-
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?
- Thread starter nPeace
- Start date
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You appear to not to want to learn. If you won't learn I can only repeat the basic facts.
Workman
UNIQUE
Thank you for the advanced!..it really says a lot about you..sameness of not changing!..you ask questions and I answered all of them and now you dont bother to say that I’m wrong..WOW!..you really are blind.
Good luck with you..your gonna need it.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Let's try again, you waffled at best. Do you interpret Genesis literally? Or rather how literally do you interpret Genesis? Do you think that there were ever only two people? Do you think that there was a global flood?
Workman
UNIQUE
Waffled?? You see it as you believe it I guess! you haven’t seen nothing YET!..
And let’s not try it again!..for that I leave you on your own to figure out your own same question for your same answers! Good luck!
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
That is because you know you cannot support your beliefs. And you are probably afraid to learn that you have been calling God a liar.
Workman
UNIQUE
Ahh..there it goes..something that you measure over and over in again. ..wotever you MUST think! I agree with you.lol
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Are you still having trouble understanding a simple idea? There is a reason that serious Christians do not take either Genesis or Exodus literally. They work as allegory, morality tales, as metaphor. They fail if one tries to claim that they are historical events.
Last edited:
Workman
UNIQUE
Wether if you can prove it, or wether if you can’t..either way, YOUR RIGHT!
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, I can support my claims. You ran away, that indicates that you know that you cannot support your beliefs.
sealchan
Well-Known Member
The Genesis account of creation works for anyone who can step outside and see what exists. Sun, moon, stars, light, dark, plants, animals...and look at their dinner plate too. But science sees things in a much richer light. All these things are related through the various forces of nature and stars and animals are made from the same bits and pieces.
In many ways the Genesis story does match to the order of the appearance of things. The idea of the Universe as some sort of layer cake with waters above and below is a wrong cosmology but a naive person standing on an apparently flat earth would find this plausible.
Creation of the sun and moon after the water separation doesnt conform to what has happened. First there was gravity that formed the stars, and the planets and the moons...then water gathered together on dry land. That would be more accurate.
I do not think a personal spat and name calling is worthwhile addressing the topic of the thread between you and @Subduction Zone.
I had a lot of issues and questions dodged and avoided by @nPeace that need to addressed. Such as 'What is good science?' It would be best to address this issue concerning Genesis and the Bible.
nPeace
Veteran Member
What has good science determined that conflicts with a global flood?
nPeace
Veteran Member
I think I gave a very simple one - simple enough for children. Is anything wrong with the one I presented?And publish. There are some other steps as well. Publishing is very important because it allows others to test one's ideas. A person will usually have prejudices about one's own work so it is imperative that those that do not have the same prejudices test the ideas as well.
I like this simplified flow chart:
We are not going to get stuck on this, are we?
Okay, so we squeeze in publishing, and based on our conclusion we get a theory, or law.
Anything else? Can we move on?
Last edited:
nPeace
Veteran 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.
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. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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?
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?
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.
Persons can always find supportive arguments for their beliefs, while ignoring the evidence against those arguments. 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.
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.
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.
Do you disagree?
Is adaptation evolution? What about speciation, reproduction...? Perhaps you might help me with these questions.
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.
What's the problem with the global flood, and good science?
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.
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.
nPeace
Veteran Member
How do you arrive at the "sound objective verifiable evidence" for the age and order of distribution of strata?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
By thousands of studies. What sort of questions do you have?
We can tell what sort of environment that sediments were deposited in since many of those same environments exist today. We see far too many fossils for the Genesis stories. For example a worldwide flood would only leave one relatively thin layer of fossils. Assuming that they could be turned into fossils that quickly. Think of what we see alive today. If it all died at once there would be less than a foot of fossils. Instead we find thousands of feet of sedimentary rock, many of them largely made up of fossilized life.
nPeace
Veteran Member
Sad.
It's not me. What is Good Science? There are many more of those.
Should you not be asking yourself that question though? Perhaps I should ask you... who are you to tell everyone what good science is?
Is good science determined by consensus? Google it, expert.
Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity
That's the end of that.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Some creationists interpret the Bible to say that the Earth is only roughly 6,000 years old. Though they tend to be in the minority today. Those claims are refuted by ice cores or even specific deposits such as the Green River formation.
Actually science solves the problems that it can first. Abiogenesis is a very difficult problem. Part of the problem is that we are still learning how life works in the first place. Without knowing how life works it is all but impossible to have a solid theory of abiogenesis. The science itself is still in the hypothetical stage. But many problems have been answered. There are problems that yet remain. Though very few scientists think that it is impossible today.
Also, you do realize that the theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis, don't you? Moving the goal posts to abiogenesis is an admission that evolution is a fact so you might not want to use this strategy.
Plants before the Sun is a clear problem.
Please, if you don't know what evolution is yet you disqualify yourself for this discussion. You know what is meant by evolution. Let's not play silly games.
Once again, let's not play silly games.
A global flood would leave massive clear evidence. There is no such evidence. A global flood goes against "good science".
Why would you want a "law of evolution"? Now you have disqualified yourself from almost any science discussion. In the world of the sciences a theory is as good as it gets. Though there is no set hierarchy, theories if anything outrank laws. Newton's Law of Gravity was shown to be incorrect. Einsteins theory of General Relativity corrected those errors. It is more accurate (though still not perfect) than Newton's Law. Instead of jumping to conclusions you should be asking questions and learning the basics.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
What hasn't it?
I could give you a series of videos to watch that refute the flood from several different approaches. One of my favorites that I use at times is the fact that you will not find yourself in a seedy motel bathtub filled with ice and missing a kidney tells us that there was no flood.