• 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?

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Many people have had a good education without higher education.
While it may be adequate for the immediate needs, it's not a higher education which goes beyond it. That's what is expansive of the horizons of a higher education. More knowledge. More awareness. More expansive insights and understandings.

There are persons who have had a secondary level education, that have a great IQ, or understanding.
A high IQ does not mean knowledge. Education means knowledge. A high IQ, makes becoming easier when exposed to education. It doesn't create education.

This is the third time in your post, there seem to be some prejudice, or put down, or class distinction on a particular people.
No. That was not the case. "When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me." ~1 Cor 13:11

We all grow in faith through stages. Some are younger in faith. Some more mature. That is found clearly in Paul's teachings.

These type of biased call for me to exercise a great deal of self control.
I hope your next post won't be making a distinction between the rich being better than the poor
I think a more expansive love is in fact better than a less expansive one. More is better when it comes to seeing all that love touches. If all the mind can embrace is a small circle, it doesn't expand that love as far. It only sees the smaller circle. More, is better, in this case. Yes. Being more aware, is better than being less aware. Ignorance, especially willful ignorance, is limiting. Definitely.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
While it may be adequate for the immediate needs, it's not a higher education which goes beyond it. That's what is expansive of the horizons of a higher education. More knowledge. More awareness. More expansive insights and understandings.


A high IQ does not mean knowledge. Education means knowledge. A high IQ, makes becoming easier when exposed to education. It doesn't create education.


No. That was not the case. "When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me." ~1 Cor 13:11

We all grow in faith through stages. Some are younger in faith. Some more mature. That is found clearly in Paul's teachings.


I think a more expansive love is in fact better than a less expansive one. More is better when it comes to love. If all the mind can embrace is a small circle, it doesn't expand that love as far. It only sees the smaller circle. More, is better, in this case. Yes. Being more aware, is better than being less aware. Ignorance, especially willful ignorance, is limiting. Definitely.
Well, I believe this...
(Psalm 111:10) The fear of Jehovah is the beginning of wisdom. . .
(Proverbs 1:7) The fear of Jehovah is the beginning of knowledge. Only fools despise wisdom and discipline.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Well, I believe this...
(Psalm 111:10) The fear of Jehovah is the beginning of wisdom. . .
(Proverbs 1:7) The fear of Jehovah is the beginning of knowledge. Only fools despise wisdom and discipline.
Exactly correct. Only fools despise wisdom and discipline. Education, knowledge, awareness, all of which come through discipline, along with experience and humility is what makes one understand the ways of Wisdom. Despising knowledge, denying education and understanding, is what makes one not on that path. One honors God by honoring the mind.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
The thing about you guys is that you want people to believe like you, without supportive evidence - blindly. In other words have faith, and exchange good religion for a failed one. :(

This is not true. And as I have pointed out you keep confirming that you do not understand the nature of evidence. That is why I offered to go over the basics of science. Why did you bail on that conversation?
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
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.
I am sorry to break it here for you, but common descent has so much evidence as the earth not being flat. In fact, nobody sane is looking for independent origins of life on the same planet using the phenotypes we have today. That would be frankly ridiculous. Therefore, it is established science.

You define science arbitrarily so that it always agrees with the Bible. Then it is obvious that your definition will always agree. Mmh, this part is not in Scriptures...must be bad science, lol.

But that is easy. I could also redefine science and evidence so that it agrees with basically everything.

It looks pointless, and I not sure how intellectually honest that would be, though.

Ciao

- viole
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
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.'

It is not unethical to suggest that science data about past, unseen events, has been interpreted wrong. Please learn not to silence people who want to debate science. Would you have jailed Galileo?
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
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.

Most of the forum trolls are "not providing valid information" and others (excepting you here, sir) are providing canards I've refuted in the past or in hundreds of posts here.

There are compelling threads of evidence that point toward a universal Flood.

There are compelling threads of evidence for rejecting "macro-evolution".

I'm not admitting to being closed-minded, either one is open- or closed-minded. I'm open-minded. Rather, I'm saying I'm tough-minded. It seems when I attempt to share with you certain concepts or creation websites, you are closed-minded ("all of them are off!" "all of them are self-deceived!"). I don't believe that, and can see the difference between sincere flat-earthers and sincere creationists, the difference being in the arguments, approach, logic, and the threads of evidence...
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
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.

Why the rush to judgment? I've read and continue to read papers and articles on both sides. That is the very definition of open-minded.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
It is not unethical to suggest that science data about past, unseen events, has been interpreted wrong.

This is a loaded response referring to unsee events. ALL of science deals with 'unseen events,' by the research ad falsification of theories and hypothesis. It is not the suggestion that science may interpret some things wrong regardless of whether they are unseen or seen. It is the unethical misuse of science with a religious agenda to misinterpret science to justify that agenda.


Please learn not to silence people who want to debate science. Would you have jailed Galileo?

