The theists say theres a God&they ve tried to prove the existence of the God using various hypothesis,which the atheists always counter.
But till this day the atheist says no God&havent proven it yet.

Which God is the theist trying to prove? I ask because there are so many of them.

Romeo4real:

This statement is so typical of Atheist and Sceptics alike. [b]It is not even a legitimate question, not well thought through, and essentially self defeating. Lack of proof that something exists, is not proof that it does not exist. [/b]Moreover, there is enough proof there is a God, but they choose to ignore it

Very LAME. . . .Lack of evidence of something is evidence that it does NOT exist simple. . . .If you go around telling people that there are 12 elephants flying in the clouds who are responsible for lighting when every its raining, Then its up to you to show that such elephants exist or be ready to accept that your claims are completely bogus. . .What are the enough proof that god exists. . .Does your god exist point to it and show that it exist, pointing to other things shows that you really have no idea of what you are talking about. . . .At least an entity like god that is said to have human attributes and interacts in the world should have so much evidence to show that he exists no?. . .If god exist then prayers will be enough to show that he exists no?. . . .Any evidence to show that those that pray to your god for protection against harm are better protected than those that do not?. . . . 

Moreover, this kind of question opens them up to the same charge.

Can anyone prove why fingerprint patterns are so unique?
Can anyone prove why a recessive gene can suddenly become dominant?
Can anyone prove how the human eye evolved into the amazing organ it is today?
Can anyone prove the mechanism by which birds use the Sun, Star Constellations and the Earths magnetic field to navigate?

The things you have listed above have nothing to do with the failed god hypothesis. . .

The supreme being referenced in Genesis

thehomer:

Which God is the theist trying to prove? I ask because there are so many of them.

toba:

The supreme being referenced in Genesis

Which one? The one far far away that created by saying "Let there be. . . . " or the one close by that forms bodies and plants trees etc?

@maz(a)je -

Lack of evidence of something is evidence that it does NOT exist simple

A nonsensical statement. Argumentum ad ignorantiam -  claiming a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or is false only because it has not been proven true. No scientist in his right mind would make this statement.

I guess because there was no evidence in the 17th century to say that the Earth is spherical, means that it is indeed flat.
Or because there was no evidence otherwise 10yrs ago that there are only 9 Planets in our Solar System means that the planets discovered afterwards are a figment of the scientists imagination.

If you go around telling people that there are 12 elephants flying in the clouds who are responsible for lighting when every its raining, Then its up to you to show that such elephants exist or be ready to accept that your claims are completely bogus

A silly analogy. Scientists already know how lightning is formed, and can recreate in in a laboratory with ease. Scientists also know Elephants cant fly, and even if they did fly in a rain cloud, they would be electrocuted by the lightning. You can see why this is a silly analogy. 

Does your god exist point to it and show that it exist, pointing to other things shows that you really have no idea of what you are talking about

  Can you at least learn to use punctuation properly, and try to be coherent on a debating platform?

If god exist then prayers will be enough to show that he exists no?. . . .Any evidence to show that those that pray to your god for protection against harm are better protected than those that do not?

This is simple. There have been many scientific studies performed to measure the impact of prayers. Though they had different conclusions, here are quotes from some of them -

First Person Prayer Study (Meditative Prayer)
(1) "An example of a study on meditative prayer was the Bernardi study in the British Medical Journal in 2001.[8]  It reported that by praying the rosary or reciting yoga mantras at specific rates, baroreflex sensitivity increased significantly in cardiovascular patients". -  Bernardi L, Sleight P, Bandinelli G, et al. (2001). "Effect of rosary prayer and yoga mantras on autonomic cardiovascular rhythms: comparative study

(2) "A study published in 2008 used Eysenck's dimensional model of personality based on neuroticism  and psychoticism to assess the mental health of high school students based on their self-reported frequency of prayer. For students both in Catholic and Protestant schools, higher levels of prayer were associated with better mental health as measured by lower psychoticism scores." - Francis, Leslie; Robbins, Mandy; Lewis, Christopher Alan; Barnes, L. Philip (2008). "Prayer and psychological health: A study among sixth-form pupils attending Catholic and Protestant schools in Northern Ireland". Mental Health, Religion & Culture

(3) "A 2001 study by Meisenhelder and Chandler analyzed data obtained from 1,421 Presbyterian pastors surveyed by mail and found that their self-reported frequency of prayer was well-correlated with their self-perception of health and vitality." - Meisenhelder, Janice Bell; Chandler, Emily N. (2001). "Frequency of Prayer and Functional Health in Presbyterian Pastors". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 

Second Person Prayer Study (Intercessory Prayer)
(4)"A 2005 study published by The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine alleges evidence that eleven healers in a variety of "distant intentionality" (defined as "sending thoughts at a distance" modalities were able to remotely influence the MRI-measurable brain activity in chosen partners who were physically and electrically isolated." - Achterberg J, Cooke K, Richards T, Standish LJ, Kozak L, Lake J (December 2005). "Evidence for correlations between distant intentionality and brain function in recipients: a functional magnetic resonance imaging analysis". Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine.

Moreover, a 2003 levels of evidence review found some evidence for the hypothesis that -  "Being prayed for improves physical recovery from acute illness". It concluded that although "a number of studies" have tested this hypothesis, "only three have sufficient rigor for review here" (Byrd 1988, Harris et al. 1999, and Sicher et al. 1998). In all three, "the strongest findings were for the variables that were evaluated most subjectively." - Powell LH, Shahabi L, Thoresen CE (January 2003). "Religion and spirituality. Linkages to physical health". The American Psychologist

The things you have listed above have nothing to do with the failed god hypothesis. . .

- Err, it has everything to do with it. It shows you that lack of proof is NOT evidence. This is an elementary point in basic law. Here is what i listed again below:

Can anyone prove why fingerprint patterns are so unique?
Can anyone prove why a recessive gene can suddenly become dominant?
Can anyone prove how the human eye evolved into the amazing organ it is today?
Can anyone prove the mechanism by which birds use the Sun, Star Constellations and the Earths magnetic field to navigate?

If there is a "failed god hypothesis" because there is no "evidence" or "proof"(which isn't true), then please tell me why the above statements are true, though no one can prove why they are. We are not even close to explanations, talk less of proof!

Romeo4real:

@maz(a)je -
A nonsensical statement. Argumentum ad ignorantiam -  claiming a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or is false only because it has not been proven true. No scientist in his right mind would make this statement.

