Genesis & Science - Friend or Foe?

[shunyadragon]

Or, you can just ignore the ones who tread on our pearls, which saves a LOT of time.

Ignoring the objective verifiable evidence of science will only get you your head in the sand.

The question remains 'good science that is not biased t anyone's personal world view.

 

[nPeace]

This is puzzling. Here you are claiming ignorance and a lack of confidence, but how can that be, considering your claim that Genesis and science are harmonious? Are you toying with me again? What do sheep clones have to do with it? Are they the product of bad science? Is that what you are getting at?

I am not claiming ignorance at all. Where did you read that? Oh. It's how you read it.
Surely, it's nowhere near a lack of confidence, that I am expressing.
Amusing myself? Yes.

Speciation produces hybrids? So species are formed when two different things breed together and produce a hybrid? What about all the other examples of speciation that do not involve hybridization? Are those examples of bad science that goes against what we believe, so we can ignore them then? Is that what the definition of bad science is? Is it any science that goes against what we believe, so it can be rejected without further review? Do not tease me. This is getting interesting.

I did not say any of that, and you didn't comment all all I said, so maybe that would explain your comments.

Do definitions of species claim that a completely new kind of organism will result that is no longer the same kind as the previous organisms that it sprang from. For instance, there is no speciation in the mating of a dogs and coyotes, because the result is still dog kind right? So if a duck and an alligator could interbreed, the result would be a species that is neither duck kind nor alligator kind and some new kind? Does speciation say that is what happens? Is this what people are claiming when they talk about evolution?

I'm not sure I understand your questions, but I'm sure I don't have to tell you what is suggested regarding speciation.

Oh. I can clearly see that is the TRUTH.

So dogs, wolves, African wild dogs, foxes, coyotes, the fennec fox, the side-striped jackal, dingoes and the red fox are all of dog kind. They can breed and produce only dog kind. I see. Once you recognize this superficial observation, it would appear to make sense to people that have not reviewed the subject as deeply as you have.

Yes, I saw that from the beginning of your post.
No I am not ignorant, and no i understand what you hope i don't, and no, you have not taught me anything here.

A family is a family, no matter whay you call them.
Moving on.

Yes. Please explain the fossil record. Remember, I asked about how it and how the harmony between Genesis and Good Science explain it. You seem to be indicating that it might be the other way, but I know that cannot be true, given your assertions in the OP.

Please explain the fossil record? Feinting ignorance again?
Moving on.

Yes. Reproduction is not evolution. But the others are not evolution either?
Do you disagree?

Thank you.

I am afraid, given what you have provided so far, I do not see how I can agree, without your further help in clarifying the matter. How do changes observed in the fossil record, when viewed as a whole and looking backward and forward at fossils of different ages, fit in all of this?

An example would be useful.
As far as I know, the fossil record never supported the evolution theory. However, the many hypothetical to support it does.

I am again confused. You need my help with these questions? Why? You have already stated that Genesis and Good Science are harmonious. You must already know the answers to these questions. It was to you that I was looking for the answers to questions like this, so that I too can reject bad science and see the harmony for myself. Since you are not rejecting these outright, are you implying that further consideration of them means they could be Good Science?

I agree completely. Where science conflicts with what we believe, it is bad science. Bad science can be dismissed with a wave of the hand. Once all that is dismissed, it is much easier to make Genesis appear to be in harmony with science.

Two can play that game.
When the evidence do not support the theory, and one does not find what is expected to be found, brush that under the carpet, and form a hypothetical to explain how a lack of support for the theory, actually supports it.
Good science?

You tell me. I would not have asked if I knew the answer. But apparently, any science in conflict with the global flood is bad science? Is that right?

Is that what you believe. i'm sorry you believe that. that's sad.
You are the one making the claim, not I do not know of any good science that conflicts with the Genesis account, nor can I grab something out of thin air.

This is much more confusing to me, since it ranges outside of biology and includes subjects of geology and physics, that must be rejected. What I am curious to know is that if we reject parts of physics that conflict with the global flood, but are necessary to explain things that we do accept, can we bring those parts back in for those things only?

I am not aware of the physics that conflict, and I can't guess what's in your head.

Once again, I was asking for your take on all of this, so that I can see what YOU see and also reject bad science. Presumably, the work of John Snow was bad science and it looks like I will have to reject epidemiology too. But I was hoping for clarification from you on that.

