Genesis & Science - Friend or Foe?

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Do you have any disagreements, that Genesis conflicts with scientific discoveries?

No. I agree with that.

Please state how science conflicts with the Genesis account. Saying you don't find evidence for this or that is not a conflict.

There are two accounts in Genesis of the creation of the world and the life in it, which contradict one another. Science has offered an account of the history of the universe that contradicts both of them. You have been given many examples of discrepancies between science and scripture already. There is no need to repeat them. If you haven't seen them yet, you won't later, either.

You cannot see these things for reasons already explained to you here , which you chose not to comment on. My position hasn't changed since then, and the argument still stands.

Yes, I agree the Genesis account is history, not science.

If it were accurate, it would be both. The Big Bang theory is both. It is a scientific account of the history of the universe. Genesis is neither. It's mythology.

I am asking you about science SZ, not about your personal hangups with the flood account.

Science contradicts the biblical flood story. You've been told this already, and been given some specifics, but it hasn't gotten through, nor will it. There are dozens of evidenced arguments contradicting the biblical flood story, but one has to be open to the possibility that this flood never occurred to be able to understand why it has already been ruled out by science..

Clearly you must define evolution, because there are various understandings of what evolution is

There is only one scientific theory of biological evolution. It can be defined simply as descent with modification.

Or, fleshed out a little more, evolution is the observation that living populations change over time in ways that affect their ability to compete for scarce resources.

Or, one can provide a much more detailed definition including terms such as differential survival, gene pools, speciation, last common ancestor, naturalistic, genetic variation, and natural selection.

What good science is there for the origin of life? Please, after you establish that, we can go from there.

No disrespect intended, but your interest in abiogenesis research is not to learn about it, but to contradict the idea that life arose on earth spontaneously because you believe something else by faith.

If you cared about understanding this science, you would already know it. You would have been following it for years as those who are interested have been doing.

And if you suddenly developed a sincere interest in these matters, the information is available to you on the Internet. You would be Googling the subject and reading about the state-of-the-art in abiogenesis.

So, if you want to learn science, do it the way the people you are asking to tutor you did it. You are responsible for your education, not Religious Forums members. Enroll in a university course on abiogenesis, or go down to your local bookseller and purchase any of the fine books written on the subject for lay consumption.

If I'm wrong about your purpose, then you will begin your journey today and find something about abiogenesis from a science source - not religious apologetics - read it, and come back to this forum to tell us what you learned and ask any questions your reading created for you.

Surprise me, and take me up on this offer, one I've made a dozen times before, and one which has never been accepted.

Persons can always find supportive arguments for their beliefs, while ignoring the evidence against those arguments.

Isn't that what you're doing? You say that science and your religion are compatible, and you have been shown evidence that they are in disagreement on multiple fronts. You've ignored it all. You've been told that there isn't enough water on earth to submerge all dry land, and that the evidence that would have been left behind by such an event is absent.

Plus, a little reasoning can help you reject that story. First, no god is going to purge the earth of its mistake and then repopulate it using the same breeding stock.

Second, a good god would simply repair the defective line of humans rather than kill virtually everything on dry land.

Third, we've seen from the recent construction of a ark according to the specifications given in the Bible that this feat could not have occurred in the ancient past. It took crews of truck, cranes, and metal braces and fasteners not available to Noah, who had a team of eight, most of which one presumes would be out gathering penguins from antarctica and kangaroos from Australia.

Fourth, do you know how hard rain would have to fall to submerge Everest in 40 days? We're talking about approximately 30 feet of rain an hour if the whole world was being rained upon, or 60 feet an hour if only half of the world was raining. That's a roofless three (or six) story building filling every hour of a six week deluge. That isn't possible, at least not on earth. Also, such a deluge would probably sink a modern cruise ship, much less an ancient wooden boat.

And if you want to say that most of the water bubbled up from springs rather than fell, this would still be a worldwide torrent of epic proportion (literally) requiring water not known to exist to come percolating up from subterranean reservoirs for no apparent reason, remained suspended above the surface of the earth for weeks, then disappeared from view. A little common sense should tell you that if the earth was once completely submerged, then unless earth has lost about 3/4 of the water needed to do that, that land ought to still be submerged.

Also, if this story were true up to the point of the rains beginning to flood the earth, Noah's neighbors would have simply commandeered his ship to save their own lives, and eaten the animals.

We can go on and on, but if reason or evidence could penetrate your faith-based confirmation bias, it would have done so already.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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?

