The Genesis Account

[exchemist]

Is cdesign proponentists another name for intelligent design proponents? If so, I would say that they are an extension of OEC or an attempt at OEC to get lab coats.

As I understand it, the view of a literal Bible became widespread in the 19th Century among some Protestant groups. Not sure how much Darwin had to do with launching that, but he did give them someone to take their ire out on.

An attempt to get lab coats is exactly it!

"cdesign proponentists" is a fairly well known joke and comes from the Kitzmiller (Dover School) trial. The story is as follows.

In the notorious creationist school book "Of Pandas and People", it turned out the book had been reprinted with the word "creationist" replaced by " design proponent" in some 150 odd instances. This had clearly been done in a transparent attempt to get the book under the wire and into schools, just after a previous US court judgement that creationism was religion and thus ineligible to be taught. Unfortunately for the ID/creationist people, they had done it in such haste that in one instance, part of the old word had been left behind in the text, resulting in the typo cdesign proponentists".

This was particularly damning evidence against their central contention, in the trial, that ID was science and not just religious creationism dressed up a bit.

 

[danieldemol]

Your logic simply doesn't hold. If God were "telling us the story" of our creation, in a way that we (the humans at the time) could understand, of course it would be told from our perspective. If God exists, humans today still can't fathom what things would look like from his perspective (and indeed we will never be able to), so why in the world would you expect the ancient humans to be able to? And if not from our perspective, nor God's, then from whose perspective should the story have been told?

Ancient man was just as capable of being educated as modern man is.
An omniscient God could easily have instructed the ancient nation of Israel how to build telescopes etc and what observations to see.

You say we could not fathom creation from God’s perspective, but I say why not. What is so hard to understand about evolution, the formation of stars etc.

God need not tell us everything about creation but what He tells us should be factual.

I can see no difference between a revelation written non-factually enough to be a human perspective and an ordinary human perspective.

If you are arguing that God inspires people through the lens of their own limitations I can agree with you here. But such an argument leaves room for errors, so we don’t need to whitewash or apologise for such errors. We can acknowledge them without fear that such an argument would implode.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

But it's pretty much an equal "s t r e t c h" to assume it's not.

That claim is baseless.

IOW, we'll never know for sure.

That doesn't mean that all alternatives are equally likely.

BTW, I treat literally all biblical narratives as if they were meant to be allegorical largely because there's very few narratives that we can affirm to be historically accurate.

Before you argued that it was likely allegorical because it was polemical. Now you say that they likely intended it as allegory because we cannot confirm it to be historically accurate. That doesn't even rise to the level of non sequitur.

The one possibility that you seem to assiduously avoid is that they could have simply been wrong.

 

[izzy88]

If you are arguing that God inspires people through the lens of their own limitations I can agree with you here. But such an argument leaves room for errors, so we don’t need to whitewash or apologise for such errors. We can acknowledge them without fear that such an argument would implode.

The fact that our model of reality is different from the model of the ancients doesn't mean theirs was in error. Their model of the world was like hearing music, our model is like measuring sound waves and pitches and frequencies. Both models are of the same phenomenon, they just look at it from different angles - and neither is objectively right or wrong.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

How is it that so many people in this thread are responding to a post that they didn't even read? Do you guys do this all the time? Is this why so many discussions on here are such a mess?

You do not appear to be reading it or my posts. So what is your beef?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

How is it that so many people in this thread are responding to a post that they didn't even read? Do you guys do this all the time? Is this why so many discussions on here are such a mess?

The OP says the following. I know. I read it.

"So what about the Genesis Account? Can it be reconciled with science?

I wish to author this thread to explain not only that it can, but when observed from the correct viewpoint it becomes obvious that a nomadic wanderer some 3,500 years ago could not have written what he did without supernatural revelation."

The Genesis Account as the OP calls it, cannot be reconciled with science and several reasons have been given for that including that creation of plants predates either the creation of the sun or the action of the sun.

Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

An attempt to get lab coats is exactly it!

"cdesign proponentists" is a fairly well known joke and comes from the Kitzmiller (Dover School) trial. The story is as follows.

In the notorious creationist school book "Of Pandas and People", it turned out the book had been reprinted with the word "creationist" replaced by " design proponent" in some 150 odd instances. This had clearly been done in a transparent attempt to get the book under the wire and into schools, just after a previous US court judgement that creationism was religion and thus ineligible to be taught. Unfortunately for the ID/creationist people, they had done it in such haste that in one instance, part of the old word had been left behind in the text, resulting in the typo cdesign proponentists".

This was particularly damning evidence against their central contention, in the trial, that ID was science and not just religious creationism dressed up a bit.

Thanks for sharing that. I have seen the term used before and took it to mean ID supporter, but I was unaware of that historical context or the story. It just finally occurred to me to ask.

 

[exchemist]

Thanks for sharing that. I have seen the term used before and took it to mean ID supporter, but I was unaware of that historical context or the story. It just finally occurred to me to ask.