I am more confused about your questions.

This is very confusing. There are scientific theories and scientific laws. There is a theory of evolution that attempts to explain the evidence. There are theories of gravity. There is a law of gravity. Are you saying that the existence of theory in one science lead to the law of gravity, but the existence of a theory in another science does nothing good? How did you determine that? I did not know that a theory of gravity came before the law of gravity. Again, this is all very confusing. I would really appreciate you clearing it all up. Thank you so much.

You seem more confused than you really think you are. Maybe you are confusing yourself, because you like to think of yourself as more educated, and that may be causing you to form an understanding for people, which they have not even said, nor suggested, but if it can look that way, then you look good.

I said none of what you suggested there.

 

[nPeace]

Good geological science is quite capable of telling when and where locals floods have occurred in the past. And from what we know about the evidence from smaller local floods, a massive flood on a global level would have left enormous amounts of evidence. Yet good geological scientists find absolutely ZERO evidence that any sort of a global flood has ever taken place during the time when human beings have existed.

These determinations made by good geological science directly conflict with biblical accounts of a global flood that wiped out all of humanity... except for 8 fortunate human beings.

So, are you saying that science has confirmed that there was never a global flood?
Can you give me the data, on how they confirmed that?

 

[nPeace]

You claimed to define 'good science,' and have failed to do so. Apparently to you it is 'good science' if it agrees with your religious agenda of your interpretation of the Bible.

It seems to me, the more you accuse someone of a religious agenda, the more medals you get. How many time have you made that claim now...

 

[ecco]

I see no conflict between the account of Genesis, and good science.

Genesis: Worldwide Flood
Good Science: No Worldwide Flood

Gee, that was really hard. I need to go rest my overworked brain now.

 

[nPeace]

The tools of modern scholarship and science, for starters, help to provide that valid, coherent, and correct reasons for deciding. You can't read it in a vacuum and call that valid or correct reasoning.


I don't think most people who approach the Bible sincerely are deciding these things "just because they want it to be". That is insincerity. That is disingenuousness. That lacks integrity.

Rather, weighing everything as a whole, looking at things like what modern science reveals about the age of the earth, cosmology, evolution, etc, provides a well-researched and well-established scientific fact about the world that sheds some genuine light about the creation story of Genesis. It provides one major example of context for reading it. There are plenty other reasons to understand Genesis as non-literal.

However, to read it literally in denial of that well-established scientific truth is choosing to ignore that "just because they want it to be". That to me is a problem because it suppresses knowledge in order to maintain a belief. That is not what faith does. That is what fear does.


The choices of books to include into the Bible was a process of decisions made by religious leaders. Those choices reflect their beliefs, while things which did not support those beliefs were excluded. That's not a miracle. That's a deliberate selection process.

However, it's more complex than that. Certain theologies are themselves crafted and shaped taking certain stories or truths and creating a theme, which gets built upon, added to, and tailored to fit the various audiences. In other words, they evolve over time.

All these things can be seen in the doctrines which got passed on down to you, after having underwent such transformations over the ages. When you sit down and read a passage, you are looking at it through that lens that was passed down to you.

All of that colorizes your understanding of it, because that view passed on to you created the context in which you read it. The "consistent theme" you see, is a creation of views and teachings which shape what you see. Lacking any of that, that "theme" is not nearly so self-evident as the mind makes it appear to be. This is why in part you have different groups seeing different themes, often in contradiction to other group's readings.


As I just pointed out, all of it shaped by these things. You're not reading the Bible in a vacuum. As a great test of this, find someone with zero knowledge of Christian beliefs and teachings and let them read the Bible. What they end up seeing, you would probably call an error, because it doesn't match with your understandings of what and how you are reading it, having been conditioned previously to see it that way.


I always try to make a clear point that I never, ever use the word myth to mean false or a lie. I think I need to add that to my disclaimers in my signature. I always use myth in the technical sense as a type of story that conveys truth through stories. The facts of the story are not the point of a myth. The message is the point. Adam and Eve are, in my educated opinion, fictional characters, whose purpose is to represent all of us. They symbolize the truth of the human condition, through imaginary settings and storyline.