God exists and your objective evidence for this statement is what?. . . .Of course gods exist and the FACT is they were all created by men. . .All gods can be shown to have evolved from primitive men and their superstitions. . .NO god can be shown to exist on his own without/independent of what men choose to write about such god/gods what men say about such god/gods and what qualities, behaviors or emotions men chose to ascribe to their various gods. . .NoO god can be shown to exist on its own independent of what men have constructed about the gods. . . .

I guess because there was no evidence in the 17th century to say that the Earth is spherical, means that it is indeed flat.
Or because there was no evidence otherwise 10yrs ago that there are only 9 Planets in our Solar System means that the planets discovered afterwards are a figment of the scientists imagination.
A silly analogy. Scientists already know how lightning is formed, and can recreate in in a laboratory with ease. Scientists also know Elephants cant fly, and even if they did fly in a rain cloud, they would be electrocuted by the lightning. You can see why this is a silly analogy. 

If a person states that the earth is spherical in the 17th century then be should be able to provide evidence for his postulations for him and his postulations to be taken seriously. . . .Saying that god exist and not being able to provide a SINGLE objective evidence to show that he exist is very telling. . . .Of course gods exist but only in the imaginations of those that accept the hypothesis. . . .
 

Can you at least learn to use punctuation properly, and try to be coherent on a debating platform?
This is simple. There have been many scientific studies performed to measure the impact of prayers. Though they had different conclusions, here are quotes from some of them -

First Person Prayer Study (Meditative Prayer)
(1) "An example of a study on meditative prayer was the Bernardi study in the British Medical Journal in 2001.[8]  It reported that by praying the rosary or reciting yoga mantras at specific rates, baroreflex sensitivity increased significantly in cardiovascular patients". -  Bernardi L, Sleight P, Bandinelli G, et al. (2001). "Effect of rosary prayer and yoga mantras on autonomic cardiovascular rhythms: comparative study

(2) "A study published in 2008 used Eysenck's dimensional model of personality based on neuroticism  and psychoticism to assess the mental health of high school students based on their self-reported frequency of prayer. For students both in Catholic and Protestant schools, higher levels of prayer were associated with better mental health as measured by lower psychoticism scores." - Francis, Leslie; Robbins, Mandy; Lewis, Christopher Alan; Barnes, L. Philip (2008). "Prayer and psychological health: A study among sixth-form pupils attending Catholic and Protestant schools in Northern Ireland". Mental Health, Religion & Culture

(3) "A 2001 study by Meisenhelder and Chandler analyzed data obtained from 1,421 Presbyterian pastors surveyed by mail and found that their self-reported frequency of prayer was well-correlated with their self-perception of health and vitality." - Meisenhelder, Janice Bell; Chandler, Emily N. (2001). "Frequency of Prayer and Functional Health in Presbyterian Pastors". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 

Second Person Prayer Study (Intercessory Prayer)
(4)"A 2005 study published by The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine alleges evidence that eleven healers in a variety of "distant intentionality" (defined as "sending thoughts at a distance" modalities were able to remotely influence the MRI-measurable brain activity in chosen partners who were physically and electrically isolated." - Achterberg J, Cooke K, Richards T, Standish LJ, Kozak L, Lake J (December 2005). "Evidence for correlations between distant intentionality and brain function in recipients: a functional magnetic resonance imaging analysis". Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine.

Moreover, a 2003 levels of evidence review found some evidence for the hypothesis that -  "Being prayed for improves physical recovery from acute illness". It concluded that although "a number of studies" have tested this hypothesis, "only three have sufficient rigor for review here" (Byrd 1988, Harris et al. 1999, and Sicher et al. 1998). In all three, "the strongest findings were for the variables that were evaluated most subjectively." - Powell LH, Shahabi L, Thoresen CE (January 2003). "Religion and spirituality. Linkages to physical health". The American Psychologist

What have all these inconclusive results got to do with anything. . . .I live with both christians and non christians there is NO evidence at all to show that christians who pray regularly to their god for protection and help are better protected or helped from non christians despite the belief that god acts to help those that pray to him for protection and help from danger. . . .If there is a god that protects those that pray to him better than those that do not it will be self evident. . . .

There are a lot of studies that have been done by christians groups to measure the efficacy and it showed that prayers have NO effect at all on the subjects that were tested. . . .Here are just a few examples. . . .

For example, thisarticle  says:

     One of the most scientifically rigorous studies yet, published earlier this month, found that the prayers of a distant congregation did not reduce the major complications or death rate in patients hospitalized for heart treatments.

This article from March, 2006 discusses another study that confirms the same thing:

     In the largest study of its kind, researchers found that having people pray for heart bypass surgery patients had no effect on their recovery. In fact, patients who knew they were being prayed for had a slightly higher rate of complications.

If prayers work we wont be here having this conversation would we?. . . .Again is there any evidence to show that those that pray to god for protection are better protected than those that do not pray to any god for protection? Reality says that people that pray and those that do not pray suffer the same harm no?. . . .

Romeo4real:

- Err, it has everything to do with it. It shows you that lack of proof is NOT evidence. This is an elementary point in basic law. Here is what i listed again below:

Can anyone prove why fingerprint patterns are so unique?
Can anyone prove why a recessive gene can suddenly become dominant?
Can anyone prove how the human eye evolved into the amazing organ it is today?
Can anyone prove the mechanism by which birds use the Sun, Star Constellations and the Earths magnetic field to navigate?

If there is a "failed god hypothesis" because there is no "evidence" or "proof"(which isn't true), then please tell me why the above statements are true, though no one can prove why they are. We are not even close to explanations, talk less of proof!

All these "arguments" of yours are flawed because we are not talking about finger prints or recessive genes. We are talking about some entity that is alleged to have created the universe. . . .According to the hypothesis your subscribe to, that entity is male, speaks with a voice, displays human emotions, loves people and hate others, has a plan, love the smell of burnt animals, etc. . .Your evidence that the entity that created the universe (assuming that entity is just one) posses any of this attributes is WHAT?. . . .

I heard you saying on another thread that there is only one "true" god and his name is jehovah. . . .Your evidence that jehovan alone created the universe and not oneness of infinity is what?. . . . .Any claim that is made without any evidence can be dismissed with out evidence. . . . .

toba:

The supreme being referenced in Genesis

What is your evidence for this God's existence because the some of the stories in Genesis are contradictory and some are simply wrong.
Also, why should this God have preference over those that came before and after him?
How did you get the information about this God since there were no humans at that time to record the events?

All these "arguments" of yours are flawed because we are not talking about finger prints or recessive genes.

But we are. It is the same Being, who created Earth and the Universe that also created all that is contained within. If you deny his existence, how can you accept what he created. And the question to you is - If you do not accept God created the Earth, Universe and all contained within, then who did? Please elucidate us.

