Genesis & Science - Friend or Foe?

[shunyadragon]

Good science may still lead to incorrect data interpretation. That's the real issue I was encapsulating with "bad science".

Yes science can still lead to the incorrect data interpretation, as in the Fundamentalist Christian unethical misuse of science to justify a religious agenda. Yes, this is 'bad science.'

 

[viole]

Oh, that's wonderful to know that you thought wrong of me. Finally, someone I can say thought wrong.

Well, I don’t think so. You said you do not accept common descent, ergo you contradict the Bible. By your own admission.

Ciao

- viole

 

[tas8831]

I see no conflict between the account of Genesis, and good science. They get along quite well.
@Subduction Zone, I think you and others disagree. So I welcome your objections. Thank you.

You cannot understand good science - in fact, you go to absurd and dishonest lengths to denigrate it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I am not claiming ignorance at all. Where did you read that? Oh. It's how you read it.
Surely, it's nowhere near a lack of confidence, that I am expressing.
Amusing myself? Yes.


I did not say any of that, and you didn't comment all all I said, so maybe that would explain your comments.


I'm not sure I understand your questions, but I'm sure I don't have to tell you what is suggested regarding speciation.


Yes, I saw that from the beginning of your post.
No I am not ignorant, and no i understand what you hope i don't, and no, you have not taught me anything here.

A family is a family, no matter whay you call them.
Moving on.


Please explain the fossil record? Feinting ignorance again?
Moving on.


Thank you.


An example would be useful.
As far as I know, the fossil record never supported the evolution theory. However, the many hypothetical to support it does.


Two can play that game.
When the evidence do not support the theory, and one does not find what is expected to be found, brush that under the carpet, and form a hypothetical to explain how a lack of support for the theory, actually supports it.
Good science?


Is that what you believe. i'm sorry you believe that. that's sad.
You are the one making the claim, not I do not know of any good science that conflicts with the Genesis account, nor can I grab something out of thin air.


I am not aware of the physics that conflict, and I can't guess what's in your head.


I am more confused about your questions.


You seem more confused than you really think you are. Maybe you are confusing yourself, because you like to think of yourself as more educated, and that may be causing you to form an understanding for people, which they have not even said, nor suggested, but if it can look that way, then you look good.

I said none of what you suggested there.

The typical response of Big Diversion Creationism. You made a claim. Now you are following all the tactics to avoid supporting that claim. Everything I asked about should be easy for you to address, coherently, concisely and honestly, yet there is none of that. All sorts of diversionary tactics, attempts to switch the burden of proof, back-handed ad hominem, etc., etc., etc.

You have done everything I expected. If you respond to this at all, that response will not contain a shred of supporting argument that is your responsibility to provide following YOUR claims.

No one would consider me too intelligent if I got my cancer diagnosis from a carpenter, so why do you get your science education from a church with an agenda to deny science?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You cannot understand good science - in fact, you go to absurd and dishonest lengths to denigrate it.

His version of good science is science that does not effect what he believes about the Bible and all the secondary speculation of his church. Bad science is any science that does discredit what he believes about the Bible and all the secondary speculation of his church.

I know you are not expecting him to actually provide an argument in support of his claims about the harmony of Genesis and science, but just in case you had a teeny, tiny, itsy bitsy particle of hope, it is not going to happen.

 

[ecco]

I'm not going to argue with you SZ. You are not the first, last, or only person to mention the flood, so that alone is evidence this has nothing to do with what you are claiming.

So many of us have mentioned the Great Flood because it is a key part of Genesis and the easiest to refute.

Creationists argue about the length of "Biblical days". Some say a day meant the same to the authors as it does today. Some, in a sorry attempt to somewhat agree with science, state a day can be Millions or Billions of years. It's an exercise in futility trying to argue against either.

On the other hand, there is not much dispute about Noah, the Flood or the Ark.