I downloaded and read the judgement in that case, in 2005, I think. It was over 100 pages but made surprisingly good reading. The judge evidently had a lot of fun with the case - and completely eviscerated the Dover School board!

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Only if you know nothing of science. The sun existed before the Earth did.

The ^ above ^ I find is in harmony with the Genesis account as per day one - Genesis 1:1-3
The heavens ( includes the sun ) were created first before Earth.
Also, we want to keep in mind the creative days are Not dealing so much with matter or the material but more about arranging and preparing Earth for mankind to inhabit Earth.

Many people think the word ' created ' at verse 1 is the same at verses 16-18 but the word there is 'made', Not create.
Even today we can speak of a parent pro-creating a child, and that pro-created child can be ' made ' to do something.
An already existing child can be 'made' to sit in a chair, or 'made' to go to school, etc.
So, the ' made ' of verses 16-18 is about God giving the already existing created light (sun) be made to do something.
In this case, the already created light is being made ( a job to do ) to ' rule ' over day and night.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'm confused; are you trying to argue that the creation account in Genesis was intended to be scientific?

Yes, you are clearly confused, since nowhere did I argue, or even suggest, that the creation account in Genesis was intended to be scientific, simply because the narratives predated science. I do, however, believe that it was intended to be taken as literal truth in contradistinction to the scenario offered by ANE cosmology.

 

[izzy88]

The OP says the following. I know. I read it.

"So what about the Genesis Account? Can it be reconciled with science?

I wish to author this thread to explain not only that it can, but when observed from the correct viewpoint it becomes obvious that a nomadic wanderer some 3,500 years ago could not have written what he did without supernatural revelation."

The Genesis Account as the OP calls it, cannot be reconciled with science and several reasons have been given for that including that creation of plants predates either the creation of the sun or the action of the sun.

Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

You apparently didn't read past that sentence, and you're embarrassing yourself.

Go back and read the whole thing.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You apparently didn't read past that sentence, and you're embarrassing yourself.

Go back and read the whole thing.

There is no need for childish behavior and false arrogance. I do not have to put up with it. Just make a post showing that the OP establishes the scientific basis for Genesis without having to re-interpret it to get it to fit. The OP is not acknowledging the scriptures on Day 4, but giving his own inaccurate interpretation of those scriptures and calling that alignment.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You're still clinging to a straw man; you're ignoring what the OP actually says and arguing against something it doesn't.

Then stop yapping and show that it is a straw man.

 

[izzy88]

There is no need for childish behavior and false arrogance. I do not have to put up with it.

You mean like this?

Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

Then stop yapping

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You mean like this?

No. I mean what you are doing. What I did was a reasonable response to someone being purposefully obnoxious and obtuse.

Still no evidence of this straw man you mentioned. That would be the road you should aim your rubber at instead of trying to one up someone for getting tired of your nonsense.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You mean like this?

You have claimed there is a straw man here. It would be your burden to reveal that straw man and establish that it is really what I am responding to. Since I have directly quoted the OP and responded to those posts, it is a mighty burden you have set for yourself. I cannot wait to see what you have for me. I do not discount that you may show me something useful, but I have a diminishing expectation that you will at this point.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You mean like this?

If you think that I was addressing a straw man, I would appreciate that you establish that so that I may see it too. It would be useful to me.

 

[whirlingmerc]

I have no problem with the Genesis account
or science

to say God created earth......doesn't mean this planet
to say God created all that is green.....doesn't mean this planet

and maybe no one noticed?
Man as a species....male and female …..on Day Six
no names
no garden
no special tree
no law
go forth be fruitful, multiply, subdue all things......

Chapter Two is NOT a retelling of Chapter One
Adam is a chosen son of God

and God TOOK the Man (which He made of dust) and placed him IN a garden

Adam was not formed in the garden

and to say Adam was made of dust does not make him unique
you also are made of dust

and then the form of Eve

picture Moses telling you......God
laid a man to sleep
cut him
removed a rib
and formed the rib into a woman

looks like anesthesia.....surgery.....cloning.....genetic manipulation

Adam was given his twin sister for a bride

as you sit at the campfire hearing of this....you might ask
WHAT?......cut a man
remove a rib
and the man not DIE....!!!!!...….and he slept throughout??????????????

but we know this can happen
don't we?

It would be more tru to say the Bible is not reconcilable with Naturalism, the view everything had a natural cause and "we can't let the divine foot in the door".

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It would be more tru to say the Bible is not reconcilable with Naturalism, the view everything had a natural cause and "we can't let the divine foot in the door".

It would be more accurate to recognize that the Genesis account does not fit the evidence, but no fundamentalist/literalist I have ever met has shown that sort of honesty.

 

[Thief]

It would be more tru to say the Bible is not reconcilable with Naturalism, the view everything had a natural cause and "we can't let the divine foot in the door".

I think it natural.....for a Creator to tweak His creation