We are talking about some entity that is alleged to have created the universe. . . .According to the hypothesis your subscribe to, that entity is male, speaks with a voice, displays human emotions, loves people and hate others, has a plan, love the smell of burnt animals, etc. . .Your evidence that the entity that created the universe (assuming that entity is just one) posses any of this attributes is WHAT?. . . .

And your evidence that God did not create the universe is WHAT? Can you see the flaw in your argument perspective? You ask for proof of something, that no one, inc you has yet disproven. You ask for proof of a competing idea, whilst offering no proof of your idea.

Well, let me give you proof - The Earth as seen from space, the Sun, natural phenomena, the intricacies of the human body, looking at the night sky, the perfectly symmetrical beauty of a snowflake - All these are proof of a God, a Supernatural Being, a Creator.
I believe this God is Yahweh, Jehovah,  because i believe in the Bible; The oldest religious book in the world, and the Bible says so.
This Bible is my evidence. If you disagree, please show me a book or publication that vindicates an alternative solution. Show me a book or publication, fraudulent or not, that vindicates your belief  about who who created the Universe and everything it. So far, for all your arguments, you are yet to put forward a clear, concise, irrefutable argument or statement about this.

I heard you saying on another thread that there is only one "true" god and his name is Jehovah. . . .Your evidence that Jehovah alone created the universe and not oneness of infinity is what?.

Oneness of Infinity? What a ridiculous statement. Again, please show anywhere it states that a "Oneness of Infinity" created the Universe? And what about the living things, plants, animals, microorganisms, the bacteria your gut, without which you would not be alive, natural phenomena that makes the earth sustain itself, did the "Oneness of Infinity" create them too?

Any claim that is made without any evidence can be dismissed with out evidence. . . . .

Well, since you keep making this statement, i guess it must be overarching and absolute. That means it should also apply to your "Oneness of Infinity" assertion. Please show me the evidence.

And whilst we are at it, why cant you offer an explanation for the conundrums below?. Since "Any claim that is made without any evidence can be dismissed with out evidence."

Can anyone prove why fingerprint patterns are so unique?
Can anyone prove why a recessive gene can suddenly become dominant?
Can anyone prove how the human eye evolved into the amazing organ it is today?
Can anyone prove the mechanism by which birds use the Sun, Star Constellations and the Earths magnetic field to navigate?

I dnt think so. Even dawkins&darwin couldnt have claimed to have answers to ur questions Romeo

Romeo4real:

But we are. It is the same Being, who created Earth and the Universe that also created all that is contained within. If you deny his existence, and can you accept what he created. And the question to you is - If you do not accept God created the Earth, Universe and all contained within, then who did? Please elucidate us.

Why just one being? Why not so many beings?. . . .He created, why not they? You have no evidence for what you are saying do you?. . . .Why should any body believe you? What can be claimed without evidence surely can also be dismissed without evidence. . . . . .

And your evidence that God did not create the universe is WHAT? Can you see the flaw in your argument perspective? You ask for proof of something, that no one, inc you has dis proven. You ask for proof of a competing idea, whilst offering no proof of your idea.

Verifiable evidence shows that non of the gods I know(including yours) created the universe, The way your god created the universe is written in the book of genesis and that account is wrong. . . .Verifiable evidence says that the universe could NOT have been created that way. . .Little wonder why christians that know much about cosmology discard it and say that it is an allegory. . . .

Well, let me give you proof - The Earth as seen from space, the Sun, natural phenomena, the intricacies of the human body, looking at the night sky, the perfectly symmetrical beauty of a snowflake - All these are proof of a God, a Supernatural Being, a Creator.
I believe this God is Yahweh, Jehovah,  because i believe in the Bible; The oldest religious book in the world, and the Bible says so.
This Bible is my evidence. If you disagree, please show me a book or publication that vindicates an alternative solution. Show me a book or publication, fraudulent or not, that vindicates your belief  about who who created the Universe and everything it. So far, for all your arguments, you are yet to put forward a clear, concise, irrefutable argument or statement about this.

The earth, the sun, human etc are all evidence for themselves and the environment. The bible is NOT the oldest religious book in the world. . . .Everything know boils down to your belief as usual, eh?. . . .Its good to hold unto these beliefs any way. . . . .After all they are just beliefs. . . .There are lots of creation stories out there from various religions all claiming that their god/goddesses created the universe. . . .if we are to go by the creation story in genesis then it shows that the god of the bible did not create the universe, because verifiable and observable evidence goes against the creation account in the book of genesis. . . .

Oneness of Infinity? What a ridiculous statement. Again, please show anywhere it states that a "Oneness of Infinity" created the Universe? And what about the living things, plants, animals, microorganisms, the bacteria your gut, without which you would not be alive, natural phenomena that makes the earth sustain itself, did the "Oneness of Infinity" create them too?

Deepsight over to you. . . .

Well, since you keep making this statement, i guess it must be overarching and absolute. That means it should also apply to your "Oneness of Infinity" assertion. Please show me the evidence.

There is a guy here, who like you claims that his god(oneness of infinity) alone created the universe. . . .All these things are assertions, and they are just asserted with out any evidence at all. . . .

I live with both Christians and non Christians there is NO evidence at all to show that Christians who pray regularly to their god for protection and help are better protected or helped from non Christians despite the belief that god acts to help those that pray to him for protection and help from danger. . . .If there is a god that protects those that pray to him better than those that do not it will be self evident

The problem is, i base my arguments on my acceptance of the Bible, and my belief in its premise. You base your argument on nothing but conjecture, assumption and presuppositions. This does not necessarily mean that i am right and you are wrong, however, it means means i have a foundation to launch my arguments from, whilst you have, well, nothing.

Back to using the Bible as a launching pad to buttress my arguments, and this is what the Bible says on the issue you highlight -

The efficacy of Prayer is inextricably linked to righteousness, and living according to the word of God. The Bible makes this abundantly clear.
Praying to God for a particular outcome is based on a clear and precise premise -
(1)The person praying must be living according to Gods word (2)The prayer, or the outcome desired must be according to will of God.  Subsequently, just because you call yourself a Christian does not mean you are living according to the word of God, and even if you were, it has to be in the will of God. This is the premise for effective prayer - but you should have known that.

mazaje:

Verifiable evidence shows that non of the gods I know(including yours) created the universe, The way your god created the universe is written in the book of genesis and that account is wrong. . . .Verifiable evidence says that the universe could NOT have been created that way. . .Little wonder why christians that know much about cosmology discard it and say that it is an allegory. . . .

