• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Genesis & Science - Friend or Foe?

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
So human evolution has scientific consensus, as 98% of all scientists and 99% of all biologists agree that humans evolved from apes. How am I wrong?
Scientific consensus determines what is and is not good science. That is my position.

You are wrong. We did not evolve from apes.

We are still apes. Even thought I prefer great apes.

Ciao

- viole
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
You are wrong. We did not evolve from apes.

We are still apes. Even thought I prefer great apes.

Ciao

- viole
I am aware. However, expressing things in terms more familiar with popular usage often fosters better understanding. When I talk about cladistics, I prefer to use the formal term Hominidae to eliminate confusion.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Genesis and the age of the earth and the universe
The Genesis account says nothing about the age of the earth and the universe.
It does say that the everything was created in six days. Surely you can comment on that in comparison to determinations made by science about the age of the universe, the Earth and life on earth.

As for the guesswork on that, and the assumptions that led them to their figures, I discussed that on another thread, so I am not going there at all, on this thread.
You will have to elaborate and explain what you meant by guesswork and assumptions.

Unless of course you believe it is important in showing that the Genesis account conflicts with good science.... then by all means, please show how it conflicts.
This is what I am turning to you for. I had to go back and read the OP again. Sure enough, you confidently expressed the idea that Genesis and good science are in harmony. This implies that you have reviewed both and established evidence that supports your argument and implies a certain level of authority to you on the subject. Is this some new technique of argument where you make claims and it is up to everyone else to support your claims? Please enlighten me on this.

Genesis and the origin of life
What good science is there for the origin of life?
Please, after you establish that, we can go from there.
I am puzzled. I was looking to you to explain good science and bad science, based on your careful, logical review of science. How can I establish anything without the information I am requesting you to explain to me? I await your words on your determination that the origin of life is bad science and how you made that determination.

