• 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!

Science ... NOT God ...

Let there be eternal with life... Love... And money!!!

I wouldn't reject genesis so fast. In my experience there are people that have inherited the knowledge to create from Gods Word. Industries, fabrics, and the marketing producera are usually deduced to mans ability to fabricate, massproduce, and invent new products!
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Here is some reading for you:

Genesis and the Genome (pdf)

"The relatively new and rapidly expanding field of comparative genomics provides a wealth of data useful for testing the hypothesis that humans and other forms of life share common ancestry. Numerous independent lines of genomics evidence strongly support the hypothesis that our species shares a common ancestor with other primates. Additional lines of evidence also indicate that our species has maintained a population size of at least several thousand individuals since our speciation from the ancestors of other great apes. This article will provide an overview of genomics evidence for common ancestry and hominid population sizes, and briefly discuss the implications of these lines of evidence for scientific concordist approaches to the Genesis narratives." [my emphasis]

He didn't ask for evidence. He asked for proof. There is no proof, because proof is impossible.
Münchhausen trilemma - Wikipedia

Science is not proof. Science is a system of this:
  • One can stop at self-evidence or common sense or fundamental principles or speaking ex cathedra or at any other evidence, but in doing so, the intention to install 'certain' justification is abandoned.
Science is the abandonment of proof, and the use of a certain set of fundamental principles, for which religion uses another set of fundamental principles.
And there is not way to prove one or the other true is relationship to each others, because nobody have solved this trilemma.
It even has a name: Cognitive relativism. And that is a fact of how reality works. Indeed it is caused by how evolution plays out in humans. Evolution causes cognitive relativism in humans. How about learned to understand that? And then learning to understand when you are using it yourself and not just spot it in other humans.
You are using cognitive relativism, because you are using a certain set of fundamental principles, when doing science. I use another set, because I am religious. And both cases are facts and parts of how reality works.
 

Prestor John

Well-Known Member
Here is some reading for you:

Genesis and the Genome (pdf)

"The relatively new and rapidly expanding field of comparative genomics provides a wealth of data useful for testing the hypothesis that humans and other forms of life share common ancestry. Numerous independent lines of genomics evidence strongly support the hypothesis that our species shares a common ancestor with other primates. Additional lines of evidence also indicate that our species has maintained a population size of at least several thousand individuals since our speciation from the ancestors of other great apes. This article will provide an overview of genomics evidence for common ancestry and hominid population sizes, and briefly discuss the implications of these lines of evidence for scientific concordist approaches to the Genesis narratives." [my emphasis]
No one who believes in the Genesis account disagrees with the premise that all life forms on this planet share a common ancestry.

The record clearly teaches that all life forms came from the same source and that the physical bodies of human beings came from the "dust" or "tiny particles of earth or waste matter".

What I don't understand is how our species could have began with a population size of "several thousand individuals" if we supposedly branched off from the great ape "ancestors".

Does that mean that in a single generation of great apes thousands of our species spawned? All at once?

There was no build up to this? No single "different" offspring that searched and found others like them to couple with?

It was just "BAM!" "several thousand individuals" all at once?

Maybe you could dumb this down for me.
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
No one who believes in the Genesis account disagrees with the premise that all life forms on this planet share a common ancestry.

You'll find several here who'll give you an argument.

What I don't understand is how our species could have began with a population size of "several thousand individuals" if we supposedly branched off from the great ape "ancestors".

Does that mean that in a single generation of great apes thousands of our species spawned? All at once?

No, speciation is unlikely to be sudden - the changes occur gradually. The sort of thing that happens is that populations of one species become isolated and subject to different environments and the change happens over many generations.

You can see this spread over space, rather than time in ring species.
 

Prestor John

Well-Known Member
You'll find several here who'll give you an argument.
Then they don't believe the Genesis account.

