Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

Quote# 38567

Evolutionists claim creationism is not science because it is based on revelation. But if Genesis 1:1 is revelation, then there is a God and He did create all things. On the other hand, atheists say there is no God. Therefore, Genesis 1:1 is a conclusion based on human observation and is a legitimate scientific theory. Genesis 1:1 is scientific or it really is revelation. Either way evolution loses on both accounts

won4christ, Godtube 8 Comments [4/30/2008 10:24:06 PM]
Fundie Index: 8
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1
tehcrzy

or Genesis is a story and explains nothing.

5/21/2008 7:22:39 PM

v200

It was a time before science, in which they made some shit up about how we came to be.

7/20/2011 7:56:10 AM

Dr. Shrinker

Your first sentence is correct (aside from the neologistic term "evolutionist," but it happens so often I'll let it slide).

Your second sentence is based on pure assumption. How do you know that the source of this alleged revelation was, indeed, the god who created all things? It could have come from Satan, or some other lesser immortal being with a mischievous sense of humor. Even if it did come form the creator god, how do you know that said god was being honest? So far, you have nothing substantial to support your position.

According to Genesis there were no humans to observe anything at the time of the events of chapter 1, verse 1. Indeed, both creation stories have humanity being created well after the rest of the universe. The premise of your third sentence is wrong. You still have nothing to support your position.

Because you have given nothing of substance, the rest of your sentences are wrong. Oh, and by the way, evolution has the evidence. Evolution wins.

7/20/2011 8:12:06 AM

JohnTheAtheist

Genesis was the best explanation that the ignorant farmers could come up with at the time the bible was written. Fortunately the average 1st grader knows WAY more about science today than the most learned men did back then.

7/20/2011 8:18:11 AM

rubber chicken

An arguement that, if valid, would apply to any and all creation stories.
Fortunately, scientific theories don't work that way.

7/20/2011 8:52:46 AM

Quantum Mechanic

"revelation"

You didn't spell 'bullshit' correctly.

6/7/2012 12:45:32 PM



What about Genesis 2:1? It contradicts Genesis 1:1.

Atheists say there is no evidence for the existence of any deities.
Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, stupid.

6/7/2012 1:06:35 PM

Tempus

On the other hand, atheists say there is no God. Therefore, Genesis 1:1 is a conclusion based on human observation and is a legitimate scientific theory.

Except that the physical evidence we actually find does not match what we would observe if there had been a single, great global flood event a few thousand years ago, just as it doesn't match what we'd observe if this planet was created only a few thousand years ago.

Young-earth creationism was a perfectly valid scientific theory when we had little or no idea how the universe we lived in worked and no evidence that said likewise. It was decisively disproven more than a century ago.


6/7/2012 4:14:21 PM
1