Genesis and the order of creation and the fossil record
The OP clearly says, "I see no conflict between the account of Genesis, and good science.".
Therefore, if you see a problem with the order of creation in Genesis and the fossil record, and good science, I think you ought to point it out.
Again, I am asking you to explain yourself so that I can understand that there is no conflict as well. I did not say that I see a problem with the order of creation and the fossil record. I asked you to explain how Genesis and those two things are not in conflict. You clearly state that Genesis and Good Science are not in conflict. So you know that they are not in conflict. I want you to tell ME the details of why they are not in conflict.
Genesis and the theory of evolution
As for the theory of evolution, as I was trying to establish earlier, what are you talking about, when you say evolution? Perhaps you can reasonably explain.
The theory of evolution is 150 years old, and has been established formally, and widely published on. I refuse to believe that you are not aware of this given your claim that implies a full review of science and Genesis on your part. You are just toying with me, because of my ignorance that lead to my questions.
It seems a bit incoherent at times.
For example...
What is adaptation, and in what way(s) does it differ from evolution? Rhetorical
What really is speciation, and what is a species? Rhetorical
Honestly, it does get a bit confusing when I hear the words adapt and evolve used interchangeably - like... "adapt a certain behavior / trait"; "evolve a certain behavior / trait", and then they separate the two, at other times.
Why, they is even a term used evolutionary adaptation. What's that... not adaptation?
In biology, adaptation has three related meanings. Oh, I see.
I am sure you must have meant this to mean something, but it is a bit confusing and incoherent. I hope you will elaborate on this and fill in the gaps to your own questions. I cannot bring myself to believe that you would claim that Genesis and good science are in agreement without knowing the answers to these questions you pose.
As far as I know, the Genesis account does not have the problem with complicated words, nor does it have a problem with processes not mentioned, which are a part of The original design by the creator.
This is very confusing too. Where did this come from? What do you mean by complicated words and how does that fit in anywhere in your discussion and conclusions. What processes are not mentioned and where? Are you talking about processes not mentioned in science or in Genesis? So, in your critical and objective review of the subject, you established design and creation too? Fantastic. I cannot wait to read all of your thoughts and the evidence you used to establish that. Will you do that here or run off to make another thread? I hope you wait until you have at least answered my questions and provided all the explanations that I know you can provide.
Genesis simply uses language such as this... "God created the _____ creatures and all living creatures _____ according to their kinds... God blessed them, saying: “Be fruitful and become many _____ in the earth.”
Nowhere in Genesis have I ever read that God excluded adaptation and the unclear expression speciation, from his creation.
In fact, a scripture - not in Genesis, but in agreement with the account says this regarding mankind... "he made out of one man every nation of men to dwell on the entire surface of the earth..." (Acts 17:26) So, the same must be true for animal, and plant kind, since God rightly claims responsibility for the genetic code of living things. (Psalm 139:13-16)
You will have to explain what you mean here. I do not have the technical proficiency to determine any meaning out of this. What does language have to do with the harmony of science and Genesis and whether science is good or bad science.
We observe clearly, that creatures adapt. This is a known fact. Good science agrees with this.
As regard speciation, and it being used as a means to determine that evolution is true, is that good science? Evidence for speciation - Speciation in action?
Please continue. I look forward to your complete explanation of these things and that the study of evolution is bad science.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Like them, I am not sure about speciation being a sure "ball in the net" either. Unlike them, I am not going to assume that it is. Show me the good science to it.
Regarding the lab experiments, because scientists can clone sheep, does not mean that sheep clone naturally. Or do you think they do?
This is puzzling. Here you are claiming ignorance and a lack of confidence, but how can that be, considering your claim that Genesis and science are harmonious? Are you toying with me again? What do sheep clones have to do with it? Are they the product of bad science? Is that what you are getting at?
What we know, is that speciation produces hybrids, which doesn't get better, and don't morph into anything else. A hybrid finch arrived on Daphne Major from a neighboring island. It was part ground finch, part cactus finch. It's still a finch - a bird, not a frog.
Speciation produces hybrids? So species are formed when two different things breed together and produce a hybrid? What about all the other examples of speciation that do not involve hybridization? Are those examples of bad science that goes against what we believe, so we can ignore them then? Is that what the definition of bad science is? Is it any science that goes against what we believe, so it can be rejected without further review? Do not tease me. This is getting interesting.

Do definitions of species claim that a completely new kind of organism will result that is no longer the same kind as the previous organisms that it sprang from. For instance, there is no speciation in the mating of a dogs and coyotes, because the result is still dog kind right? So if a duck and an alligator could interbreed, the result would be a species that is neither duck kind nor alligator kind and some new kind? Does speciation say that is what happens? Is this what people are claiming when they talk about evolution?

Persons can always find supportive arguments for their beliefs, while ignoring the evidence against those arguments.
Oh. I can clearly see that is the TRUTH.

All the "species" are of the same kind. A dog is a dog. a cat is a cat. a bat is a bat. A fly is a fly. Need I go on. Bacteria is bacteria.
So dogs, wolves, African wild dogs, foxes, coyotes, the fennec fox, the side-striped jackal, dingoes and the red fox are all of dog kind. They can breed and produce only dog kind. I see. Once you recognize this superficial observation, it would appear to make sense to people that have not reviewed the subject as deeply as you have.

Nevertheless, if according to the claim, evolution occurred over millions of years, and is impossible to see in realtime, then there is no experiment that can be done to show it occurring.
The fossil record is your best bet, and some would say DNA.
Yes. Please explain the fossil record. Remember, I asked about how it and how the harmony between Genesis and Good Science explain it. You seem to be indicating that it might be the other way, but I know that cannot be true, given your assertions in the OP.

So, you can observe speciation in a lab, or you can observe adaptation taking place before your eyes, and you can see reproduction in action. These obviously are all not evolution, but processes which are claimed to result in evolution. It's not evolution.
Yes. Reproduction is not evolution. But the others are not evolution either?
Do you disagree?[/QUOTE]I am afraid, given what you have provided so far, I do not see how I can agree, without your further help in clarifying the matter. How do changes observed in the fossil record, when viewed as a whole and looking backward and forward at fossils of different ages, fit in all of this?