Of course. Ice cores alone tell us that there never was a worldwide flood. In case you did not know it, ice floats. The ice caps have been here longer than man has. and that is just one piece of evidence out of countless ones that tell us that there was no flood. Wikipedia is a good starting point:

Ice core - Wikipedia

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Maybe you should ask what the firs line [of the Bible] means.

Why should he? He's demonstrated that he is literate in English.

Most of us decide for ourselves what the meaning of writing is whatever we're reading, with no help from others. What other books do you tell people that they are not qualified to understand apart from technical material written in specialized jargon?

I know where this idea that only certain people can understand what words mean comes from. It's a defense against unbelievers pointing out the errors and contradictions in the Bible. The Bible says, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Science says that the earth was formed billions of years after the heavens, and therefore wasn't present in the beginning. That's a clear contradiction.

The unbeliever is free to notice that and say so, but the believer generally is not. He won't say that there is an error in the Bible, and will attempt to disqualify those who do.

There is no reason for the unbeliever to believe that the writer of those words didn't mean what the words appear to mean unless you also believe that the Bible is divinely authored and therefore cannot be wrong - that if it seems to be wrong, it must be understood in some other way, and perhaps call it metaphor or allegory.

But metaphor or allegory for what? What really happened?

Can't one say that about every error found anywhere? "Where were you last night? Oh, I wasn't wrong about dinner reservations being for 7PM. That was just a metaphor for we have theater ticket for 8 PM. You didn't take it literally and actually go to the restaurant, did you?"

The first page contains my post on what is good science.

I never saw your definition of good science, just a couple of orphan links to websites (orphan because they are provided to support an argument, but in lieu of one). If I haven't told you this already, I'll tell you now. Many of us are not interested in reading the arguments of people not present to defend them. If you don't make the argument yourself, there is no reason to look at the link. You've said nothing, and I can't debate your link's author, so what's the point? If you don't want to make the argument yourself, then don't, but don't expect others to care enough to look at something that you didn't care enough to paraphrase or summarize.

Why? I've lost count of how many times in the past I opened and read somebody's orphan link, and replied to the supplier of the link only to discover that he didn't actually read the article, or read it but misunderstood it, or the paragraphs in the link that I responded to weren't the part of interest to the link poster, making my response irrelevant to whatever was his actual point that he never made.

I didn't read either link because I already know what good and bad science is. The matter of interest was what you thought they were. We still don't know. Because you have never defined what you mean by good and bad science, others have done that for you. They think that what you mean is that science that contradicts your faith-based beliefs is bad, the rest good. You've given them no reason to think otherwise.

No one says everything is literal

I take all scripture (and all other prose from any source) at face value unless it is clearly indicated that the words are a parable, like the parable of the prodigal son or the parable of the lost sheep. In the case of other sources, unless the material is clearly satire, or humor, or called fiction, we have no reason and no license to alter the apparent meaning of the words as written.

Absent a clear indication that specific passages were not meant to be understood literally or as historical fact, we have no reason to believe that the Bible writers didn't mean them as such.

There are parts which are history. There are parts which are poetry. There are parts which are mythological. There are parts which are allegorical. And so forth. As Subduction Zone pointed out already, why is it viewed with such an all-or-nothing approach? That wouldn't be wise. It's an easy way for one to lose faith when they set it up like that. All it takes is one error of fact and the whole thing collapses under such an artificial constraint.

That is the case with the nonbeliever, and why he is a nonbeliever. Where the believer invokes metaphor and allegory to prevent that collapse, others who see no reason not to believe that the writers didn't mean what they wrote, or didn't believe that those events actually occurred and could have been witnessed by anyone present when they occurred.

you can just ignore the ones who tread on our pearls

We reject what you call pearls because they have no value to those who feel centered, well-grounded, and content without them.

Also, I don't see why you value them. You must have some need met by religious belief that I meet without it. There is nothing appealing about needing to be a part of a religion to feel satisfied, or unafraid, or whatever it is that these beliefs do for you. As I've said elsewhere recently, it's great that a person who needs glasses to read can get them, but those who can see well without glasses have no reason to envy such people or want a pair of glasses of their own, even if the frames are inlaid with pearl.

I can't even respond to those who write sweeping statements like "there is NO evidence for a universal Flood"

How about that there is insufficient supporting evidence, but that there is evidence against it?

Absence of proof is not proof of absence, but absence of expected evidence is evidence of absence. As has already been explained, certain findings would be in evidence today had there been a global flood that nearly extinguished all terrestrial life on earth. The absence of these findings is evidence against the claim.

Disagree?

