Genesis & Science - Friend or Foe?

[Subduction Zone]

Well, according to the OP, it says, "I see no conflict between the account of Genesis, and good science." So as soon as I am finished looking over the other posts, we can discuss whether this is good science or not. Of course we can look at the scientific method, as it is a favorite for all here. Okay?

Good science is that which is unbiased, good science is supported by observation and testing. If you have doubts about the theory of evolution it tells me that you probably do not even understand the basics of science which is why I like to start with a simplified version of the scientific method and then move on to the concept of evidence. Once a person has those two down he or she is well on their way to being able to judge what is good science or not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And now I have to run for a while. If you want to cover those basics, and it should not take long, then perhaps we can discuss what is "good science".

 

[nPeace]

The flood account is a significant problem with science. Please address it and do not avoid it. It is not a personal hangup, because it is as a matter of fact in conflict with science as described in the Bible.

Please explain the significant problem science has with the flood account, if it's not a personal hangup.

 

[nPeace]

It was an observation. That is a dishonest debating technique. If you have no clue about evolution the proper action to take is to ask questions.

And there is no debate. There are only corrections at this time. Creationists were shown to be wrong a long time ago.

You always mention the scientific method. Now that I mention it, you call me dishonest.
That's not an observation. Nor is it a way to debate.
If you know something I don't, now would be the time to "dish it out", not make baseless accusations.

 

[shunyadragon]

Please explain the significant problem science has with the flood account, if it's not a personal hangup.

There is absolutely no evidence for a flood as described in the Bible. The closest is the Sumerian Tigris Euphrates Flood recorded in Sumerian cuneiform

There is nothing 'personal' about science.

 

[nPeace]

I used that in relative terminology, thus not to be taken literally.

Two things before I go, with one of them being that the Genesis creation narratives do not match what we do know about the early stages of the universe, Earth, and the evolution of life forms, and the second is that I believe it's likely that God was behind it all, and that "all" may well be a multiverse that we may be in that even predates the BB.

I don't know that "what we do know" is in conflict. That's where you come in.

 

[nPeace]

They do not. Not even close. I think the huge problems do not start in the first page. They start in the first line.

Ciao

- viole

That doesn't conflict. Science has nothing to do with God. It doesn't determine that the universe was not created. That's you guys.

 

[shunyadragon]

Well, according to the OP, it says, "I see no conflict between the account of Genesis, and good science." So as soon as I am finished looking over the other posts, we can discuss whether this is good science or not. Of course we can look at the scientific method, as it is a favorite for all here. Okay?

I would say science as science is 'good science' in compliance with Methodological Naturalism independent of any 'theological nor philosophical presuppositions.'

Waiting . . .

 

[shunyadragon]

That doesn't conflict. Science has nothing to do with God. It doesn't determine that the universe was not created. That's you guys.

True, careful who you are referring to as 'you guys.'

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

Excellent. 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 have other questions, but this is a great start. I look forward to your detailed answers. If you could, in your own words please. I am not interested in chasing down links and watching a lot of videos.

 

[nPeace]

As you said, "GOOD science".

Perhaps when Subduction Zone et al find some, there will be a clearer, more thoughtful response to your OP.

Hey B. I didn't expect I'd find so many posts to respond to.
If I anticipated this, I would have posted on Monday, where I probably will have more time.
Again, I have to go... unfortunately.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No. Using the scientific method is one thing, but there is a lot more to it than just that.
Good science vs. bad science - Macleans.ca
What is Good Science?
However, the scientific method is a must, of course.

Why do you ask about evolution? Is that one of the things you say disagree with the Genesis account? Then please elaborate.

Using the points made in this article, can you highlight areas of the study of evolution that are bad science? Can you do the same for the study of gravity, germ theory, and in particular, the development of epidemiology and the work of John Snow. I would be interested in seeing your comparison of these side by side. I want to know more about how to tell good science from bad science and since you seem to know, this is an excellent opportunity for me to learn.

 

[osgart]

Taking the Bible as literal absolute truth is an interesting honesty you have there.

I would not desire to see through the goggles of an ancient book. I would rather explore reality through my own eyes of understanding. And let nature tell me its own story.

I know the bible says to lean not on your own understanding. Perhaps thats what it means to be objective and open minded, and not close off yourself to ones own understanding. But i dont see how things truly are by assuming that all answers flow through one book.

 

[nPeace]

Ah. Great! I've got about 2 hours max. Sweet.

 

[nPeace]

I understand that Genesis is speaking about the spiritual creation God, of the cycle we are in not about evolution as it is a spiritual book not a science thesis.

Genesis to me is only about one spiritual cycle but before genesis the universe existed and there were other cycles but we don’t possess records of them.

I don't know how you arrived at that, but you would know. I understand it different.

 

[nPeace]

I agree. There is no conflict between Genesis and science, because Genesis is not a science book. And how do you personally define "good science"?

I agree Genesis is no science book, but it does not have to be, in order for what it says to be challenged by scientific discovery.
For example, I am no scientist, but if I said "pigs fly" - not by being thrown, but on their own.
What I said can be challenged by true science.

What I mean by true science, is basically covered here What is Good Science?

I can understand where you might be coming from, in the sense that literature, which may be just a good story, is not challenged scientifically.
However, I don't see the Bible a just a good story.
That's why I opened this thread - to show how it stands up against the pellets.

 

[nPeace]

An ad hom argument already? Hell, the thread was only one hour and 15 posts old, and already your desperation was showing. Might want to take a deep breath . . . .or drink . . . . . or whatever it is that brings you back to reason.

.

You actually calculated the time?
Nonetheless, at least you stopped by to share your wrong assessment.

 

[nPeace]

Let's start with talking serpents.

Good one.
Now who's taking that literal? You or I?
I know snakes don't talk with human voice and language, so it looks like I know better.
By the way, neither do donkeys. (Numbers 22:28) They go, He Haw.
Good contribution though - the best so far, imo.

 

[nPeace]

The Genesis account (and all of the Bible, for that matter) is bad science and bad history. There is occasional congruence between the Bible and scientific and historical fact, but that is accidental and serendipitous.

Well I don't mean to beg. Or should I guess what exactly you have in mind?

 

[nPeace]

If you can read the account of a global flood in genius and claim that you see no conflict between that and good science then I can only conclude that you don't have a clue what good science is.

Nobody has shown seems willing to show me, where the conflict lies, so I guess we will both conclude something about one another. I'll keep my conclusions to myself... for now.