Is adaptation evolution? What about speciation, reproduction...? Perhaps you might help me with these questions.
I am again confused. You need my help with these questions? Why? You have already stated that Genesis and Good Science are harmonious. You must already know the answers to these questions. It was to you that I was looking for the answers to questions like this, so that I too can reject bad science and see the harmony for myself. Since you are not rejecting these outright, are you implying that further consideration of them means they could be Good Science?

So from the above,where does Genesis conflict with good science?
From what I can see, it conflicts with science that is not in the category of good science - the science that takes facts of certain processes, and projects them onto ideas, and the assumption that, diverse lifeforms evolved over millions of years from one common ancestor.
I agree completely. Where science conflicts with what we believe, it is bad science. Bad science can be dismissed with a wave of the hand. Once all that is dismissed, it is much easier to make Genesis appear to be in harmony with science.

What's the problem with the global flood, and good science?
You tell me. I would not have asked if I knew the answer. But apparently, any science in conflict with the global flood is bad science? Is that right? This is much more confusing to me, since it ranges outside of biology and includes subjects of geology and physics, that must be rejected. What I am curious to know is that if we reject parts of physics that conflict with the global flood, but are necessary to explain things that we do accept, can we bring those parts back in for those things only?


We can stick with the theory of evolution, since the topic deals with what conflicts with Genesis. (see above)
If you want to make a point about the study of gravity, germ theory, and in particular, the development of epidemiology and the work of John Snow, in order to come to the defense of the theory of evolution, as good science, feel free. I'll follow your lead.
Once again, I was asking for your take on all of this, so that I can see what YOU see and also reject bad science. Presumably, the work of John Snow was bad science and it looks like I will have to reject epidemiology too. But I was hoping for clarification from you on that.

One thing is certain though, they don't have a law of evolution, but they have theories to explain the law discovered which they named gravitational law / the law of gravitation.
This is very confusing. There are scientific theories and scientific laws. There is a theory of evolution that attempts to explain the evidence. There are theories of gravity. There is a law of gravity. Are you saying that the existence of theory in one science lead to the law of gravity, but the existence of a theory in another science does nothing good? How did you determine that? I did not know that a theory of gravity came before the law of gravity. Again, this is all very confusing. I would really appreciate you clearing it all up. Thank you so much.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Or, you can just ignore the ones who tread on our pearls, which saves a LOT of time.
So you know how to determine good science and bad science too. That has been a big help to me. Anything that conflicts with what a person believes is bad science. It is so simple.

I like how you put it though. Pearls are belief and anything conflicting with it can be ignored.

Do others know about this?
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Or, you can just ignore the ones who tread on our pearls, which saves a LOT of time.
I was just thinking though. If we ignore anything that conflicts with our beliefs, is that honest? Couldn't someone just respond that we are ignoring them and because we have no way to provide a rational response to what they say? Isn't there a possibility that rejecting something without critical review would give the false image that we do not have much integrity?

What are you thoughts on this?
 

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
What has good science determined that conflicts with a global flood?


Good geological science is quite capable of telling when and where locals floods have occurred in the past. And from what we know about the evidence from smaller local floods, a massive flood on a global level would have left enormous amounts of evidence. Yet good geological scientists find absolutely ZERO evidence that any sort of a global flood has ever taken place during the time when human beings have existed.

These determinations made by good geological science directly conflict with biblical accounts of a global flood that wiped out all of humanity... except for 8 fortunate human beings.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
The entire Bible reports it as history - from Moses to David; from Solomon to Ezekiel; from Jesus to the last living disciple of Jesus.
It is not written metaphysically, and God himself - in relating it - says that it is history.
If you want, I can make a list of all the scriptures that show this.
If Genesis is not history, then all the characters right down to the apostle John, are mythical, and all the books too.

