[under one of Ray's posts claiming that atheists don't care about Cain's wife]
“(The Bible) gives us the basis for all creation, and it passes the scientific method, It’s observable – Genesis – and testable. Evolution is not. You can’t observe something 60 million years old, but you can observe what Genesis says.” Does this makes sense to you?
46 comments
but you can observe what Genesis says.” Does this makes sense to you?
And, I can observe what is written in the Harry Potter books. Harry potter must be observable and testable now. Harry potter is real!
What idiot besides you says one needs to observe something 60 million years old to validate evolution?
"you can observe what Genesis says."
Ok, so tell us exactly how "we can observe what genesis says"? And no, you can't just label everything we see "creation" and then say "look at the work of the creator".
"Does this makes sense to you?"
No, it doesn't. Not that I expect anything that Ray says to make sense, though...
"It’s observable Genesis and testable."
By observable, I can only assume you mean you can see it's written down. I have no idea what you mean by testable though. I do know that if the bible had repeatable experiments it would be a lot easier to verify.
That statement makes me feel like I'm talking to somebody who is completely wasted at a party and has no idea what the fuck they are talking about.
Edit: Also, wouldn't Cain's wife have to be his sister? Aren't you disturbed that all of the second human generation had to bone their siblings and/or parents? Creepy ass bible.
There is no refutation of Darwinian evolution in existence. If a refutation ever were to come about, it would come from a scientist, and not an idiot.
-Richard Dawkins
Hey Ray, any idea who the idiot is that Richard was referring to? Somebody told me you might know who that is...
Perfect example of religious donuttery. You can say something that seems sensible or you can say something that's complete gibberish, it matters not a jot, you're gonna come across as a barking loon anyway cos of sky fairies and love of silliness etc.
By your own logic, you'd have the same problem observing the seven day events of Genesis as you would evolution, because that happened thousands of years ago, according to you.
And in case you've never heard of fossils, things that happened millions of years ago did leave "observable" traces behind.
But one can't test it without falling afoul of Deuteronomy 6:16.
So not only does it not encourage scientific inquiry, but it also actively discourages it.
I can observe what "Gone with the Wind" says too so does that mean "scientifically" that it's a true story?
WTF is wrong with these people? Is it really possible that someone can be this fucking stupid?
"(The Bible) gives us the basis for all creation, and it passes the scientific method "
The contradictions in the Bible are not a result of different authors testing the validity of any hypothesis using peer review.
“(The Bible) gives us the basis for all creation, and it passes the scientific method, It’s observable Genesis and testable. Evolution is not. You can’t observe something 60 million years old, but you can observe what Genesis says.” Does this makes sense to you?
Yes, it does make sense; primarily because it is easily observed that there are two 'creation' stories in Genesis - a page apart. Also, carbon dating makes it easy to observe that the world is a lot older then 6000-10000 years old.
So yes, it does make sense that very little in the bible actually makes any sense when read critically.
Does this make sense to you?
Yes, the Bible passes the scientific method. With all the unicorns, dragons, demons, cockatrices and satyrs in the Bible it's apparent God is a bigger D&D fan than me. Which is humanly impossible and scientifically proven.
Genesis is testable. If you go through the dates and genealogies with a straightforward reading, you get a date for creation of around 4000 BC. If you use straightforward astronomy, the supernova SN1987a is measured by direct triangulation at about 170,000 light years away. So Genesis fails the test.
Now you have to start inventing stuff and making bizarre interpretations to squeeze out an earlier date for creation, and maybe you'll get 10000 BC. Then you have to invent stuff to squeeze out a later date for the supernova, like "the speed of light must have changed" and work backwards to solve for the speed that gives you the answer you want, or "there must be a space warp" or maybe "the light from the supernova echoed off some other body and messed up the calculations". Yeah - that's the scientific method all right, Dave [/sarcasm].
Does this makes sense to you?
To quote the Three Stooges: "That makes sense. Not to me, but it makes sense."
In the same way that the laws of physics for the My Little Pony universe make sense, yes. That is to say, it's blatantly out of touch with reality but I can see how those lacking -- or refusing -- knowledge on the subjects in question could believe such things were more than fiction.
I can read the book of Genesis. I have, in fact.
How is that an alternative to going back in time and observing abiogenesis?
We can't observe creation. We can read about it in the bible but that is not observing it. Only God Was there at the beginning (I'm being hypothetical here) so no one else observed creation. Yes we can observe the results but since we are not the original creations we can't observe how they came to be. The bible could be right or the first creation happened another way. Ether way its not observable.
Of course this shows creationist double standards. They need to see abiogenesis and since no one saw it they can deny it off hand. Yet for biblical creation they accept a translation of a translation of a story that started off being told by word of mouth, passed down from generation and might have been first told to Moses by God. We are to believe that in that long game of telephone that the bible is the same now as those first oral stories were. Yet we can't observe that.
scientific method ? genesis ? er, not so much.
you can observe what HarryPotter says by reading the book, does that make all books true ? if it does we are all in deep shit !
But the bible can't be right, because it says nothing about how Midgard was formed out of remains of Ymir. Obviously, only the Eddas can be true.
actually answer the damn question . It's almost as though they have no answer and are trying to change the subject.
@Dr. Razark,
For what it's worth, the usual answer that I've heard is that incest wasn't a problem back then because magic. Some of the more coherent creationists will try to claim that human genes have been decaying ever since the Fall, and that the "purer" genes would have been more okay with inbreeding. No evidence to back it up, and I'm pretty sure genes don't work that way, but that is what they say.
Oh sure, I can observe what Genesis says. I only have to open a bible. However, that doesn't make one word of that shit true.
As for creation being observable and testable - you either have no idea what those words mean, or you can soon expect to collect your Nobel prize. I wouldn't bet on the latter, though.
Out of the thousands of creation myths none of them seem to agree.
Out of all the physical evidence ALL of it agrees. It says evolution took place and the world is 4.6 billion years old. Also, bananas
"You can’t observe something 60 million years old, but you can observe what Genesis says.” Does this makes sense to you?"
If genesis was true, why is there still dirt? It doesn't make sense.
Actually, Cain's descendants (the ones who were supposed to have drowned in the flood but magically didn't if you read Genesis chapter 4?) are more of a headscratcher if you're trying to claim continuity for your favorite book.
Genesis 4: 20-21
And Adah bore Jabal. He was the father of those who
“(The Bible) gives us the basis for all creation, and it passes the scientific method, It’s observable Genesis and testable."
This is indeed, Ray's assertion. This is what he teaches and encourages his followers to adhere to. It keeps them locked into the myth and gives them an excuse to ignore the sciencey things.
It's easily debunked as it is only as testable and observable as any other fairy tale. After all, Jack cut the beanstalk down and the town burned it up and it happened so long ago somewhere anyway. This is a completely valid counter assertion to Ray's "just accept" premise. If he asks, which he's been doing it long enough to know the immediate response. " Do you believe in the Jack in the Beanstalk fairy tale?" I would respond (to him or his ilk) "Yes, disprove it, Giant, castle in the clouds, golden egg laying goose and all Ray, disprove it."
He can't, and he'd dismiss me and go off about his favorite fairy tale to others.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