It clearly records that all creatures came from first the sea, then the earth then the first human came from the "dust".
No, speciation is unlikely to be sudden - the changes occur gradually. The sort of thing that happens is that populations of one species become isolated and subject to different environments and the change happens over many generations.

You can see this spread over space, rather than time in ring species.
Ok. So forgive me if I screw this up, but wouldn't that mean that there was a time that our species did not have a population size of several thousands?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Sometimes I get tired of pointing out that you can't prove anything to do with the real world. Science works on objective (intersubjectively verifiable) evidence.

Though there is no absolute "proof" one could use the legal version of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" . By that standard the the theory of evolution has been "proven" ten times over and the various myths of Genesis have been proven wrong. The problem is that literalists are extremely hypocritical when it comes to belief. They believe based upon almost zero evidence and demand infinite evidence to change their minds.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Then they don't believe the Genesis account.

It clearly records that all creatures came from first the sea, then the earth then the first human came from the "dust".

Ok. So forgive me if I screw this up, but wouldn't that mean that there was a time that our species did not have a population size of several thousands?
Possibly we had numbers that low, but it was well after we were "human". Populations evolve. And you seem to think that there was some magic line in the sand between human and non-human. That line does not exist.

The evolution of species is similar to the evolution of languages. At no point did the language change from Latin to Spanish over night on the Iberian peninsula.
 

Prestor John

Well-Known Member
Possibly we had numbers that low, but it was well after we were "human". Populations evolve. And you seem to think that there was some magic line in the sand between human and non-human. That line does not exist.

The evolution of species is similar to the evolution of languages. At no point did the language change from Latin to Spanish over night on the Iberian peninsula.
No, I do not believe in any "magic line" between human and non-human.

It is my belief that humans did not evolve from any other species.

Adam was formed from the dust and was at that moment a human being.

It is my opinion that Mankind has devolved as a species over time.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
No, I do not believe in any "magic line" between human and non-human.

It is my belief that humans did not evolve from any other species.

Adam was formed from the dust and was at that moment a human being.

It is my opinion that Mankind has devolved as a species over time.
You are not paying attention to your own argument. You are trying to claim that those that accept reality have such a belief. Remember, Adam was a myth. There never were only two people.
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
It is my belief that humans did not evolve from any other species.

Then I suggest reading the article I linked. Just a couple of highlights:
  • We have a mutated version of the gene for making egg yoke. It was found by locating it in chickens and then looking in the same place in the human genome.

  • Like other great apes, we have hundreds of mutated (non-functioning) versions of olfactory receptor genes (sense of smell), many of which have identical inactivating mutations shared between humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas. If we use only this evidence to assess the relatedness of these species, we can reconstruct that obtained via other evidence.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
No one said anything about "flying monkeys" or "pink unicorns".

I did. As an analogy to your statement.

You can disagree all you want, but open mockery like that is just rude.

Analogies aren't mockery. I explicitly used examples of things that we both agree probably don't exist. I did that for clarity of the point being made, not for mockery.

That you perceive things as being mockery while not intended to be so, is not something I can do much about.

You brought up the above mentioned creatures that have nothing to do with what we are talking about.

Off course it has to do with what is being talked about. The point being made, obviously, is that things not being disproven, doesn't somehow make them more credible or plausible.

As there are a great many things neither of us believe to be real, which have never been disproven (and never will be disproven either). Like flying monkeys.

That's very easily said

It's very easily demonstrated as well...

, but can you explain how the theory of evolution disproves the idea of Adam and Eve as our first parents?

Yes. Evolution theory is about population genetics. Populations evolve, not individuals. Homo sapiens started out as a population of at least thousands. Not just 2 people.

At no point in humanity's history, were there just 2 people.

What assumptions are you going to make about the previously immortal and then mortal bodies of Adam and Eve?

It seems to me that you're the one requiring the assumptions to believe that humans at some point in the past were "immortal".... :rolleyes:

What was the "Flood"?

The physically impossible event described in the biblical story of Noah.