What reason do you have for saying it's metaphorical?

"Good science!"

Nonetheless I do not know of any place in the Bible that the Bible, nor God, refers to the Bible as history
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
Yes, and science says that the earth began to exist a few billion years after the beginning of the Universe.

Ergo, when there were already zillions on galaxies, stars and other planets born a long time before the earth.

If that is not a contradiction with Genesis, then tell me please how you call it.

Ciao

- viole
It's not.
I already addressed that here... the first paragraph.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
An interesting subject worthy of a thread. Briefly, the deposition of the strata parallels the same deposition we see in the world today. It is cyclic and contains specific and discrete layers of limestone, shale, coal, and sandstone, with abundance of fossils that lived in place in the environment of they type of deposition. Individual layers contain drying crack, abundant tracks and evidence of animals. The limestone layers are vaste and hundreds of feet thick, contain vaste coral reefs and can only be deposited in shallow seas like the Bermuda regions. In the strata layers are vaste meandering river systems, windblown deposits, varved lake deposits, and erosional surfaces and soil formation just as we see in the world today repeated again and again throughout the thousands of feet of the strata. There are also many eroded volcanoes in the strata, flows of volcanic lava and ash within the layers.

The present evidence of living tree ring records, and over lapping dead tree ring records go back to before the Biblical record of Noah's flood. The living tree ring record is in trees more than 2.300 years. Varved lake deposits go back uninterrupted for more than 60,000 years as in Lake Suigetsu in Japan. Climate for over 60,000 years is recorded in these sediments, and the nuclear fall out for recent nuclear blasts is also recorded.

The nature of the deposition of thousands of feet of strata is simply physics of particle size, chemical reactions such as carbonate formation, living organisms like coral, and the physics of gravity and how particles behave in wind and water throughout the history of the earth as it happens today. If you take a course in sedimentology you would understand all the history of the strata of the earth.

This is not only 'good science, but excellent science!'


My professional degrees and work involve the geomorphology involved with this evidence. and I have been around the world intimately involved with the sites that demonstrate this objective verifiable evidence.
I have limited time right now, so I will come back to this.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
There are parts which are history. There are parts which are poetry. There are parts which are mythological. There are parts which are allegorical. And so forth. As Subduction Zone pointed out already, why is it viewed with such an all-or-nothing approach? That wouldn't be wise. It's an easy way for one to lose faith when they set it up like that. All it takes is one error of fact and the whole thing collapses under such an artificial constraint.
The problem is not that the Bible has parts that are metaphoric, poetic, etc.
The problem lies in deciding what is literal or not, without a valid, coherent, and correct reason for deciding it.
If one makes a decision that some part is metaphorical, just because "they want it to be" or because "it disagrees with their worldview", then they must also be consistent, and discard any other part that disagrees with their conclusion that it is metaphorical - which is practically the entire Bible.
As one example... the fall of man. That has one continuous line throughout the Bible - from Genesis to Revelation.... and that's just one, barely scratching the surface.

No one says everything is literal, but use the Bible to conclude what is, or is not - not personal opinion shaped by philosophical teachings.

If you look at any culture's origin myths, they read as history too. Mythologies do this. Gone with the Wind writes about America's Civil War, but the stories woven into that are fictional. Just because the Civil War happened, does not make the story actual history. And because it's not actual history, this does not therefore mean the story is crap, unless you need it to be factual first before it has meaning. That I consider to be a problem with the reader, not the literature. Same thing with the Bible.


Of course the Bible deals with metaphysics! Metaphysics deals with the origin of things, beyond physics in other words. In fact most of what it deals with are metaphysical questions in nature.


No need to. I've studied and read the Bible from cover to cover. Have you ever read the entire thing yourself?


I am honestly not sure how you can leap from Adam and Eve being mythological characters to John being mythological. One does not follow through to the other. Each has to be looked at on its own.

