hzcummi #fundie

hzcummi #fundie iidb.org

A Scientific Prediction from Genesis:

Besides myself, all other people that try to tell us what Genesis is saying do not understand the text, and are speaking from ignorance. I’m sorry to have to take this position, but there are too many false teachers and unqualified people talking about “creation\evolution debates” (when no such contest exists), and proclaiming false doctrines about Genesis, such as Creation Science, theistic evolution, progressive creation, and “gap” theories. There is even the fad of “Intelligent Design”, which is a big waste of time, and has almost nothing of value to offer.

...

I am now making this declaration, so that mankind may know that the words and events written in Genesis is true, and the humanist theories of our origins are false. I predict that secular science shall soon find, if they have not already, solid evidence of prehistoric mankind, which is earlier than 30 million years in age. The book “Moses Didn’t Write About Creation!”, states from Genesis that mankind has been in his present likeness for over 60 million years. Moses wrote about extinction and restoration.

38 comments

old comment by David B.

"I predict that secular science shall soon find, if they have not already, solid evidence of prehistoric mankind, which is earlier than 30 million years in age."

Actually, as you conveniently don't define 'soon', what you are actually claiming is that science will eventually find such evidence.

This claim is, of course, not falsifiable. Not matter how long or how diligently scientists were to conduct such a search, their failure would not disprove your claim, as you can forever retort, "Try harder!"

Congratulations on so cogently pointing out the difference between creationism and science. You believe you are right by default, based on negative criteria that can never be absolutely disproved. In comparison centuries of science has progressed by formulating tests that, if met, only slightly increase our confidence in a theory, but if failed, massively damage the theory's credibility.

What science has gained for us by a thousand cautious, tentative steps, you would dismiss with one grand pronouncement of your own divine, infallible judgement.

Not so much a Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot as a Whiskey-Alpha-November-Kilo-Echo-Romeo, then!

old comment by Anon-e-moose

"all other people that try to tell us what Genesis is saying do not understand the text, and are speaking from ignorance"

Question, hzcummy: what's not to understand about Biblical Cre(a)ti(o)nism?: that bats are birds, rabbits chew their cud, and there was a talking snake? Yeah, that last example alone is infintely more credible, yessiree! [/hyper-sarcasm] How could I - an Evolution-acceptingAtheist (due to Darwin ultimately being proved right, re. the shitloads of evidence since) - have been sooooooo wrong, and that you Cre(a)ti(o)nists are right?! Where do I sign up for this 'Religion' malarkey, and is the lobotomy included in the deal...?! [/Doug Piranha- levels of sarcasm]

...and as for that 'prediction' of yours, we're not holding our breaths, re. that one cummi-ng to pass.. Can you say 'Harold Camping', hzcummy? We Atheists can certainly say 'Boy Who Cried Wolf'.

And we're the 'Ignorant' ones? 'I predict that secular science shall soon find, if they have not already, solid evidence of prehistoric mankind, which is earlier than 30 million years in age', you say? Y'know, for a supposed Bible 'literalist', you're certainly making the pitch mechanism in Japan's Sapporo Dome (to be used in Tokyo's 2020 Olympics) - which moves on a 'cushion of air' outside the building - obsolete, never mind doing so re. it's goalposts. And there's me - an 'ignorant' Atheist - thinking that the entire universe was just 6,000 years old, according to you lot who claim to have the 'Truth'...?! [/Earth 4.5 billion years old; the universe itself being around ten billion years older]

So you admit that they're trying to twist old mythology. You then claim that it's not mythology but was scientific, and just like them, make another ridiculous appeal to it, doctoring it to pretend that it's history and science. Yet there was no science as we know it back in the Iron age, when those origin myths were written and compiled. It was never scientific and never will be. Science can help to put old scriptures in their perspective and context, however. For instance, we know today that there was no universal flood and that the Genesis flood story was adapted from an older one, before that monotheist movement that borrowed it. We know that moving all animals out of their habitat to a wooden boat, too big to hold together, too small to contain them, then displacing them back out there, is ridiculous. And that there is not enough genetic diversity with 8 individuals to repopulate humans, and that giving life to golems made out of clay with magic breath is impossible. We even discovered many facts about our origins. Denying them in favor of mythology is doing exactly what you were apparently condemning.