Not trying to silence anyone. This is a free and ope forum. No I would not have silenced Galileo, but many Christians would.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
It is not unethical to suggest that science data about past, unseen events, has been interpreted wrong. Please learn not to silence people who want to debate science. Would you have jailed Galileo?


Creationists will not even try to interpret the evidence. Do you know how evidence needs to be interpreted in the sciences? One of the very first steps that one has to make is to form a testable hypothesis. Creation "scientists" avoid forming properly testable hypotheses since they have been bitten by them far too often. Creationists hypotheses have a history of failing and quite often failing in an epic fashion.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
There are compelling threads of evidence that point toward a universal Flood.
Actually, none of the above. NO objective verifiable evidence has been provided for a universal flood. I have provided many references in previous posts that have completely refuted this assertion. I am a career geologist with more than 50 years experience, and have been around the world, and confirmed the real evidence of geology and geomorphology that completely refutes the belief in a world flood in numerous threads on this site,

There are compelling threads of evidence for rejecting "macro-evolution".

Likewise there is no evidence for rejecting 'macro-evolution. The only ones that reject 'macro-evolution are fundamentalist Christians with a religious agenda. The scientists within the fields of science regardless of religious belief support the science of evolution by more than 99%.

I'm not admitting to being closed-minded, either one is open- or closed-minded. I'm open-minded. Rather, I'm saying I'm tough-minded. It seems when I attempt to share with you certain concepts or creation websites, you are closed-minded ("all of them are off!" "all of them are self-deceived!"). I don't believe that, and can see the difference between sincere flat-earthers and sincere creationists, the difference being in the arguments, approach, logic, and the threads of evidence...

The Creationist websites you DO NOT cite science ethically, and only selectively misrepresent science. Again . . . 99% of all scientists i the fields related to the science of evolution endorse the science as is, and reject any such universal flood in the context described in the Bible..
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Most of the forum trolls are "not providing valid information" and others (excepting you here, sir) are providing canards I've refuted in the past or in hundreds of posts here.

There are compelling threads of evidence that point toward a universal Flood.

There are compelling threads of evidence for rejecting "macro-evolution".

I'm not admitting to being closed-minded, either one is open- or closed-minded. I'm open-minded. Rather, I'm saying I'm tough-minded. It seems when I attempt to share with you certain concepts or creation websites, you are closed-minded ("all of them are off!" "all of them are self-deceived!"). I don't believe that, and can see the difference between sincere flat-earthers and sincere creationists, the difference being in the arguments, approach, logic, and the threads of evidence...
That is interesting. I do not know of any compelling evidence, or any evidence that would lead to a rejection of macro-evolution. If a person wants to share with me a story about how little green Bigfoots carry the world on their backs and that is how it moves through the sky, should I consider myself closed-minded if I just ignore that or mention how there is no evidence to even sugges tthat? What about creationist claims that amount to the same sort of fantasizing? It is not a closed-minded to point out a few facts regarding such claims and then ignoring them. Open-minded does not mean accepts anything, no matter how irrational, illogical or unsupported.

I believe that some creationists are sincere, but being sincere about something you believe that has no evidence is no more useful or has any place in science. It certainly cannot be considered the other side of some argument or a replacement for science. You can believe just so stories and be very sincere in that belief, but that does not make them come magically to life in the physical world.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
It is not unethical to suggest that science data about past, unseen events, has been interpreted wrong. Please learn not to silence people who want to debate science. Would you have jailed Galileo?
If I run field tests to determine population densities of a certain insect, any damage they do and determine any treatment effects, do you think I have seen all the insects or looked at every plant. If plant populations in a field are 160,000 per acre, I have neither the resources nor the time to examine every one of those plants, let alone the insect fauna of interest that may be on them. There is no reasonable means to conduct work like that. I am producing results based on samples of what is there and using statistical methods and experimental design to ensure that the samples are representative and the study is robust. What you mean by unseen, I think, is that you do not believe it happened, because it goes against your beliefs.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Most of the forum trolls are "not providing valid information" and others (excepting you here, sir) are providing canards I've refuted in the past or in hundreds of posts here.

There are compelling threads of evidence that point toward a universal Flood.

There are compelling threads of evidence for rejecting "macro-evolution".

I'm not admitting to being closed-minded, either one is open- or closed-minded. I'm open-minded. Rather, I'm saying I'm tough-minded. It seems when I attempt to share with you certain concepts or creation websites, you are closed-minded ("all of them are off!" "all of them are self-deceived!"). I don't believe that, and can see the difference between sincere flat-earthers and sincere creationists, the difference being in the arguments, approach, logic, and the threads of evidence...
I do not know of any compelling evidence that suggests a global flood, or supports a global flood. There is nothing. Coming to a conclusion that fits the evidence is not being closed-minded.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Why didn't you do this, your first post - page 4? Why ten pages after?
I hardly thought there was a need for this, since there is no evidence to support a claim that science and Genesis are in harmony. If there were any evidence, you would have provided it in such a list as I did. You never did.

