Who Wrote the Book of Genesis?

Phil Collins?

Originally posted by Great Big Stees
Phil Collins?

Was he an Egyptian?

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is obvious to anyone with even common sense that the Genesis creation account is the real one. The others, like those of the Egyptians, are rip-offs and distortions that don't make common sense. That is the same with all the flood stories that are rip-offs and distortions of the Genesis account.

The Egyptian creation myths go back to at least 3,000 B.C. long before the Hebrews existed. They certainly did not "rip off" the Hebrew creation myths. That claim is not historically credible.

King Tut

YouTube

Originally posted by RJHinds
King Tut

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvGHMvESWak

While that makes some sense as his father was Ahkenaten (the monotheist I mentioned in the other thread), he was a child king and was at the mercy of his advisors who were restoring all the other cults. Ahkenaten would make more sense, except this is all happening too late to be ready for Moses to write it down.

Originally posted by DeepThought
While that makes some sense as his father was Ahkenaten (the monotheist I mentioned in the other thread), he was a child king and was at the mercy of his advisors who were restoring all the other cults. Ahkenaten would make more sense, except this is all happening too late to be ready for Moses to write it down.

I agree that Moses would probably not write of events that came after his time. However, since I admit to not knowing much about ancient history, then I must leave the dating of such matters to the experts as long as it does not contradict with the Holy Bible,

Originally posted by RJHinds
... I admit to not knowing much about ancient history, ...

Well done! Good boy!

Why not follow with everything else you don't know much about.

...like biology, geology, cosmology, ... well, pretty much everything?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Well done! Good boy!

Why not follow with everything else you don't know much about.

...like biology, geology, cosmology, ... well, pretty much everything?

I obviously know more about them than you do.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I obviously know more about them than you do.

That's what you think. That's not what you show.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I obviously know more about them than you do.

Again being the comedian. You only know what your creationist buddies have fed you when you watch those video's and you THINK you are getting science. What you are really getting is duped, thoroughly duped.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Again being the comedian. You only know what your creationist buddies have fed you when you watch those video's and you THINK you are getting science. What you are really getting is duped, thoroughly duped.

I watch the videos, that is one reason I know more than you non-believers.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I watch the videos, that is one reason I know more than you non-believers.

You have provided ample evidence that this is not the case. The have been numerous times you have posted videos that are not remotely relevant to the discussion, and often times you even admit to not watching the videos.

For example, you recently posted this about a video that you linked to on page 13 of your poorly titled "Evidence For A Young Earth" thread:

"I guess I could have picked a different video than that one from Kent Hovind on "Lies in the Textbooks", but I found it very quickly also and I did not know that you were already aware of his teachings. However, since he was a high school science teacher for 17 years and collected science books, I thought this quicker video might be better. But it appears in this one he doesn't point out many textbooks with the known frauds that I was thinking about. Those must be on one of those real long 2 hour videow of his."

The fact that you frequently hide behind videos to make your points instead of making them yourself makes you an unserious debater. The fact that you frequently point to videos that you haven't even watched, but expect others to watch, makes you even more unserious, and bad-mannered as well. It is just one of the many reasons you are not taken seriously here.

Originally posted by PatNovak
You have provided ample evidence that this is not the case. The have been numerous times you have posted videos that are not remotely relevant to the discussion, and often times you even admit to not watching the videos.

For example, you recently posted this about a video that you linked to on page 13 of your poorly titled "Evidence For A Young Earth" th ...[text shortened]... , and bad-mannered as well. It is just one of the many reasons you are not taken seriously here.

In that case, I thought this video was one of Kent Hovind's that I had previously watched, but my memory failed me. However, I did watch it later. So it is true that I watched the video.

Originally posted by PatNovak
You have provided ample evidence that this is not the case. The have been numerous times you have posted videos that are not remotely relevant to the discussion, and often times you even admit to not watching the videos.

For example, you recently posted this about a video that you linked to on page 13 of your poorly titled "Evidence For A Young Earth" th ...[text shortened]... , and bad-mannered as well. It is just one of the many reasons you are not taken seriously here.

If he doesn't watch himself the videos presented by him, then what's the point?
That's not very genius, is it?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
If he doesn't watch himself the videos presented by him, then what's the point?
That's not very genius, is it?

Well, that video did mention lies in the textbooks concerning evolution. It just did not mention the titles of every textbook, etc. that I thought was there. But it is a known fact that textbooks have contained lies to support evolution.