Can you please expatiate on this "verifiable evidence" please?

Romeo4real:

The problem is, i base my arguments on my acceptance of the Bible, and my belief in its premise. You base your argument on nothing but conjecture, assumption and presuppositions. This does not necessarily mean that i am right and you are wrong, however, it means means i have a foundation to launch my arguments from, whilst you have, well, nothing.

OK. . . . .

Back to using the Bible as a launching pad to buttress my arguments, and this is what the Bible says on the issue you highlight -

The efficacy of Prayer is inextricably linked to righteousness, and living according to the word of God. The Bible makes this abundantly clear.
Praying to God for a particular outcome is based on a clear and precise premise -
(1)The person praying must be living according to Gods word (2)The prayer, or the outcome desired must be according to will of God.  Subsequently, just because you call yourself a Christian does not mean you are living according to the word of God, and even if you were, it has to be in the will of God. This is the premise for effective prayer - but you should have known that.

Am sorry but what you are saying is that the efficacy of prayers can not be measured at all with your "God's will" argument. . . .When a person prays for healing and gets well, God will be quickly interjected. . .If the person does not get well, then another explanation will be given as to why God did not act to save or heal the person. . . .This hypothesis does no work at all, Anything can be claimed using this method of approach. . . . .Belief in God is the ONLY condition that was given by Jesus in the bible for prayers to work not God's will or living according to the word of God as you will like to have us believe. . . . .

davidylan:

Can you please expatiate on this "verifiable evidence" please?

Do u want mazaje to run away?

mazaje:

Am sorry but what you are saying is that the efficacy of prayers can not be measured at all with your "God's will" argument. . . .When a person prays for healing and gets well, God will be quickly interjected. . .If the person does not get well, then another explanation will be given as to why God did not act to save or heal the person. . . .This hypothesis does no work at all, Anything can be claimed using this method of approach

That's because you didnt understand what Romeo said at all. Try again.

mazaje:

. . . . .Belief in God is the ONLY condition that was given by Jesus in the bible for prayers to work not God's will or living according to the word of God as you will like to have us believe. . . . .

That's just st.upid.

To start with, when you're living OUTSIDE God's will/word, then your prayer is no better than a random stranger begging your father for tuition fees. I'm sure your father regards being his biological child as a compeling condition for him to send a fellow to school right?

Here is what Christ had to say - Luke 17:6 And the Lord said, If ye had faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye might say unto this sycamine tree, Be thou plucked up by the root, and be thou planted in the sea; and it should obey you.

So the condition for asking and recieving here is to "have faith" . . . but where does faith come from? Thin air?

Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Secondly . . . here is apostle James - James 4: 3 Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts.

noetic17:

Do u want mazaje to run away?

lol I just wanted him to show us this "verifiable evidence" he keeps crying about.

davidylan:

Can you please expatiate on this "verifiable evidence" please?

When I say verifiable evidence i mean observable evidence, That is evidence that we see. The genesis creation account begins by saying how God created the heavens and the earth in 6 days, by giving a detail account of how the universe was created. For example it states that the earth was created before the sun, but observable and verifiable evidence (from space telescopes) shows that the earth can not be created before the sun since the sun's gravitational pull is what holds our planet, other planetary bodies and other planets in orbit. . . .New stars that are being studied always come first before the planets that orbit them from observation carried out by space telescopes like the hubble and kepler space observatories. . . .

According to the genesis creation account the sun, the moon and the stars were all created on the same day some days after the earth was created. Observable evidence from space observatories shows that there are first generation stars which are much more older than our star and other stars, Observable evidence shows that there are many stars which are much older than our own star(sun), and observable evidence shows that the sun is MUCH older than the earth . . . . .Its not surprising that most christian cosmologist declare that the genesis creation story is an allegory. . . .

davidylan:

That's because you didnt understand what Romeo said at all. Try again.

I very well understood what he was saying. . . . .

That's just st.upid.

To start with, when you're living OUTSIDE God's will/word, then your prayer is no better than a random stranger begging your father for tuition fees. I'm sure your father regards being his biological child as a compeling condition for him to send a fellow to school right?

Who is talking about those living outside any god's will, I am talking about Christians. . . .Christians that pray to the christian God believe in him else they will not be praying to him, no?. . . . .A person first has to believe before he prays and so many who are living inside God's will have no evidence to show that they are better protected from harm than those that do not pray at all. . . . .I repeat if prayer works then we will not be having this conversation. . . . .

Here is what Christ had to say - Luke 17:6 And the Lord said, If ye had faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye might say unto this sycamine tree, Be thou plucked up by the root, and be thou planted in the sea; and it should obey you.

So the condition for asking and recieving here is to "have faith" . . . but where does faith come from? Thin air?

Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Secondly . . . here is apostle James - James 4: 3 Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts.

So faith comes by hearing the word of god?. . . .Actually most people that pray to Jesus are people that have faith and have heard the word of God, no?. . . .When has praying to God for protection against harm become asking amiss?

mazaje:

When I say verifiable evidence i mean observable evidence, That is evidence that we see.

Thanks for the explanation . . . but before we launch into the way too predictable thrashing of the bible, can you please explain the "verifiable evidence" that NO GOD created the earth?

This "observable evidence" would be able to tell us that something else besides a god created the earth right? Please tell us.

mazaje:

The genesis creation account begins by saying how God created the heavens and the earth in 6 days, by giving a detail account of how the universe was created. For example it states that the earth was created before the sun, but observable and verifiable evidence (from space telescopes) shows that the earth can not be created before the sun since the sun's gravitational pull is what holds our planet, other planetary bodies and other planets in orbit. . . .New stars that are being studied always come first before the planets that orbit them from observation carried out by space telescopes like the hubble and kepler space observatories. . . .

this argument, while sounding "logical" actually does not make sense.

1. If God created the earth (as Genesis says), it means that He is not subject to the laws of gravity and could create either the earth or sun first before including gravity as a means of keeping the earth in orbit. For instance, you may say that a computer cannot function without an operating system and thus a computer could NOT have existed before operating systems or vice-versa (based on limited knowledge today) . . . but we know that would not be factually true! A computer did exist before operating systems.

2. What "knowledge" of the earth that we know today is basically assumptions and speculation. For instance, to conclusively prove that the suns gravitational pull is essential to keeping the earth in orbit, you would have to eliminate earth's gravity first and see the consequences (that is how empirical evidence/data is collected in science), but NO ONE has done this! How are we sure that there are no other forces in play here?