What do you know about the genetics of men and women that lived to be 900+ years old?

The same thing I know about the genetics of flying monkeys.

Does the Flood event described in Genesis need to be a "global" event?

If it wasn't global, then it would be kind of nonsensical to gather animals on that boat... Or to have that boat to begin with. Instead, you could just move to higher ground and/or out of the affected area.

And the way it is described in the story, it sure seems global.

The Genesis account is not a complete record of everything that supposedly happened. Do you know that only Noah and his family survived the Flood event?

So the story claims. Genetically not true, however.

No one knows what or how it happened. Perhaps it is all allegorical as many Christians currently believe.

Not "perhaps". Rather: "at best".
The flood as described definatly and demonstrably did not happen in reality.

You believe we know and understand all natural laws?

We know enough to know that what is described in the flood story is beyond physical limits would allow. That makes the event impossible.

The Genesis account does claim that after Eve told the Lord that the serpent had beguiled her, the snake's anatomy was altered in some way.

:rolleyes:

Magic.

How much liquid water existed on the Earth's surface before the Flood event?

There was no flood, so there's no "before" the flood.
The required amount of water described in the story makes it physically impossible.

It would be more correct to say that the findings of science don't agree with the "assumptions" made about these Biblical stories.

Obviously we are talking about people who believe the bible literally. ie, creationists who think it's all literally true.

Assumptions made about what was written.

No. Instead, responding to claims of creationists saying that it's all literally true.

Well, I know for a fact that I have ancestors from 22 generations back.
I don't know who they were or any details about them or their lives - but they lived. They happened.
Is that a meaningless thing to know?

You know this because you understand the facts of biology.
It is necessarily true. In fact, your ancestry doesn't go back just 22 generations. Your ancestry, and by extension the ancestry of all living things, goes back some 3.8 billion years.

These things are necessarily true as a result of what we know about biology.
The biblical claims are nothing like that. They aren't necessarily true.

No one's faith in God is being made or broken on the details of the Flood event.

That's not entirely true. I know of plenty of ex-fundamentalists who turned atheists as a direct result, or at least in part, of realising that things like the flood never happened.

For such people, finding out that adam and eve never happened, that the flood didn't occur, that the exodus didn't occur,... are real deal breakers.

But, I didn't make any claim at all.

Presenting what the Bible and other scriptures teach is not a claim to their authenticity.

You were the one with the claim about the Biblical stories.

All I said was that there was no evidence to back up your claim.

Challenge...avoided?

No. I supported my claim that the flood as written in the bible and literally believed by biblical creationists, never occured.

You mean all the other unverified claims you made above?

Which claims would that be?

It is if you claimed that you could disprove them.

Which we can, and did.
But even if we couldn't, it wouldn't change anything. The literal biblical stories, would still be just-so stories with no evidence to back them up. It would have to be shelved along side things like flying monkeys, bigfoot and alien abduction. Come to think of it... it would actually have to be on a lower shelve then those things... as those things don't require the laws of nature to be suspended and / or violated, as they don't require invoking magic.

I'm not arrogant enough to think I know everything about all time and space throughout the universe.

Which isn't required.
Claims with no evidence that require the violation of known natural laws, are never credible. No matter how knowledgeable or ignorant one is about the universe and its inner workings.

No one made this claim.

It sure sounding like you were hinting to that when you felt the need to mention that none of those stories have been disproven. Usually, in discussions like this, whenever the defence mentions that, it is said to make the point that it's justifyable to believe it "because it's not been shown false".

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but I have to say that by this point, I've encountered such "argument" so many times, that all alarm bells go off whenever it comes up.

Testing assumptions.

No. Testing the claims of creationists.
Obviously we aren't talking about people who see it as poetry and don't see it as actual events that actually happened in actual reality.... :rolleyes:

Faith is the belief in things that cannot be proven.

Or supported.

Some people live by faith. Others don't.
Deal with it.