If the entire globe was flooded some 4500 years ago, there would be evidence on all the continents of flood waters receding. There is None.

If the entire globe was flooded some 4500 years ago, there would be evidence in Arctic and Antartic ice cores. There is None.

When it comes to the Bible, science is not your friend.

If the entire globe was flooded some 4500 years ago, there would be genetic evidence that everyone alive today is descended from just seven people in the Middle East. There is None.




ETA Perhaps you could give of some scientific findings that support the Great Flood.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I agree with what you're saying here, but as you can see in my related post to you on this thread, I need to step back and ignore the more closed-minded forum members on these and other issues.

For example, regarding the Flood, what some call macro-Evolution, etc., for me it's "Man, I need to look at more data and more interpretations on both sides of the aisle" and not "No, no way--all the people on the other side are dishonest, self-deceived..."

I seek discussion with open-minded people. I don't ignore as you put it above "anything that conflicts with our beliefs" since that is dishonest, again as above, but I do ignore SOME of the attacks since they come as rhetoric from persons who are VERY closed-minded.

I'd call that stance effective, efficient, not dishonest.

Even if you claim they are closed-minded, but they provide valid information, that information should be ignored? How is that being open-minded? How is it open-minded to ignore them in the first place? Your new logic confuses me.

Outside of weak attempts to speculate fantastic causes or means, or raise well refuted claims, there is no argument or evidence that supports the occurrence of a global flood at any time during the entire existence of our species. It is not a question of interpretation, it is a question of denial due to fixation on a specific belief and a desire to see it as true no matter how flimsy the support and against valid and very strong evidence.

The same is true of macro-evolution. There is no denial of it in science, just discussion of the details and arguments over mechanisms.

You admit to being closed-minded and ignoring those that you consider closed-minded, yet seek the open-minded? Your new logic confuses me.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I used "bad science" as shorthand for "bad interpretation of the existing data from good science". I hope that helps--a lot of the places where you and I disagree is in modern theorizing regarding past, unobserved events requiring deductive, not inductive, scientific assumptions.

For example, some of the forum members believe in a universal Flood, some do not. I can't even respond to those who write sweeping statements like "there is NO evidence for a universal Flood" because there is evidence that can certainly be interpreted that way--but they don't want to discuss the possibility of such evidence being interpreted that way.

From all the interpretation I have seen, based on your qualification of 'bad science', it is creationists that are using 'bad science'. I would say that creationists go beyond even that, they make up just so stories and claim that they are true, while ignoring the data, that they reiterate as available to all.

Inductive reasoning is at the basis of much of the science that you deny as well as the science you do not. Observations that science analyzes and reports on are actual observations that scientists have made.

Based on the vast body of evidence, it overwhelmingly refutes the claim that there was a global flood anytime in the last several million years. No argument in support of the flood mythology has held up, except by belief and countless cycles of repetition.

An open mind would consider that. A closed mind will rationalize that away on speculation and desire or ignore that completely.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So many of us have mentioned the Great Flood because it is a key part of Genesis and the easiest to refute.

Creationists argue about the length of "Biblical days". Some say a day meant the same to the authors as it does today. Some, in a sorry attempt to somewhat agree with science, state a day can be Millions or Billions of years. It's an exercise in futility trying to argue against either.

On the other hand, there is not much dispute about Noah, the Flood or the Ark.

If the entire globe was flooded some 4500 years ago, there would be evidence on all the continents of flood waters receding. There is None.

If the entire globe was flooded some 4500 years ago, there would be evidence in Arctic and Antartic ice cores. There is None.

When it comes to the Bible, science is not your friend.

If the entire globe was flooded some 4500 years ago, there would be genetic evidence that everyone alive today is descended from just seven people in the Middle East. There is None.




ETA Perhaps you could give of some scientific findings that support the Great Flood.

Once they start re-interpreting the text, they are no longer supporting a literal, inerrant and infallible Bible. At least that is a start.