I am guessing that you are needing to think in these all-or-nothing terms is because of some artificial construct you have superimposed upon the whole thing. I believe that is probably the artificial construct of the "Biblical Inerrancy Doctrine". That is a very modern doctrine, and not one that Christianity as a whole believed in previously. Not all Christians need the Bible to be believed in that way in order for their faith to be real. I consider tying one's faith to the modernistic Inerrancy Doctrine to be at odds with actual Faith.

If one loses faith in God because they found out there are errors in scripture, then I would say that faith was one built on a bed of shifting sand. It is faith built as a house of cards where one little tremor can topple the whole thing. Denialism about things like science and history because it runs into one's beliefs about the Bible, is a trainwreck of faith just waiting to happen.


I could easily write a whole book on this. In brief however, a metaphor points to something beyond itself as the thing to be considered. For instance, when you look at the night sky it is strewn with countless stars in a jumble of dots littering your field of vision. But if you draw a line from one point of light to another, and to another, and another, you impose a pattern upon it which the mind can recognize and relate to it.

This is what the constellations are. Orion is not actually up there in the sky, right along with Leo, or Scorpio, or the Big and Little Dippers. Those are metaphorical figures we use to try to relate to the transcendent.

Many of the figures of the Bible, the characters of Adam and Eve for instance, are images of humanity as a whole dealing with things like our human natures, sin and temptation, guilts, shames, regrets, pain and suffering, etc. Everyone can relate to this on some level or another. This is what good mythologies do. This is what they are for. Relatability. They are usually timeless truths that transcend cultures.

The myth of the Garden and the Fall of man is a story about us. To reduce it down to "historical fact" guts it of that. If it can't be "true" in a timeless sense, beyond historical facts, then it is a worthless story. It doesn't capture the imagination. It gets rid of imagination reducing it to a simple fact-finding task. It is imagining that is the wings of faith. Without that there, faith is dead.
Unlike you and others, I do not believe the Bible contains myth.
It may contain writing errors, but from what I read, it contains language that one might dismiss as myth, simply because - I believe - they cannot understand why it's there, and what connection it has with te writings.[/QUOTE]
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The problem is not that the Bible has parts that are metaphoric, poetic, etc.
The problem lies in deciding what is literal or not, without a valid, coherent, and correct reason for deciding it.
The tools of modern scholarship and science, for starters, help to provide that valid, coherent, and correct reasons for deciding. You can't read it in a vacuum and call that valid or correct reasoning.

If one makes a decision that some part is metaphorical, just because "they want it to be" or because "it disagrees with their worldview", then they must also be consistent, and discard any other part that disagrees with their conclusion that it is metaphorical - which is practically the entire Bible.
I don't think most people who approach the Bible sincerely are deciding these things "just because they want it to be". That is insincerity. That is disingenuousness. That lacks integrity.

Rather, weighing everything as a whole, looking at things like what modern science reveals about the age of the earth, cosmology, evolution, etc, provides a well-researched and well-established scientific fact about the world that sheds some genuine light about the creation story of Genesis. It provides one major example of context for reading it. There are plenty other reasons to understand Genesis as non-literal.

However, to read it literally in denial of that well-established scientific truth is choosing to ignore that "just because they want it to be". That to me is a problem because it suppresses knowledge in order to maintain a belief. That is not what faith does. That is what fear does.

As one example... the fall of man. That has one continuous line throughout the Bible - from Genesis to Revelation.... and that's just one, barely scratching the surface.
The choices of books to include into the Bible was a process of decisions made by religious leaders. Those choices reflect their beliefs, while things which did not support those beliefs were excluded. That's not a miracle. That's a deliberate selection process.

However, it's more complex than that. Certain theologies are themselves crafted and shaped taking certain stories or truths and creating a theme, which gets built upon, added to, and tailored to fit the various audiences. In other words, they evolve over time.