A good mythology is timeless in nature. I love the myth of the Garden of Eden, as it symbolically speaks truth - non-literally. There reaches a point where one can see the Truth without needing to literalize things into concrete historical facts. At that point, then we don't have to hide from knowledge which challenges that literalization. Such as denying evolution.



Again, I do not dismiss something because it is considered a mythology. On the contrary, I try to understand what it's trying to communicate through its imaginary characters and settings. Mythology is simply a category of types of storytelling.

For an understanding of what those like me mean when we refer to the Bible as containing mythologies, look into Joseph Cambell's work for starters. Joseph Campbell and the Myth of the Hero’s Journey

Apparently there are persons that believe that "the tools of modern scholarship and science" should reveal an understanding of the Bible. This is contrary to the Bible and its writers, and those who live by it.
Allowing worldly philosophy to direct ones steps, as opposed to allowing God's word and spirit to direct one's steps, is a matter of choice.
Scripture itself says this, and warns that the former will flourish in later periods.

 

[viole]

It's not.
I already addressed that here... the first paragraph.

Well, that is not an explanation.

You have to explain what it means “at the beginning”. Beginning of what? Surely not of the Universe, since there was no earth for a long time after the so called birth of the Universe.

Ciao

- viole

 

[shunyadragon]

It seems to me, the more you accuse someone of a religious agenda, the more medals you get. How many time have you made that claim now...

In your posts you clearly stated and admitted your religious agenda.

 

[nPeace]

And I have a response to the third paragraph of that post where Genesis was clearly wrong.

I quoted chapter and verse for you.

Why invite someone to a thread and then ignore that person when he refutes you?

I invited you to the thread with the hope that you would behave differently.
You ignore what you want, and make frivolous excuses, by making false accusations.
If you are going to do so, then I don't see why I should respond.
We have been through this before. You ignore anything that shows you were wrong, or that you can't answer to without admitting that you are wrong, and you make disparaging comments without reason.
I have decided to ignore you, rather than respond in a way, that I don't want to respond, but think you deserve.
I don't think you debate properly, and I don't want to get in a spat with you, which you seem to like. Perhaps that's what you push for, it seems.
You seem to like that sort of thing - a whole thread of spitting irrelevant comments.
I'm not about that, i want to go somewhere with the topic at hand.

 

[nPeace]

I guess if Romulus and Remus are mythological, so is Julius Ceasar. And what about Horatio at the bridge?

If Julius Caesar referred to myth as real, and no one has any clear evidence that he was refuted, or can refute it then the person doubting that Romulus and Remus were myth, then yes, they should likewise consider that Julius Caesar is mythical.
If Julius Caesar explained that he referred to myth, not as real, but in it's correct context, then we understand that he was making reference to a myth for the reason he gave.
Not the case with the Bible.

For that reason, I will create the list.

 

[Polymath257]

If Julius Caesar referred to myth as real, and no one has any clear evidence that he was refuted, or can refute it then the person doubting that Romulus and Remus were myth, then yes, they should likewise consider that Julius Caesar is mythical.

At the time of Julius Ceasar, the myth of Romulus and Remus was regarded as the actual way that Rome was founded.

Today, we know it was not. It was a myth that was believed to be true.

If Julius Caesar explained that he referred to myth, not as real, but in it's correct context, then we understand that he was making reference to a myth for the reason he gave.
Not the case with the Bible.

For that reason, I will create the list.

Yes, it is very similar to the Bible. Like the myth of Romulus and Remus, and the stories that go along with that myth, the Bible is a collection of stories reporting to describe the origin of a people. It has been regarded as valid history, but today we know that much of it is mythical.

Nonetheless, many of the places mentioned in the Bible are actual places and many of the people mentioned (especially in the later books) are real people. There is both myth and fact in the Bible, just as there is both myth and fact in Livy's history of Rome.

 

[nPeace]

At the time of Julius Ceasar, the myth of Romulus and Remus was regarded as the actual way that Rome was founded.

Today, we know it was not. It was a myth that was believed to be true.



Yes, it is very similar to the Bible. Like the myth of Romulus and Remus, and the stories that go along with that myth, the Bible is a collection of stories reporting to describe the origin of a people. It has been regarded as valid history, but today we know that much of it is mythical.

Nonetheless, many of the places mentioned in the Bible are actual places and many of the people mentioned (especially in the later books) are real people. There is both myth and fact in the Bible, just as there is both myth and fact in Livy's history of Rome.