3. Your reading of Genesis 1 is completely unobjective. You read it like it is a chronological story and thus follows the exact same order it was written. But that would NOT be true! For instance, verse 1 says "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" . . . but it doesnt describe the creation of heaven until verse 8! Does that mean 2 heavens were created?

mazaje:

According to the genesis creation account the sun, the moon and the stars were all created on the same day some days after the earth was created.

You have no evidence for that. What you basically are doing is reading the bible in order it was written and then forming a false conclusion from there. We do not know which was created first or last.

mazaje:

Observable evidence from space observatories shows that there are first generation stars which are much more older than our star and other stars

I'm sorry but we need to put a distinction between OBSERVATION, SPECULATION and EVIDENCE. All three do NOT mean the same. What you have just described here is a SPECULATION not evidence! When were the dates of births of these stars determined? How were they determined? By using telescopes? What a joke.

mazaje:

Observable evidence shows that there are many stars which are much older than our own star(sun), and observable evidence shows that the sun is MUCH older than the earth

how were these determined? Can you CLEARLY tell us how you KNOW WITHOUT A SHADOW OF DOUBT that the sun is older than the earth? when did you take sun samples to determine its age by carbon dating (which has been shown to be riddled with errors)?

mazaje:

. . . . .Its not surprising that most christian cosmologist declare that the genesis creation story is an allegory. . . .  

What is even more surprising is that they make this declaration based ENTIRELY on made-up speculations.

mazaje:

Who is talking about those living outside any god's will, I am talking about Christians. . . .Christians that pray to the christian God believe in him else they will not be praying to him, no?. . . . .A person first has to believe before he prays and so many who are living inside God's will have no evidence to show that they are better protected from harm than those that do not pray at all. . . . .I[b] repeat if prayer works then we will not be having this conversation. . . . . [/b]

Actually prayer does work, why you think it doesnt is because no one has put on a magic prayer show for you. The purpose of prayer is communication with God not to show off magical powers. Please see the sango priest for that.

mazaje:

So faith comes by hearing the word of god?. . . .Actually most people that pray to Jesus are people that have faith and have heard the word of God, no?. . . .When has praying to God for protection against harm become asking amiss?

and how did you verify this? you can read hearts now too?

@David -

Can you please expatiate on this "verifiable evidence" please?

This is Mazeje's favorite phrase. Yet, when compelled, all he does is keep putting forward the same flawed concepts and  theories that are constantly upgraded and subject to change

@Mazeje-

When I say verifiable evidence i mean observable evidence, That is evidence that we see

Ten years ago, we could only observe or "see" 9 planets in our Solar System. As of writing today, 4 more have been "discovered" , and out of those 4, two have been classified as planets. Does this mean they did not exist, because did not see them at the time? Can you see why "observable evidence" is not irrefutable and infaliblle?Why do you constantly base the premise of your argument on such a flawed concept?

The genesis creation account begins by saying how God created the heavens and the earth in 6 days, by giving a detail account of how the universe was created. For example it states that the earth was created before the sun, but observable and verifiable evidence (from space telescopes) shows that the earth can not be created before the sun since the sun's gravitational pull is what holds our planet, other planetary bodies and other planets in orbit. . .

Well, look at this -

Gen 1:3 Then God said, "Let there be light," and there was light - So we know there was definitely a light source before the "Sun" was created
Gen 1:4 And God saw that it was good. Then he separated the light from the darkness - " So we know there was Day and Night
Gen 1:5 God called the light "day" and the darkness "night." Together these made up one day. - This means that the Earth must have been revolving/rotating around a light source, otherwise there cannot be a "day" or "night"

So Mazeje, since we are only just learning that there may be up to 13 planets in our solar system, since we recently discovered 13 new moons of Jupiter, since we just discovered in1980, 3 additional Saturnian moons, since between 1997 - 2008, 12 new moons of Uranus have been discovered, since the nearest star to our Sun - Proxima Centuari was only "discovered" in 1915 - Is it possible, just maybe, we do not know everything about our Universe? Is it possible that "observable evidence" is only evidence of what is observable and not evidence of what exists? Is it possible that this definition thereby makes it a flawed principle to use in an argument about the Universe?

Mazeje, is it possible that, at some time it our Solar System's history, there were two Suns - a greater sun and a lesser sun? After all, we know of other Solar Systems with 2 Suns. Is it possible? Based on "observable evidence", we can now surely prove,  that not what we observe now is all there is. Can you empirically refute this idea?- given that we are constantly finding out new things?

You should ponder on all these questions - and come back with answers. It is no longer acceptable that you contend, deride and refute others opinions, whilst not putting anything coherent forward. Your "observable evidence" mantra has run its course.

You have no evidence for what you are saying do you?. . . .Why should any body believe you?

Nobody has to believe me, and I believe I have more evidence of my theory, than you do of yours. Again, please inform us on your stance on who or what created the universe, earth, and everything in it - then please provide evidence the to support your viewpoint.

What can be claimed without evidence surely can also be dismissed without evidence. . . . .

I have already dealt with this statement many times. Repeating it does not it viable or sensible statement.

Verifiable evidence shows that non of the gods I know(including yours) created the universe

Again, Please show me this "verifiable evidence", or at least explain it. Last time I checked, you were stuck at a “Singularity” and could go no further. all the evidence shows is that it was created. Science has been at a loss to explain the "whodunnit".

The way your god created the universe is written in the book of genesis and that account is wrong. . . .

I do not contest that the account is wrong or right – as it makes no difference to the premise. Again, I have dealt with this earlier using Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and Einstein’s Theory of Relativity as examples

Verifiable evidence says that the universe could NOT have been created that way

See above

The earth, the sun, human etc are all evidence for themselves and the environment.

What does this mean? Listen to yourself. You are evidence of yourself? If that is so, let us expound the principle of the formless idea. Who are you? Your body?  Your brain?, Your thoughts? Your consciousness? If you are evidence or yourself, what caused you to “be”?
Did you spontaneously occur, or do you ascribe your occurrence to evolution?  And what about the First Cause, or the Uncaused Caused? Can you see how your argument is quickly becoming invalid?

The bible is NOT the oldest religious book in the world. . . .

Err, yes it is. Note I said “religious book”, and not “religious text”

Everything know boils down to your belief as usual, eh?. . . .Its good to hold unto these beliefs any way. . . . .After all they are just beliefs. . . .There are lots of creation stories out there from various religions all claiming that their god/goddesses created the universe. . .

