, slight modifications. Can you do that?

For one thing, one who creates - if they are not just a careless designer - will take time, and there will be purpose behind what goes into their design. That's called work.
The mechanism of evolution, as we know them, do not produce new organisms with completely new body plans. So if God used evolution he would have failed.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

Why couldn't God have pre-determined the outcome of biological processes which, to us, appear as natural processes such as evolution? If nature is an extension of God's will, then evolution is merely nature's way of reaching the design God intended.

Why is your God so limited?

It would seem too, he would appear to be lazy, and careless to rely on random chemicals to produce their own makeup, and I think everything would be just ugly, and invalid - probably not even able to survive.

Again, you put ridiculous limits on your God. Does not it seem far more amazing that God decided "Let there be man" and what, to him, was merely an intent manifested in nature as a billions-year long biological process? Isn't that far more awe-inspiring?

The God you describe is a mere magician, conjuring things out of a hat because it's easier for you to imagine it. But God doesn't have to be limited by your imagination.

Broaden your mind just a little and dispense of your image of God as a mere illusionist and your objection to evolutionary theory will evaporate.

Imagine. Out of the billions of galaxies, in the universe, and only one life supporting planet with everything needed for life to survive, and you think that was a hit or miss event?

Baseless assumption.

Some God that would be - careless, lazy, apathetic... Oh dear.

Your argument is nonsensical.

No. Your question seems wrong from every angle.
There is no evidence life started from a "worm" in "soup", and branched off to all life forms.

I never made that argument, so this is a strawman.

There is evidence that the information in the genes is no accident, but the result of careful design.

And what is this evidence?

It makes sense to me, that life can adapt only to what is encoded within it.

Then you lack perception.

In other words, life either goes from its encoded blueprint, to a state of disrepair / degenerate, or the other direction - repair / regenerate. As the saying goes, "Its in the genes."
Creating a variety of creatures, and using reproduction to bring forth diversity, according to each kind, paints a correct picture of a real creator - not a man made idea.
So this explanation makes sense - The Wonders of Creation Reveal God's Glory in The Design of Life.

Except it's contradicted by the facts, because we know mutations can produce new functions and increase functionality.

Not that reason alone, but hundreds more.
There are no missing gaps, or unanswered questions.
It makes sense that God Created the Earth, and life on it.

And why couldn't God have used evolution?

No. Makes no sense to me, and they have not even - for nearly two centuries - demonstrated how those mechanisms work.

It has been demonstrated. Why do you limit your God to a child with Lego bricks rather than understanding nature as an extension of God's will? Why must you reject nature in favour of viewing God as a child's magician?

 

[tas8831]

Your belief that God and Scripture are liars is noted, however insane and baseless it may be.

Evidence that not believing ancient tales with no corroboration is baseless and insane?

I'm betting that you have nothing.As is the norm.

 

[dad]

I give up

Soon as it sinks in that your beliefs cannot be used on all the evidences to get the outcome you want...boom. Ha

 

[dad]

Evidence that not believing ancient tales with no corroboration is baseless and insane?

I'm betting that you have nothing.As is the norm.

Compared to God's account, the story of where we came from dished out by 'science' is crazy. When we realize there is no knowledge of a first life form that they claim, or why or how their little creator hot soup speck singularity came from, or what laws it operated under at first...yes it is truly insanity. Madness. Then we look at the basis for stars millions of years away..more unsupportable belief based story telling. Then we look at the basis for claiming all life on earth is related by birth, and we see the same state past underpins it all.

When asked to at least solidly evidence that there was this same nature/laws on earth in the past we get shrill cries of 'oh no, we have no burden of proof, we can use beliefs as science, and anyone who disagrees is unscientific'.

The fables produced by intellectual and spiritual sycophants of so called science really are bizarre and unhinged from history and Scripture records.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Soon as it sinks in that your beliefs cannot be used on all the evidences to get the outcome you want...boom. Ha

Sorry dad, you lose, at least until you can understand the difference between knowledge and belief.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Compared to God's account, the story of where we came from dished out by 'science' is crazy. When we realize there is no knowledge of a first life form that they claim, or why or how their little creator hot soup speck singularity came from, or what laws it operated under at first...yes it is truly insanity. Madness. Then we look at the basis for stars millions of years away..more unsupportable belief based story telling. Then we look at the basis for claiming all life on earth is related by birth, and we see the same state past underpins it all.

When asked to at least solidly evidence that there was this same nature/laws on earth in the past we get shrill cries of 'oh no, we have no burden of proof, we can use beliefs as science, and anyone who disagrees is unscientific'.

The fables produced by intellectual and spiritual sycophants of so called science really are bizarre and unhinged from history and Scripture records.

If you want to claim that the Bible is "God's account" the burden of proof is upon you. Until then it is just a book of myths.

 

[tas8831]

Compared to God's account, the story of where we came from dished out by 'science' is crazy.

Right. Because people poofing out of dust and the like is totally believable...

When we realize there is no knowledge of a first life form that they claim, or why or how their little creator hot soup speck singularity came from, or what laws it operated under at first...yes it is truly insanity. Madness.

Ah, so you must have intimate detailed knowledge of the process by which Jehovah molded a pile of dust into a fully formed adult human male.

Let's have it!

Then we look at the basis for stars millions of years away..more unsupportable belief based story telling.

More unsupported assertions.

Then we look at the basis for claiming all life on earth is related by birth, and we see the same state past underpins it all.

More unsupported assertions. Counterfactual ones, at that.

When asked to at least solidly evidence that there was this same nature/laws on earth in the past we get shrill cries of 'oh no, we have no burden of proof, we can use beliefs as science, and anyone who disagrees is unscientific'.

Wow, grammar much? Not even sure what that was supposed to mean.

The fables produced by intellectual and spiritual sycophants of so called science really are bizarre and unhinged from history and Scripture records.

Says the desperado that dismisses all that he cannot understand by claiming that physical laws were totally different in olden tymes so as to prop up the tales of numerologists.


Like I said... nothing.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I neither made up creation or wrote Genesis actually. Science can't cover it and you have nothing to say.

What you did do, was use fallacious reasoning in an attempt to make your argument.
I'm still waiting for you to address that, instead of pushing the blame onto someone or something else.