The very existence of the icecaps in their current condition and existing where we would expect them to be is evidence in itself against a global flood. A global flood would have destroyed the icecaps.

 

[Workman]

You crave of your not understanding, this was due to your belief. I will NOT answer! Of what you denied! Instead..I WILL leave You To DWELL in your belief as I dwell for mine. For many many times..GOD TOLD YOU, but it was you that did not LISTEN! So shall than your Dwell of your mistakes and cravings.

An open minded knows when to close it! A close minded doesn’t know to open it..And what will they do if they don’t open it? It stays closed..AT ALL TIME/COST! Showing by their denials, when one stays closed minded they start to create an imaginary BEST FRIEND for themselves for their ONLY TRUST!..It is also through a belief this friend becomes an actual truth and therefore it exists..and this was due to ‘blind faith’ because your friend is your DECEIVER!...ASSUMPTIONS.

You cannot fix the outside if you don’t know the fix of your inside.

Know to fix your insides first,
Therefore your outside cannot be broken!.

If you WILL NOT know your inside,
Than your inside WILL ONLY KNOW ‘WHAT’ is outside.

The hardest thing for you to do or know in life..Is your own self!

GOD is this Answer for this UNDERSTANDING!..and it’s all there in the Bible.

Don’t glorify me..BUT Glorify GOD (In) Him(SELF)

FOR I AM PROVED BY GOD!.

 

[nPeace]

I like how you guys like to always say you, and then add, don't know, or understand.

The above sentence makes no sense.

So, do you or do you not comprehend how good science works?

Let's start with something simple. Do you believe that geology is 'good science'? Do you think that geologists are capable of determining when and where local floods occurred based upon verifiable evidence?

Just a hint: IF you say NO then you've demonstrated that you have absolutely no concept of what 'good science' is and your entire OP is worthless.

Thanks for asking.
I was just about to address that.
So, science is a tool used by man in his efforts to find out stuff - stuff about how things work, etc. In some cases, they delve into the distant past.
I don't fault man for trying his best, and working with what he has, however limited it may be. Man can only work within his scope.

For this reason, I wouldn't want to refer to geology as bad science. However, if it involves making assumptions and then dogmatically asserting that they know the truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me... then I think he has gone a step too far He can keep that science. That's his business, and has nothing to do with me.
I don't see how that qualifies as good science.

There are certain principles followed by geologist. One is described here.
A fundamental principle of geology advanced by the 18th century Scottish physician and geologist James Hutton is that "the present is the key to the past." In Hutton's words: "the past history of our globe must be explained by what can be seen to be happening now."
...What we know of as Historical Science - using knowledge that is already currently known to tell the story of what happened in the past.

This dictionary gives two examples

1. 
   
   
   • An example of historical science is examining the bones of dinosaurs and evidence of a large meteor hit to the Earth millions of years ago to formulate an explanation of how dinosaurs became extinct from the planet.
   • An example of historical science is examining the bones of ancient creatures which have been dug up on land, but have the characteristics of an animal that would live in the sea.

We all know how these go. don't we?
For many years, paleontologists believed this event was caused by climate and geological changes that interrupted the dinosaurs’ food supply. However, in the 1980s, father-and-son scientists Luis (1911-88) and Walter Alvarez (1940-) discovered in the geological record a distinct layer of iridium–an element found in abundance only in space–that corresponds to the precise time the dinosaurs died. This suggests that a comet, asteroid or meteor impact event may have caused the extinction of the dinosaurs. In the 1990s, scientists located the massive Chicxulub Crater at the tip of Mexico’s Yucatán Peninsula, which dates to the period in question.
Many Theories, No Proof

We, or maybe I ought to say I, am not saying what man should do, to find out things in the past. It's his choice, he can do whatever he likes, but if one is going to dictate to me what is true, from what is not, then I want to see what can be verified to the degree that it can be called truth - not absolute, because I don't expect that, but not what amounts to one's best guess.