Not just my beliefs, but my beliefs based on the Bible, and a personal relationship with God. Do not evade, please answer the pertinent question. I have challenged you, and so far you have failed. Here it is again –

If you disagree, please show me a book or publication that vindicates your alternative solution. Show me a book or publication, fraudulent or real, that vindicates your belief about who who created the Universe and everything it. So far, for all your arguments, you are yet to put forward a clear, concise, irrefutable argument or statement about this.

davidylan:

Thanks for the explanation . . . but before we launch into the way too predictable thrashing of the bible, can you please explain the "verifiable evidence" that NO GOD created the earth?

Verifiable evidence that No God created the earth?. . .I can only point to what ever creation account is given to me and show how it does not add up to the verifiable evidence that we see around. . . . .

This "observable evidence" would be able to tell us that something else besides a god created the earth right? Please tell us.

The observable evidence are there for everybody to study and compare with any creation account he/she wants to compare with and make his conclusions. . . .

this argument, while sounding "logical" actually does not make sense.

1. If God created the earth (as Genesis says), it means that He is not subject to the laws of gravity and could create either the earth or sun first before including gravity as a means of keeping the earth in orbit. For instance, you may say that a computer cannot function without an operating system and thus a computer could NOT have existed before operating systems or vice-versa (based on limited knowledge today) . . . but we know that would not be factually true! A computer did exist before operating systems.

Actually it makes sense. . . .You just accused me of speculations but here you are doing the same thing, you are just speculating and saying what the bible does not even say? Your argument looks logical on first glance but fall flat when examined closely. . . .If the earth was created before the sun, there the earth's age will be older than that of the sun, no?. . . .If the earth was created before all the other stars, then there will be a way of knowing this because the earth will surely be older than the stars when measured? But the sun is  much older than the earth when measured. . . .How did a computer exist before an operating system when we know that without the operating system, a computer is useless?

2. What "knowledge" of the earth that we know today is basically assumptions and speculation. For instance, to conclusively prove that the suns gravitational pull is essential to keeping the earth in orbit, you would have to eliminate earth's gravity first and see the consequences (that is how empirical evidence/data is collected in science), but NO ONE has done this! How are we sure that there are no other forces in play here?

The knowledge of the earth we know are NOT mere assumptions and speculations, They are observable and verifiable. . .Your analogy is incorrect because that is NOT the only way empirical evidence/data is collected in science. . . .Things are theorized, and these things have been very carefully theorized and observed. . . .These has been observed in asteroids. . . .Gravitational tugs, orbital collisions, and interstellar jostles occasionally perturb an asteroid or comet onto a wayward path and pushes them against themselves or other planets. . . .If the same happens to the planets, then they will also go off course. . . .  

3. Your reading of Genesis 1 is completely unobjective. You read it like it is a chronological story and thus follows the exact same order it was written. But that would NOT be true! For instance, verse 1 says "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" . . . but it doesnt describe the creation of heaven until verse 8! Does that mean 2 heavens were created?

What is this? I thought the heavens there means heavenly bodies(stars and other planets)?

You have no evidence for that. What you basically are doing is reading the bible in order it was written and then forming a false conclusion from there. We do not know which was created first or last.

I do. . .Its all in the genesis account. . .

Gen 1: 14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
Gen 1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
Gen 1:16 A[b]nd God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also[/b].
Gen 1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that [it was] good.
Gen 1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

According to this account all the stars, and the moon were created on the 4th day, days after the earth was created. . . .Observable evidence says that this account is false. . . because there are stars that are much older then our own star and our own sun. . . .

I'm sorry but we need to put a distinction between OBSERVATION, SPECULATION and EVIDENCE. All three do NOT mean the same. What you have just described here is a SPECULATION not evidence! When were the dates of births of these stars determined? How were they determined? By using telescopes? What a joke.

I truly wonder why you go around crying that you are a scientist when you make such comments. . . .WHERE is your own method of measurement that says that the earth and the sun are the same age?. . . .Pls try and educate yourself on how these measurements are carried out. . . .You know nothing about cosmology but here you are dismissing things that you don't even know. . .It is the same speculations and observations that the scientist used to fly out to space, send themselves to the moon, send machines to other planets, keep observatories and an international space station hanging out there in space, no? Your measurement that shows that their measurement are nothing but speculation is WHAT? You are trying to belittle the achievement of people that used the same principle in going to the moon over what? When you don't even know anything about their studies. . . . .Your statement is as stupi.d and as ridiculous as saying that cells are observed and studied using microscopes. . . .You my friend are trying to hard. . . .

how were these determined? Can you CLEARLY tell us how you KNOW WITHOUT A SHADOW OF DOUBT that the sun is older than the earth? when did you take sun samples to determine its age by carbon dating (which has been shown to be riddled with errors)?

YES. . .The earth is MUCH older than the earth . . . .Who told you that carbon dating is what is used in determining the age of the sun? . . . .It;s really funny that you go around parading yourself as a scientist. . . . . . . . .It will be good to educate yourself about how these measurements are done instead of dismissing things that you do NOT even know at all. . . .

What is even more surprising is that they make this declaration based ENTIRELY on made-up speculations.

Yeah, speculations that enable people to visit space, send men to the moon, collect samples from asteroids, build space stations and send observatories millions of miles away form the earth. . . .I will take that speculation any day before any bogus claim that says that the earth was created before the stars and our the sun. . . . .My friend you are trying to hard. . . .

Romeo4real:

@Mazeje-  Ten years ago, we could only observe or "see" 9 planets in our Solar System. As of writing today, 4 more have been "discovered" , and out of those 4, two have been classified as planets. Does this mean they did not exist, because did not see them at the time? Can you see why "observable evidence" is not irrefutable and infaliblle?Why do you constantly base the premise of your argument on such a flawed concept?

Your analogy is flawed because ten years ago, no body said that there were 12 planets in our solar system. . . .When you make a claim its up to you to back it up with verifiable evidence, no?. . . .If any body had made that claim 10 years ago, it will be up to him/her to provide evidence for it. . . . .

Well, look at this -

Gen 1:3 Then God said, "Let there be light," and there was light - So there was definitely a light source before the "Sun" was created
Gen 1:4 And God saw that it was good. Then he separated the light from the darkness - " So there was Day and Night
Gen 1:5 God called the light "day" and the darkness "night." Together these made up one day. - This means that the Earth must have been revolving/rotating around a light source, otherwise there cannot be a "day" or "night"

What is this nonsense?. . . . And the other planets when did they come into existence? Do the writers of the genesis creation myth know that the sun revolves around the earth? Why then did they say that the sun stopped moving around the earth in the book of Joshua?. . . .If the earth was created before the sun why then does the sun record an older age than the earth?. . . . .How do you separate light from darkness?. . . .Darkness is the absence of light, no?. . . .What is that light source you are talking about?. . . . .does it have a gravitational pull against the earth for the earth to rotate round it?. . . .Was it also responsible for holding the other planets in orbit?. . .   