The order of creation is given as a record.
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. It tells me nothing. It is a list. A record, records an event and these are not events supported by any evidence. It is not even an accurate list. Your statement does not explain the out of step order.

The way scientists determine the order of the phyla to create a hypothetical - an evolutionary tree, to support common descent is largely based on opinion on selective organism with similarities, and is not based on the supportive evidence.
This is your major problem. You have not got the first clue how systematicists and taxonomists establish a phylogeny. Relationships among organisms is not opinion. They are hypotheses that are tested. They include all the known specimens for the group or groups of interest and outgroups (known specimens not closely related) are included. Successful tests result in a phylogeny based on the evidence. I cannot speak for the entire field outside of insects, but traditionally, much of the hypotheses were based on the morphological data from insects, but more recent work with molecular data has shown the older morphological work was very sound and a significant portion of it has held up.

Opinions. That is a good one. LOL! Maybe if you spent some time learning what scientists do you would not have to construct easily refuted straw man arguments to support your claims.

Since the conclusion is not arrived at by proper use of the scientific method, it is not good science.
Based on what I have seen of your knowledge of science, there is no way that you have the ability to make this determination. It is contrived out of a desire that what you believe takes precedence over what can be demonstrated.

The conclusion of relationships and descent are arrived at through a proper use of the scientific method and are good science. Testing is done using validated techniques with data on morphology, ecology, genetics and molecular biology. You have not demonstrated that they are otherwise. You have not demonstrated an ability to even make the attempt.


I never read in Genesis where plants preceded the sun. I think it is a matter of how one studies, or more specifically, fails to study the Bible, that they arrive at that, but that's my view. Others have theirs.
Then you must never have read Genesis.


There are many arguments for evidence of a flood. Many ignore this.
What that has to do with science, I don't know, but many disagree that there is no evidence for a flood. So much, that they say the flood did occur, but locally, not global.
However, based on how one sees the geography of the earth and at what period, can influence one's conclusions.
There is no evidence that supports the occurrence of a global flood during the last 20,000,000 years. This is just your attempt to deny this fact and continue to consider what you believe is facts, when it is just what you believe. Following the evidence and the lack of expected evidence leads to the "No Flood Conclusion". It does not lead anywhere else.


The myth of evolution does indeed conflict with the Genesis account. Of course it does, because it's not good science, but the OP says, 'no conflict between the Genesis account, and good science, So that's not a problem.
I do not know what the myth of evolution is? Is that the creationist belief that there is no evolution? It must be, since they can neither refute the theory nor address the fact of it in any rational way.

Yes. I know. You were careful to include your version of "good science", but the real version of good science includes the theory of evolution that is the most well-supported, well-worked out theory in all of science. It is the foundation of modern biology. All you are doing is rejecting good science and claiming that your repetition of rejection is an argument.


Again, in my view, for those who may read the Bible, but not study it, they may well believe that the sis days are very short periods - like 24 hours, but a study of the Bible, evidently does not suggest this, but shows that a creation day was a long period of time.
Though I believe the age of earth assumed by scientists is much shorter, there is no conflict there, since Genesis does not give the age of the earth, which was there long before God said, "Let there be light".
It conflicts with a literal interpretation, but in order for it to even be considered to match, the text has to be filtered through an interpretation. Sure. Day/Age creationists have done this. It is hardly compelling evidence of harmony. It is meaningless, considering how out of harmony Genesis and science are.


There is no attempt in this thread, as assumed here, to make "Genesis a version of history and science".
It is a historical record, which has been referred to throughout generations.
It needs no opinion to verify it.
No one is looking to science for verification either.
That's an absurd idea, imo.
It is the underlying creationist assumption that drives this obsessive need to continually make silly claims about science and the Bible. It is absurd, but it does not seem to give creationists pause to do a little critical thinking about their own ideas.

Good science is not science that agrees with your beliefs. Bad science is not science that disagrees with your beliefs. You have already been given some excellent and real definitions of those terms by others. Science is following the evidence. You want the evidence to follow what you believe. You are committed to using bad science.

Genesis and science are not in harmony. Science contradicts the claims of Genesis and only in a few areas can vast interpretation bring a few parts of Genesis anywhere close to aligning with science. I will note that it is those that are trying to make Genesis a fact that must change their interpretation to match science.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Many people have had a good education without higher education.
There are persons who have had a secondary level education, that have a great IQ, or understanding.

This is the third time in your post, there seem to be some prejudice, or put down, or class distinction on a particular people. These type of biased call for me to exercise a great deal of self control.
I hope your next post won't be making a distinction between the rich being better than the poor
I think he is just extolling the value of an education and how it helps to understand complex issues. Ignorance leaves people susceptible to accepting wild, unsupported claims or believing that they know something, when all they really have is belief that is, much more often than not, incorrect.
 
Top