That said...
With regard to the flood account, I think many assumptions are made, which do not necessarily fit the Genesis account.
For example, persons assume they were continents, and the earth was exactly as it was today, with the mountains as high as they are, etc.
I don't know why those assumptions are made except that they believe their billion of years hypothesis is correct, therefore...

I don't see it that way. In fact, most who read the acount don't get that picture, and therefore the amount of water, and the geological structure of the earth present no problem for those who believe the flood account.

If however, you insist that your science is right, you will see a problem with the Genesis account.
I however, am not convinced that your hypotheses are right... and there have been quite a number of them, for just one "truth".

By the way, I can do some tracing of the past based on some of these principles.
How about this...
[GALLERY=media, 8925]Creation by nPeace posted May 22, 2019 at 12:19 PM[/GALLERY]
Today, we observe creation at micro levels, therefore there must creation at a macro level. Sounds good?

Speaking of which, let me get back to @Dan From Smithville and that conversation regarding the theory of evolution.

 

[nPeace]

Between a variety of mining operations and exploration for oil, gas, bauxite, coal, iron ore, uranium, etc. trained geologists would have seen some evidence for global flood. Are you a trained geologist?

I am not a geologist at all, but am I wrong to say that geologist make assumptions too, or are they exempt?

 

[sooda]

I am not a geologist at all, but am I wrong to say that geologist make assumptions too, or are they exempt?

You mean like they have a hunch about oil being under a salt dome? Yeah, but they have a million dollars riding on that hunch so they'd better know their geology.

 

[nPeace]

I didn't mention anything about philosophy in this context. I'm talking basic research, fact-finding, and a good knowledge through higher education. You seem to have the mistaken notion that faith requires us to lobotomize our minds and deny reason when it presents clear evidence that challenges our beliefs.

That is not what a true Biblical faith is. To deny reason's voice is not Biblical. That is a distortion of faith in the service of fear. It does not serve Truth. It serves yourself to keep you from faith itself.

"a good knowledge through higher education"
Isn't that a giveaway? What does higher education have to do with understand the Bible? Are you saying that a person needs higher education to understand the Bible?

 

[nPeace]

You mean like they have a hunch about oil being under a salt dome? Yeah, but they have a million dollars riding on that hunch so they'd better know their geology.

No, I don't mean a hunch about oil being under a salt dome. I mean assuming what the past looked like, or what may or may not have taken place. Do they make assumptions, or are they exempt?

 

[nPeace]

Well, I don’t think so. You said you do not accept common descent, ergo you contradict the Bible. By your own admission.

Ciao

- viole

I contradict the Bible? How so?

 

[QuestioningMind]

Thanks for asking.
I was just about to address that.
So, science is a tool used by man in his efforts to find out stuff - stuff about how things work, etc. In some cases, they delve into the distant past.
I don't fault man for trying his best, and working with what he has, however limited it may be. Man can only work within his scope.

For this reason, I wouldn't want to refer to geology as bad science. However, if it involves making assumptions and then dogmatically asserting that they know the truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me... then I think he has gone a step too far He can keep that science. That's his business, and has nothing to do with me.
I don't see how that qualifies as good science.

There are certain principles followed by geologist. One is described here.
A fundamental principle of geology advanced by the 18th century Scottish physician and geologist James Hutton is that "the present is the key to the past." In Hutton's words: "the past history of our globe must be explained by what can be seen to be happening now."
...What we know of as Historical Science - using knowledge that is already currently known to tell the story of what happened in the past.

This dictionary gives two examples

1. 
   
   
   • An example of historical science is examining the bones of dinosaurs and evidence of a large meteor hit to the Earth millions of years ago to formulate an explanation of how dinosaurs became extinct from the planet.
   • An example of historical science is examining the bones of ancient creatures which have been dug up on land, but have the characteristics of an animal that would live in the sea.