So Mazeje, since we are only just learning that there may be up to 13 planets in our solar system, since we recently discovered 13 new moons of Jupiter, since we just discovered in1980, 3 additional Saturnian moons, since between 1997 - 2008, 12 new moons of Uranus have been discovered, since the nearest star to our Sun - Proxima Centuari was only "discovered" in 1915 - Is it possible, just maybe, we do not know everything about our Universe? Is it possible that "observable evidence" is only evidence of what is observable and not evidence of what exists? Is it possible that this definition thereby makes it a flawed principle to use in an argument about the Universe?

How does this support the genesis creation myth?. . . . .How does this support the hypothesis that Yahweh created the universe?. . . .

Mazeje, is it possible that, at some time it our Solar System's history, there were two Suns - a greater sun and a lesser sun? After all, we know of other Solar Systems with 2 Suns. Is it possible? Based on "observable evidence", we can now surely prove,  that not what we observe now is all there is. Can you empirically refute this idea?- given that we are constantly finding out new things?

Your analogy falls flat because It is NOT possible, If it were possible it would have been known. . . .If there were two suns in our solar system there would be evidence for the other sun. . . .It it died in a super nova explosion then we will not be here, if it cooled down then it will still be there. . . .How does this flawed argument of your support the hypothesis that yahweh alone created the universe?. . . .

You should ponder on all these questions - and come back with answers. It is no longer acceptable that you contend, deride and refute others opinions, whilst not putting anything coherent forward. Your "observable evidence" mantra has run its course.

You did not ask any question that is worth pondering on. . . .You only gave flawed and false assertions that can be easily dismissed for what they are. . . .

Romeo4real:

Nobody has to believe me, and I believe I have more evidence of my theory, than you do of yours. Again, please inform us on your stance on who or what created the universe, earth, and everything in it - then please provide evidence the to support your viewpoint.

You keep talking about you having evidence for your claims. . .Pls what are the EVIDENCE?. . . .I am yet to see you provide any. . . .

Again, Please show me this "verifiable evidence", or at least explain it. Last time I checked, you were stuck at a “Singularity” and could go no further. all the evidence shows is that it was created. Science has been at a loss to explain the "whodunnit".

Observable evidence shows that the genesis creation account is wrong. . .simple. . . .If the genesis creation account is wrong then, the people that wrote it are wrong and if the people that wrote it are wrong then their god, who is nothing but their own creation is wrong. . . .

I do not contest that the account is wrong or right – as it makes no difference to the premise. Again, I have dealt with this earlier using Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and Einstein’s Theory of Relativity as examples

One minute you are trying to lie through your teeth that the creation account is right, another minute you are not trying to contest if it is wright or wrong? Which one is it that you are up to?. . . Were you not the same person that was trying to say that the earth was rotating around some elusive light source before the sun was created?. . . .If you are not contesting that the account was wrong why bring up that flawed analogy to make sense out of it?. . . .

See above
What does this mean? Listen to yourself. You are evidence of yourself? If that is so, let us expound the principle of the formless idea. Who are you? Your body?  Your brain?, Your thoughts? Your consciousness? If you are evidence or yourself, what caused you to “be”?
Did you spontaneously occur, or do you ascribe your occurrence to evolution?  And what about the First Cause, or the Uncaused Caused? Can you see how your argument is quickly becoming invalid?

What is this nonsense? I am evidence that I exist. . . .You are evidence that you exist, the stars are evidence for the existence of the stars. . . .I exist independent of what you write or say about me. . .The stars exist independent of what we write or say about them, cells exists and and can be shown to exist independent of what people write about them. . . . Your evidence that your god exists independent of man made stories, ideas, myths, human culture and human societal acceptance is WHAT?. . . . .The moment you provide evidence for the existence of god independent of man made writings, myths and stories, I will begin to assume you have an idea of what you are talking about. . . .

Err, yes it is. Note I said “religious book”, and not “religious text”
Not just my beliefs, but my beliefs based on the Bible, and a personal relationship with God. Do not evade, please answer the pertinent question. I have challenged you, and so far you have failed. Here it is again –

If you disagree, please show me a book or publication that vindicates your alternative solution. Show me a book or publication, fraudulent or real, that vindicates your belief about who who created the Universe and everything it. So far, for all your arguments, you are yet to put forward a clear, concise, irrefutable argument or statement about this.

What is this?. . . .I disagree with the bible and its creation account. . . .What do you mean by an alternative solution, I wasn't proposing an alternative solution was I. . . .The OP said that the god of the bible created the universe, i asked for his evidence and he said it is found in the bible. . . .The creation account in the bible has been shown to be bogus, I have never said that I know what created the universe have I? You on the other hand said that you know what created the universe, You said that that things is a who, the who is a male, it has human attributes and displays emotions. . . .Its now up to you to show that what ever created the universe is male, has human attributes and likes the smell of burnt animals. . . .

davidylan:

Actually prayer does work, why you think it doesnt is because no one has put on a magic prayer show for you. The purpose of prayer is communication with God not to show off magical powers. Please see the sango priest for that.

Those that pray for safety when embarking on a journey or those that pray for healing are doing what?. . . . . .Are they not expecting some magical healing or guidance when harm comes there way?. . . .

and how did you verify this? you can read hearts now too?

Why pray when you do not believe in it?. . . .

I can only point to what ever creation account is given to me and show how it does not add up to the verifiable evidence that we see around. . . . .

So your evidence is that someone else's evidence does not add up?  And we are spending our precious time  debating with you?

The observable evidence are there for everybody to study and compare with any creation account he/she wants to compare with and make his conclusions. . .

. Again, Please show us the observable evidence that says God did not create the universe and something else did. And stop using the account in Genesis as proof of this! Please!

But the sun is much older than the earth when measured. . . .

I need to put this spurious statement to bed once and for all. On what proof is this statement based? Is it based on the same scientific studies whose that are constantly being changed when new info comes to light?
The Earth's age – 4.54 Billion years, was calculated using by a combination of Carbon-14 and Radiometric age dating of meteorite material. The Sun's age is calculated at about 4.57 billion years old - using the same Radiometric Dating method. Note that this method calculates from meteorite samples from the Solar System, not from the heavenly bodies themselves. This method of dating is known to be greatly subject to errors and highly fallible. Subsequently, there is no clear scientific consensus that the Sun is indeed older than the Earth.

