It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Tangerine
originally posted by: spy66
originally posted by: Tangerine
originally posted by: spy66
originally posted by: Tangerine
a reply to: spy66
You still haven't grasped that it's impossible to prove a negative. No, science doesn't have to prove you wrong. It's up to you to prove that your claim is fact. That's how it works. If you don't believe me, take a course in science.
.
I have not made any claims. Moses did. I have just stated how i understand genesis Chapter one when i read it.
If you cant read i bet you dont know science.
I am waiting for science to prove the claim false. Apart from that there is nothing you or i can do about the claim genesis makes. You can Call it a myth all you want, but it dosent change the fact that the claim is out there.
The evidence is backed up by the Word of God. You probably dont believe in God so even you have to wait for science to prove that the claim is false. You said that it is impossible to prove a negative. I gues you will never know if Your claim is true, You claim that genesis is a myth. Wouldnt you have to prove Your claim? Or are you in some way excused from your own rule?
You to are making a claim. But you dont see it that way at all do you?
Moses is a fictional character--unless, of course, you can cite contemporaneous documentation proving that he actually lived. I'm betting you can't.
No i can not prove that moses existed. I can only prove that the claim is out there.
You cant prove Your claim either. You can not prove that genesis Chapter one is a myth. Saying that it is a myth is nothing but a blind Guess from Your side.
Are you unable to comprehend that mythologists define the word "myth" as stories about supernatural deities? I've already stated that. Read that first sentence over and over until you understand it. In itself, it does not mean that the stories are fabrications. Need I define fabrications, too?
originally posted by: spy66
originally posted by: Tangerine
originally posted by: spy66
originally posted by: Tangerine
originally posted by: spy66
originally posted by: Tangerine
a reply to: spy66
You still haven't grasped that it's impossible to prove a negative. No, science doesn't have to prove you wrong. It's up to you to prove that your claim is fact. That's how it works. If you don't believe me, take a course in science.
.
I have not made any claims. Moses did. I have just stated how i understand genesis Chapter one when i read it.
If you cant read i bet you dont know science.
I am waiting for science to prove the claim false. Apart from that there is nothing you or i can do about the claim genesis makes. You can Call it a myth all you want, but it dosent change the fact that the claim is out there.
The evidence is backed up by the Word of God. You probably dont believe in God so even you have to wait for science to prove that the claim is false. You said that it is impossible to prove a negative. I gues you will never know if Your claim is true, You claim that genesis is a myth. Wouldnt you have to prove Your claim? Or are you in some way excused from your own rule?
You to are making a claim. But you dont see it that way at all do you?
Moses is a fictional character--unless, of course, you can cite contemporaneous documentation proving that he actually lived. I'm betting you can't.
No i can not prove that moses existed. I can only prove that the claim is out there.
You cant prove Your claim either. You can not prove that genesis Chapter one is a myth. Saying that it is a myth is nothing but a blind Guess from Your side.
Are you unable to comprehend that mythologists define the word "myth" as stories about supernatural deities? I've already stated that. Read that first sentence over and over until you understand it. In itself, it does not mean that the stories are fabrications. Need I define fabrications, too?
You dont have to do anything for me. As i said before i have no problem With you calling a claim a myth.
Its just that i dont understand how you can do so when you have no proofe. WHat if genesis is right?
Your claim will no longer be true. It is no longer a myth is it ?
originally posted by: spy66
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: rickymouse
Genesis does explain where we come from. The birds and all living creature in the sea come from the wathers.
All living Things that walk and creep on Earth comes from the Earth.
Science is trying to figure out how.
All life came from the water. It's not like that is a hard thing to guess either, 3/4ths of our planet is covered by it.
According to genesis. The first life started on Land. verse 11. And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: spy66
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: rickymouse
Genesis does explain where we come from. The birds and all living creature in the sea come from the wathers.
All living Things that walk and creep on Earth comes from the Earth.
Science is trying to figure out how.
All life came from the water. It's not like that is a hard thing to guess either, 3/4ths of our planet is covered by it.
According to genesis. The first life started on Land. verse 11. And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
Well I guess genesis DOESN'T support evolution then, because life came from the sea. Again most of the planet is covered by it.
The earliest possible physical evidence for life on Earth is biogenic graphite in 3.7 billion-year-old metasedimentary rocks discovered in Western Greenland[17] and microbial mat fossils found in 3.48 billion-year-old sandstone discovered in Western Australia
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: spy66
Is that supposed to mean anything? Just because it is on dry land now, doesn't mean that location was dry land when the organism was alive. In fact it is likely that those areas WERE underwater at the time.
originally posted by: spy66
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: spy66
Is that supposed to mean anything? Just because it is on dry land now, doesn't mean that location was dry land when the organism was alive. In fact it is likely that those areas WERE underwater at the time.
If so it still aint in conflict With genesis Chapter one. Earth was covered With water before dry land appeared.
Even science say that Earth was covered With water before dry land appeared.