We all know how these go. don't we?
For many years, paleontologists believed this event was caused by climate and geological changes that interrupted the dinosaurs’ food supply. However, in the 1980s, father-and-son scientists Luis (1911-88) and Walter Alvarez (1940-) discovered in the geological record a distinct layer of iridium–an element found in abundance only in space–that corresponds to the precise time the dinosaurs died. This suggests that a comet, asteroid or meteor impact event may have caused the extinction of the dinosaurs. In the 1990s, scientists located the massive Chicxulub Crater at the tip of Mexico’s Yucatán Peninsula, which dates to the period in question.
Many Theories, No Proof

We, or maybe I ought to say I, am not saying what man should do, to find out things in the past. It's his choice, he can do whatever he likes, but if one is going to dictate to me what is true, from what is not, then I want to see what can be verified to the degree that it can be called truth - not absolute, because I don't expect that, but not what amounts to one's best guess.

That said...
With regard to the flood account, I think many assumptions are made, which do not necessarily fit the Genesis account.
For example, persons assume they were continents, and the earth was exactly as it was today, with the mountains as high as they are, etc.
I don't know why those assumptions are made except that they believe their billion of years hypothesis is correct, therefore...

I don't see it that way. In fact, most who read the acount don't get that picture, and therefore the amount of water, and the geological structure of the earth present no problem for those who believe the flood account.

If however, you insist that your science is right, you will see a problem with the Genesis account.
I however, am not convinced that your hypotheses are right... and there have been quite a number of them, for just one "truth".

By the way, I can do some tracing of the past based on some of these principles.
How about this...
[GALLERY=media, 8925]Creation by nPeace posted May 22, 2019 at 12:19 PM[/GALLERY]
Today, we observe creation at micro levels, therefore there must creation at a macro level. Sounds good?

Speaking of which, let me get back to @Dan From Smithville and that conversation regarding the theory of evolution.

For this reason, I wouldn't want to refer to geology as bad science. However, if it involves making assumptions and then dogmatically asserting that they know the truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me...

Glad to hear that you recognize geology as a legitimately 'good science'. And of course we have ALREADY gone over how legitimate science NEVER dogmatically asserts that they have the 'truth', because good science is ALWAYS open to changing its findings based on new evidence.

That said, since you accept geology as 'good science' and since ALL geologists agree that there is ZERO verifiable evidence for any sort of a global flood during the time when humans have existed, then you'll have to concede that your original claim that 'good science' backs up the scientific claims made in Genesis is simply not true.

Glad we FINALLY got that straightened out.

 

[viole]

I contradict the Bible? How so?

You claimed the Bible is not in contradiction with science. Ergo, the Bible must also support common descent. Unlike you.

Ciao

- viole

 

[nPeace]

For this reason, I wouldn't want to refer to geology as bad science. However, if it involves making assumptions and then dogmatically asserting that they know the truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me...

Glad to hear that you recognize geology as a legitimately 'good science'. And of course we have ALREADY gone over how legitimate science NEVER dogmatically asserts that they have the 'truth', because good science is ALWAYS open to changing its findings based on new evidence.

That said, since you accept geology as 'good science' and since ALL geologists agree that there is ZERO verifiable evidence for any sort of a global flood during the time when humans have existed, then you'll have to concede that your original claim that 'good science' backs up the scientific claims made in Genesis is simply not true.

Glad we FINALLY got that straightened out.

I like how you cherry picked my words.
Since they don't assert that that the flood account did not happen, and they stick to doing good science, of not making assertions that others here do, then we agree that the Genesis account does not conflict with good science. ...as in the case of geology and the flood account.
I'm glad that's done too.

 

[nPeace]

You claimed the Bible is not in contradiction with science. Ergo, the Bible must also support common descent. Unlike you.

Ciao

- viole

No. I said the Genesis account does not conflict with good science. That is quite different.
You may see common descent as being established by good science, but that is only a belief arrived at by a faith that is blind.