Suppose you discover that your paycheck is light a day's wages. Sure, you took Tuesday off without telling anybody, and hoped they wouldn't notice, but your time card wasn't stamped, and your coworkers, who can see you when you are work, say you weren't seen at work Tuesday.

That's not proof that you didn't come to the factory Tuesday, but you're not going to get paid based on the strength of the evidence against you, which in this case is absence of expected evidence, even if you go to the labor board, and even if you sue.

 

[viole]

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

I dont hate you. I just notice you do not follow the Bible. As I thought.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Windwalker]

That is the case with the nonbeliever, and why he is a nonbeliever. Where the believer invokes metaphor and allegory to prevent that collapse, others who see no reason not to believe that the writers didn't mean what they wrote, or didn't believe that those events actually occurred and could have been witnessed by anyone present when they occurred.

Part of what you say it correct. I often say to the True Believer, whose literalism stretches the cover of the Bible so tightly that it's just one error away from destruction, that they are poised to become an atheist at the first crack that begins to appear. It's not faith that keeps them there, but stubborn insistence on preserving belief at all cost. At the heart of that I believe is fear. And that is fear of not believing it, and all that that will entail for them.

The other part that they chose to call it metaphor to not change the belief, doesn't actually make sense to me. If they recognize it as a metaphor, they have already changed their belief. They no longer read it literally, but metaphorically, and that allows for some air to breath in their faith, no longer needing to deny science in order to have faith, for one thing.

Understanding these things as metaphors is actually a positive growth step in maturing faith, which is no longer at odds with other beliefs, or contradictions to their own. Metaphors allow multiple perspective. True Believer'ism on the other hand, is mono-perspectival. It is also mono-vocal. Words mean one thing only, and it is the things they are believing.

For more information, you can reference Fowler's Stages of Faith, and moving into the ability to see that the meaning of the symbols of their faith are also found in other symbols, allows that understanding of metaphors to open to them. This begins at Stage 4, two stages more developed beyond the Mythic-Literal stage which tends to be very mono-perspectival, unable to decouple meaning from the symbol. Chart of James Fowler's Stages of Faith | psychologycharts.com

This is the tough stage, often begun in young adulthood, when people start seeing outside the box and realizing that there are other "boxes". They begin to critically examine their beliefs on their own and often become disillusioned with their former faith. Ironically, the Stage 3 people usually think that Stage 4 people have become "backsliders" when in reality they have actually moved forward.
​

This is the stage where Atheism may come online for some as a result of that development. But that is not necessarily a direction one may go. Others may begin to expand their understandings of their own faith without the constraints of literalism binding them anymore. This is where deepening an understanding of the nature of metaphors allows faith to breathe and stretch and grow, rather than being constricted as it became earlier under more tightly defined and controlled systems of belief.

 

[QuestioningMind]

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?

Do you actually think that any 'good scientist' would claim that they have 'confirmed' that a global flood NEVER happened? CLEARLY you don't have a clue how 'good science' actually works. Scientists are ALWAYS open to the possibility that new information will be uncovered. Thus, no matter how UNLIKELY a scientist might think that it is that some verifiable evidence for a global flood will someday be discovered, they always acknowledge that remains a POSSIBILITY, no matter how slim.

What a 'good scientist' DOES do is to search for verifiable evidence and when ZERO verifiable evidence for a claim is found then it GREATLY decreased the likelihood that the claim is true. And when it comes to things like local floods, geological scientists have numerous ways of verifying that they have occurred. And if a local flood leaves behind lots of verifiable evidence that it occurred it's only logical to assume that a global flood would leave even MORE verifiable evidence that it occurred. Yet the exact OPPOSITE is true. In fact, there is absolutely NO verifiable evidence that any global flood ever occurred while human beings inhabited the planet.

THAT's how 'good science' works.

 

[nPeace]

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.

I'm not going to argue with you SZ. You are not the first, last, or only person to mention the flood, so that alone is evidence this has nothing to do with what you are claiming.

 

[nPeace]

I dont hate you. I just notice you do not follow the Bible. As I thought.

Ciao

- viole

Oh, that's wonderful to know that you thought wrong of me. Finally, someone I can say thought wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not going to argue with you SZ. You are not the first, last, or only person to mention the flood, so that alone is evidence this has nothing to do with what you are claiming.

I am sorry, but this post makes no sense. The title of your thread asks if science is the friend or foe of Genesis, in the case of the Noah's Ark Myth it is definitely a foe.