All these things can be seen in the doctrines which got passed on down to you, after having underwent such transformations over the ages. When you sit down and read a passage, you are looking at it through that lens that was passed down to you.

All of that colorizes your understanding of it, because that view passed on to you created the context in which you read it. The "consistent theme" you see, is a creation of views and teachings which shape what you see. Lacking any of that, that "theme" is not nearly so self-evident as the mind makes it appear to be. This is why in part you have different groups seeing different themes, often in contradiction to other group's readings.

No one says everything is literal, but use the Bible to conclude what is, or is not - not personal opinion shaped by philosophical teachings.
As I just pointed out, all of it shaped by these things. You're not reading the Bible in a vacuum. As a great test of this, find someone with zero knowledge of Christian beliefs and teachings and let them read the Bible. What they end up seeing, you would probably call an error, because it doesn't match with your understandings of what and how you are reading it, having been conditioned previously to see it that way.

Unlike you and others, I do not believe the Bible contains myth.
I always try to make a clear point that I never, ever use the word myth to mean false or a lie. I think I need to add that to my disclaimers in my signature. I always use myth in the technical sense as a type of story that conveys truth through stories. The facts of the story are not the point of a myth. The message is the point. Adam and Eve are, in my educated opinion, fictional characters, whose purpose is to represent all of us. They symbolize the truth of the human condition, through imaginary settings and storyline.

A good mythology is timeless in nature. I love the myth of the Garden of Eden, as it symbolically speaks truth - non-literally. There reaches a point where one can see the Truth without needing to literalize things into concrete historical facts. At that point, then we don't have to hide from knowledge which challenges that literalization. Such as denying evolution.


It may contain writing errors, but from what I read, it contains language that one might dismiss as myth, simply because - I believe - they cannot understand why it's there, and what connection it has with te writings.
Again, I do not dismiss something because it is considered a mythology. On the contrary, I try to understand what it's trying to communicate through its imaginary characters and settings. Mythology is simply a category of types of storytelling.

For an understanding of what those like me mean when we refer to the Bible as containing mythologies, look into Joseph Cambell's work for starters. Joseph Campbell and the Myth of the Hero’s Journey
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
The entire Bible reports it as history - from Moses to David; from Solomon to Ezekiel; from Jesus to the last living disciple of Jesus.
It is not written metaphysically, and God himself - in relating it - says that it is history.
If you want, I can make a list of all the scriptures that show this.
If Genesis is not history, then all the characters right down to the apostle John, are mythical, and all the books too.

What reason do you have for saying it's metaphorical?

I guess if Romulus and Remus are mythological, so is Julius Ceasar. And what about Horatio at the bridge?
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
So you know how to determine good science and bad science too. That has been a big help to me. Anything that conflicts with what a person believes is bad science. It is so simple.

I like how you put it though. Pearls are belief and anything conflicting with it can be ignored.

Do others know about this?

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.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
I was just thinking though. If we ignore anything that conflicts with our beliefs, is that honest? Couldn't someone just respond that we are ignoring them and because we have no way to provide a rational response to what they say? Isn't there a possibility that rejecting something without critical review would give the false image that we do not have much integrity?

What are you thoughts on this?

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.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
It does say that the everything was created in six days. Surely you can comment on that in comparison to determinations made by science about the age of the universe, the Earth and life on earth.
It also says everything was created in a day. Genesis 2:4
You appear to be feinting ignorance. Is there a reason for this. We don't have to do that, you know.
You have had this explained to you, more than once, I am sure, and I am sure you saw it numerous times, on these forums.
So, it would seem that either that you are not listening, or simply ignoring, or.... you like to hear things repeated to you. Why? I don't know. :shrug:

You will have to elaborate and explain what you meant by guesswork and assumptions.
You appear to be feinting ignorance again. Surely you know what is guesswork and assumptions.
No one knows the age of the earth, and universe. They make assumptions based on other assumptions.