Moreover, the difference is well withing the error margin of Radiometric and Carbon Dating techniques. Even Wikipedia, which I don't like to quote says - “The exact age of Earth is difficult to determine.”, and  “Ca-Al-rich inclusions (inclusions rich in calcium and aluminium) – the oldest known solid constituents within meteorites that are formed within the solar system – are 4.567 billion years old,[8][9] giving an age for the solar system and an upper limit for the age of Earth”  This would put the Earth and Sun being formed around the same time.  So , enough of your erroneous statements.

According to this account all the stars, and the moon were created on the 4th day, days after the earth was created. . . .Observable evidence says that this account is false. . . because there are stars that are much older then our own star and our own sun. . . .

Well your “observable evidence” also shows that the Moon was indeed created after the Earth – just as the Bible says. How come you don’t mention this? And why do you keep going on about the account of Genesis in the Bible to support your assertions? I have already shown you how that premise is suicidal to your own notions.
How do you know this account of creation is not of our Solar system, rather than the Universe? How do you know if this account is correct or incorrect? How do you know if your current “observable evidence” is correct or incorrect?
Scientist are already revising their calculations for the age of the Moon based on new info. They recently revised their calculations for the age of our Solar Systems based on new info.

Mazeje, why do you constantly peddle spurious, unproven, and easily refutable info as fact here on these forums?

Can you CLEARLY tell us how you KNOW WITHOUT A SHADOW OF DOUBT that the sun is older than the earth?

Of course he cant - He cant, because even the science he slavishly follow cant. Moreover the dating methods used are known to be inconsistent and error prone.

YES. . .The earth is MUCH older than the earth . . . .Who told you that carbon dating is what is used in determining the age of the sun?

I am sure you meant the “Sun”. And Yes, Carbon 14 Dating was one of the methods used to date the Earth, in conjunction with Radiometric Dating, but they are both prone to errors. Moreover, the ages arrived at respectively are well within the margins of error – 4.54 to 4.56 Billion yrs, as opposed to 4.57 Billion to render the results inconclusive.

Romeo4real:

So your evidence is that someone else's evidence does not add up?  And we are spending our precious time  debating with you?

What exactly is your evidence mythical narratives that we written by men long ago? Men who do not even know what the stars are?. . .Is that what you call evidence?. . . .

. Again, Please show us the observable evidence that says God did not create the universe and something else did. And stop using the account in Genesis as proof of this! Please!

Even you are wise enough to know that the genesis account can not be supported by the observable evidence. . .Which god really created the universe? There are many religions with many god all claiming that they created the universe? Did your god alone create the universe? If he did then show us how he created the universe alone. . .The last time I checked the BOGUS genesis creation account was there to tell people how he created the universe. no? You said that your god called yahweh alone created the universe, it now up to you to provide evidence that him alone created the universe and not some other god called oneness of infinity. . . .

I need to put this spurious statement to bed once and for all. On what proof is this statement based? Is it based on the same scientific studies whose that are constantly being changed when new info comes to light?

It is the same new info that comes into light that shows that your own god's account of creation is BOGUS, no?. . .Little wonder your fellow christian cosmologist like William Craig and others all relegate the supposedly godly account of creation to the status of allegory. . . .

The Earth's age – 4.54 Billion years, was calculated using by a combination of Carbon-14 and Radiometric age dating of meteorite material. The Sun's age is calculated at about 4.57 billion years old - using the same Radiometric Dating method. Note that this method calculates from meteorite samples from the Solar System, not from the heavenly bodies themselves. This method of dating is known to be greatly subject to errors and highly fallible. Subsequently, there is no clear scientific consensus that the Sun is indeed older than the Earth.

OK. . . . .I know about this already, but it still gives us an idea of the difference in the age of the earth and the universe. . . .

Moreover, the difference is well withing the error margin of Radiometric and Carbon Dating techniques. Even Wikipedia, which I don't like to quote says - “The exact age of Earth is difficult to determine.”, and  “Ca-Al-rich inclusions (inclusions rich in calcium and aluminium) – the oldest known solid constituents within meteorites that are formed within the solar system – are 4.567 billion years old,[8][9] giving an age for the solar system and an upper limit for the age of Earth”  This would put the Earth and Sun being formed around the same time.  So , enough of your erroneous statements.

Where in all of these does it say that the earth was created before the sun?. . .Is that not what your god told people to write?. . . .Your evidence to show that the earth was created before the sun and all the stars that exist in the universe is WHAT?. . . .

Well your “observable evidence” also shows that the Moon was indeed created after the Earth – just as the Bible says. How come you don’t mention this?

Ohh ok. . .The moon was created after the earth, The bible got it right, that mean the bible is right, But the same bible says that all the the sun and stars were created on the same day with the moon, no?. . . . .

And why do you keep going on about the account of Genesis in the Bible to support your assertions? I have already shown you how that premise is suicidal to your own notions.

I keep going about the account in genesis because that is how the God who you keep saying he created said he created the universe, no?. . .The genesis account is said to be God's account of how he created the universe, If your God version is wrong, as observable evidence shows, why then do you keep, saying that he alone created the universe?. . . .

How do you know this account of creation is not of our Solar system, rather than the Universe? How do you know if this account is correct or incorrect? How do you know if your current “observable evidence” is correct or incorrect?
Scientist are already revising their calculations for the age of the Moon based on new info. They recently revised their calculations for the age of our Solar Systems based on new info.

Where does it state in the genesis creation account that, the account is only for the creation of the solar system? Why are other planets not mentioned in the alleged creation account?. . . .What about the existence of other planetary bodies, like asteroids, comets, dwarf planets etc. . .Did your god forget to include them in his solar planet creation account, if we are to go by your assertions?. . . .

Mazeje, why do you constantly peddle spurious, unproven, and easily refutable info as fact here on these forums?
Of course he cant - He cant, because even the science he slavishly follow cant. Moreover the dating methods used are known to be inconsistent and error prone.

True, the dating methods might be error prone or inconsistent but the still remain our best methods of knowing or having an idea of the universe around us. . . . Is there any better method of dating to be found in the bible or any religious text?. . . .

I am sure you meant the “Sun”. And Yes, Carbon 14 Dating was one of the methods used to date the Earth, in conjunction with Radiometric Dating, but they are both prone to errors. Moreover, the ages arrived at respectively are well within the margins of error – 4.54 to 4.56 Billion yrs, as opposed to 4.57 Billion to render the results inconclusive.

Ok. . . I know that they are prone to errors but they still remain our best dating methods for now. . . .