Not the issue.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
PS Your thinking and feelings resulted in you writing your post and thus prompted me to act.

Physical action resulted in a post being posted.
Without physical action, nothing happens.

I have never denied, and actually explicitly stated, that perception and beliefs will trigger physical responses (both conscious and unconscious / instinctive).

What I am objecting to here, is the claim that "beliefs create realities". They don't.
Thoughts play out in your head.

Believing your GF is cheating on you, is not going to make your GF cheat on you.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Sometimes I get tired of pointing out that you can't prove anything to do with the real world. Science works on objective (intersubjectively verifiable) evidence.

And it is an objective (intersubjectively verifiable) fact with observational evidence, that there are religious humans. So it can't wrong as an objective (intersubjectively verifiable) fact with observational evidence, that there are religious humans.
What creationists do is natural and it is a fact, that they can do it as humans.
Religion is a natural behavior in some humans as can be establish by using science. What comes next?
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
I am not trying to mock other people and their beliefs.

The OP stated that these stories had been disproved, but they have not been.

That is not a claim that they must be true.

And I am pointing out that to the *exact* same standards, the IPU has not been disproved.

But by any *reasonable* standards, the Deluge, the Garden of Eden, and the Fall have, in fact, been disproven.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
And I am pointing out that to the *exact* same standards, the IPU has not been disproved.

But by any *reasonable* standards, the Deluge, the Garden of Eden, and the Fall have, in fact, been disproven.

Science has nothing to do with proof(more later). Science works with evidence. Proof is for philosophy, math and some religions. You could also use in criminal cases.
The many meanings of truth

Science doesn't deal in proof or truth according to some versions of science.
Take it up with it with some of the other posters and you will find, that people can't agree on whether science has to do with proof. It is cognitive relativism.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Physical action resulted in a post being posted.
Without physical action, nothing happens.

I have never denied, and actually explicitly stated, that perception and beliefs will trigger physical responses (both conscious and unconscious / instinctive).

What I am objecting to here, is the claim that "beliefs create realities". They don't.
Thoughts play out in your head.

Believing your GF is cheating on you, is not going to make your GF cheat on you.

I see you didn't respond to the rest of my post. Okay.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
And it is an objective (intersubjectively verifiable) fact with observational evidence, that there are religious humans. So it can't wrong as an objective (intersubjectively verifiable) fact with observational evidence, that there are religious humans.

Did anyone ever claim otherwise?

What creationists do is natural and it is a fact, that they can do it as humans.
Religion is a natural behavior in some humans as can be establish by using science. What comes next?

That humans are instinctively superstitious, does not mean the superstitious beliefs, as in: what is being believed, are an accurate relfection of what is actually true.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Science has nothing to do with proof(more later). Science works with evidence. Proof is for philosophy, math and some religions. You could also use in criminal cases.
The many meanings of truth

Science doesn't deal in proof or truth according to some versions of science.
Take it up with it with some of the other posters and you will find, that people can't agree on whether science has to do with proof. It is cognitive relativism.

Right. Which is why I said *to the same standards*. We know that there was no global flood. Such a flood would have produced copious amounts of data that are simply not there. We know that the human population was never down to just 2 individuals. Such a bottleneck would have left *clear* signals in our very DNA.

To the extent that science can show a process did not occur, we know those two did not occur.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Science has nothing to do with proof

He didn't say "prove". He said "DISproof". That's not the same thing.
Science isn't in the business of proving things, that is correct.
But it IS in the business of DISproving things.

Science works with evidence

And evidence can't prove proposed explanations. It can only support them.
But it also can DISprove them.

Science doesn't deal in proof or truth according to some versions of science.
Take it up with it with some of the other posters and you will find, that people can't agree on whether science has to do with proof. It is cognitive relativism.

At this point, is more like lack of reading comprehension.

It's "disproof" that is being discussed. Not "proof".
 
Top