This is what I am turning to you for. I had to go back and read the OP again. Sure enough, you confidently expressed the idea that Genesis and good science are in harmony. This implies that you have reviewed both and established evidence that supports your argument and implies a certain level of authority to you on the subject. Is this some new technique of argument where you make claims and it is up to everyone else to support your claims? Please enlighten me on this.
What would you like to know, other that that the Genesis account does not conflict with good science? I'm lost. :shrug:

I am puzzled. I was looking to you to explain good science and bad science, based on your careful, logical review of science. How can I establish anything without the information I am requesting you to explain to me? I await your words on your determination that the origin of life is bad science and how you made that determination.
What don't you understand?
You said:
Can you explain how the accounts of Genesis square with science regarding the age of the earth and the universe, the origin of life, the order of creation in Genesis, the fossil record, the theory of evolution and a global flood.

I said:
What good science is there for the origin of life?
Please, after you establish that, we can go from there.


Which means, I do not know of any good science for the origin of life. Surely you don't expect me to compare thin air with something?
If there is indeed good science for the origin of life - last I heard were a number of propositions - then unless you give me what you know, that I don't, then how can I discuss it? :shrug:

Again, I am asking you to explain yourself so that I can understand that there is no conflict as well. I did not say that I see a problem with the order of creation and the fossil record. I asked you to explain how Genesis and those two things are not in conflict. You clearly state that Genesis and Good Science are not in conflict. So you know that they are not in conflict. I want you to tell ME the details of why they are not in conflict.
I don't have to explain that.
Read the OP again.
I see no conflict between the account of Genesis, and good science. They get along quite well.
at Subduction Zone, I think you and others disagree. So I welcome your objections. Thank you.


I don't have to mention every scientific discovery, and every Genesis account. That's not necessary.
If you do not want to participate, then there is no obligation to... although, I would like you to.
However, it seems to me that there is a conflict between... :shrug:

The theory of evolution is 150 years old, and has been established formally, and widely published on. I refuse to believe that you are not aware of this given your claim that implies a full review of science and Genesis on your part. You are just toying with me, because of my ignorance that lead to my questions.
I am sure you must have meant this to mean something, but it is a bit confusing and incoherent. I hope you will elaborate on this and fill in the gaps to your own questions. I cannot bring myself to believe that you would claim that Genesis and good science are in agreement without knowing the answers to these questions you pose.

This is very confusing too. Where did this come from? What do you mean by complicated words and how does that fit in anywhere in your discussion and conclusions. What processes are not mentioned and where? Are you talking about processes not mentioned in science or in Genesis? So, in your critical and objective review of the subject, you established design and creation too? Fantastic. I cannot wait to read all of your thoughts and the evidence you used to establish that. Will you do that here or run off to make another thread? I hope you wait until you have at least answered my questions and provided all the explanations that I know you can provide.

You will have to explain what you mean here. I do not have the technical proficiency to determine any meaning out of this. What does language have to do with the harmony of science and Genesis and whether science is good or bad science.

Please continue. I look forward to your complete explanation of these things and that the study of evolution is bad science.
Let me try to explain.
The Genesis account says that God made creatures to multiply, according to their kind. The Genesis account does not specify in detail that they would adapt, but certainly this is expected. The Bible does say that they would be many - a diversity of creatures.

What that means, is that the Bible is not in conflict with what has been observed - adaptation, what they call speciation (unless it's stretched/extrapolated to support an idea, or ideas, which are not observed), and reproduction.

I'm also saing that none of these is evolution... unless you are simply talking about change, which is what I thought was important, due to the language at time used, where some use these terms in a somewhat nonchalant manner, in relation to evolution (theory) , thus leaving one to wonder what they are really saying.
Yet they separate the words as distinct, which they are. To me that creates unnecessary confusion.

Adaptation, speciation, reproduction, are not evolution (theory)
I hope you understand. :)

By the way, I don't toy, or play, when it comes to the evolution theory. Amuse myself... for sure. :grin:
 
Top