I'll certainly research what you say, since i don't debate what I have no knowledge of, so I'll be back later, to consider that, and with the list.

 

[nPeace]

Well, that is not an explanation.

You have to explain what it means “at the beginning”. Beginning of what? Surely not of the Universe, since there was no earth for a long time after the so called birth of the Universe.

Ciao

- viole

When the Bible uses beginning, it refers to a point in time, of course it does not refer to the ultimate beginning.
Think of it this way, it is talking about a specific era, and is referring to the beginning of that era. It does not mean that there were no past eras.
For example, according to the Bible, spirit beings were created before the heavens and earth, so it is not saying that nothing existed before the beginning of that era.
One who reads the Bible, must try to understanding in it's context, not in the context of what we believe.
The heavens and the earth were not created at the same time either, just because it says, "In the beginning God created the heavens, and the earth".
Understanding the context is very important.

 

[viole]

When the Bible uses beginning, it refers to a point in time, of course it does not refer to the ultimate beginning.
Think of it this way, it is talking about a specific era, and is referring to the beginning of that era. It does not mean that there were no past eras.
For example, according to the Bible, spirit beings were created before the heavens and earth, so it is not saying that nothing existed before the beginning of that era.
One who reads the Bible, must try to understanding in it's context, not in the context of what we believe.
The heavens and the earth were not created at the same time either, just because it says, "In the beginning God created the heavens, and the earth".
Understanding the context is very important.

Well, the problem is that you can always find a context that explains everything, basically.

Next. Do you accept the fact that stars existed long before the earth?

Ciao

- viole

 

[nPeace]

Well, the problem is that you can always find a context that explains everything, basically.

Next. Do you accept the fact that stars existed long before the earth?

Ciao

- viole

Very much so. Yes.

 

[viole]

Very much so. Yes.

Cool. I start liking you.

Do you accept that you, carrots, bananas, dinos, dogs, etc all share a common ancestor?

Ciao

- viole

 

[nPeace]

Cool. I start liking you.

Do you accept that you, carrots, bananas, dinos, dogs, etc all share a common ancestor?

Ciao

- viole

I see no evidence for that. No.
Now do you hate me?
@viole my answer is assuming that you mean one common ancestor.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I invited you to the thread with the hope that you would behave differently.
You ignore what you want, and make frivolous excuses, by making false accusations.
If you are going to do so, then I don't see why I should respond.
We have been through this before. You ignore anything that shows you were wrong, or that you can't answer to without admitting that you are wrong, and you make disparaging comments without reason.
I have decided to ignore you, rather than respond in a way, that I don't want to respond, but think you deserve.
I don't think you debate properly, and I don't want to get in a spat with you, which you seem to like. Perhaps that's what you push for, it seems.
You seem to like that sort of thing - a whole thread of spitting irrelevant comments.
I'm not about that, i want to go somewhere with the topic at hand.

No, I brought up serious problems. There were no false accusations. You got ticked off when I brought up the Noah's Ark myth. Why was that? Is that not a problem of science and the Bible since science tells us that no flood of any sort ever occurred?

If you want to claim that I was wrong you need to be specific. Simply waving your hands and complaining is not going to get you anywhere.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I see no evidence for that. No.
Now do you hate me?
@viole my answer is assuming that you mean one common ancestor.

Then you do not understand the nature of evidence. Do you remember how we were working on the scientific method? We barely got into that discussion. Once we understood that I was going to cover the concept of evidence. If one understands the concept of evidence it is undeniable that there is evidence for common ancestry.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Apparently there are persons that believe that "the tools of modern scholarship and science" should reveal an understanding of the Bible. This is contrary to the Bible and its writers, and those who live by it.
Allowing worldly philosophy to direct ones steps, as opposed to allowing God's word and spirit to direct one's steps, is a matter of choice.
Scripture itself says this, and warns that the former will flourish in later periods.

Really? I don't know of any such people. You may be a bit confused. One thing that science can do is to tell us if a particular interpretation is wrong. That helps to understand the Bible, but that alone does not give an understanding of the Bible. The problem with certain beliefs is that the only way that they could be true is if God planted false evidence, or in other words God would have had to lie. That appears to go against the nature of God in the Bible, and that tells us that the interpretation has to be wrong.