 

[nPeace]

Do you actually think that any 'good scientist' would claim that they have 'confirmed' that a global flood NEVER happened? CLEARLY you don't have a clue how 'good science' actually works. Scientists are ALWAYS open to the possibility that new information will be uncovered. Thus, no matter how UNLIKELY a scientist might think that it is that some verifiable evidence for a global flood will someday be discovered, they always acknowledge that remains a POSSIBILITY, no matter how slim.

What a 'good scientist' DOES do is to search for verifiable evidence and when ZERO verifiable evidence for a claim is found then it GREATLY decreased the likelihood that the claim is true. And when it comes to things like local floods, geological scientists have numerous ways of verifying that they have occurred. And if a local flood leaves behind lots of verifiable evidence that it occurred it's only logical to assume that a global flood would leave even MORE verifiable evidence that it occurred. Yet the exact OPPOSITE is true. In fact, there is absolutely NO verifiable evidence that any global flood ever occurred while human beings inhabited the planet.

THAT's how 'good science' works.

I like how you guys like to always say you, and then add, don't know, or understand. It cracks me up how people ego trip.
I think you already know why I put that to you.

You are therefore making assumptions.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I like how you guys like to always say you, and then add, don't know, or understand. It cracks me up how people ego trip.
I think you already know why I put that to you.

You are therefore making assumptions.

I like how you guys like to always say you, and then add, don't know, or understand.

The above sentence makes no sense.

So, do you or do you not comprehend how good science works?

Let's start with something simple. Do you believe that geology is 'good science'? Do you think that geologists are capable of determining when and where local floods occurred based upon verifiable evidence?

Just a hint: IF you say NO then you've demonstrated that you have absolutely no concept of what 'good science' is and your entire OP is worthless.

 

[sooda]

Why should he? He's demonstrated that he is literate in English.

Most of us decide for ourselves what the meaning of writing is whatever we're reading, with no help from others. What other books do you tell people that they are not qualified to understand apart from technical material written in specialized jargon?

I know where this idea that only certain people can understand what words mean comes from. It's a defense against unbelievers pointing out the errors and contradictions in the Bible. The Bible says, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Science says that the earth was formed billions of years after the heavens, and therefore wasn't present in the beginning. That's a clear contradiction.

The unbeliever is free to notice that and say so, but the believer generally is not. He won't say that there is an error in the Bible, and will attempt to disqualify those who do.

There is no reason for the unbeliever to believe that the writer of those words didn't mean what the words appear to mean unless you also believe that the Bible is divinely authored and therefore cannot be wrong - that if it seems to be wrong, it must be understood in some other way, and perhaps call it metaphor or allegory.

But metaphor or allegory for what? What really happened?

Can't one say that about every error found anywhere? "Where were you last night? Oh, I wasn't wrong about dinner reservations being for 7PM. That was just a metaphor for we have theater ticket for 8 PM. You didn't take it literally and actually go to the restaurant, did you?"



I never saw your definition of good science, just a couple of orphan links to websites (orphan because they are provided to support an argument, but in lieu of one). If I haven't told you this already, I'll tell you now. Many of us are not interested in reading the arguments of people not present to defend them. If you don't make the argument yourself, there is no reason to look at the link. You've said nothing, and I can't debate your link's author, so what's the point? If you don't want to make the argument yourself, then don't, but don't expect others to care enough to look at something that you didn't care enough to paraphrase or summarize.

Why? I've lost count of how many times in the past I opened and read somebody's orphan link, and replied to the supplier of the link only to discover that he didn't actually read the article, or read it but misunderstood it, or the paragraphs in the link that I responded to weren't the part of interest to the link poster, making my response irrelevant to whatever was his actual point that he never made.

I didn't read either link because I already know what good and bad science is. The matter of interest was what you thought they were. We still don't know. Because you have never defined what you mean by good and bad science, others have done that for you. They think that what you mean is that science that contradicts your faith-based beliefs is bad, the rest good. You've given them no reason to think otherwise.



I take all scripture (and all other prose from any source) at face value unless it is clearly indicated that the words are a parable, like the parable of the prodigal son or the parable of the lost sheep. In the case of other sources, unless the material is clearly satire, or humor, or called fiction, we have no reason and no license to alter the apparent meaning of the words as written.

Absent a clear indication that specific passages were not meant to be understood literally or as historical fact, we have no reason to believe that the Bible writers didn't mean them as such.



That is the case with the nonbeliever, and why he is a nonbeliever. Where the believer invokes metaphor and allegory to prevent that collapse, others who see no reason not to believe that the writers didn't mean what they wrote, or didn't believe that those events actually occurred and could have been witnessed by anyone present when they occurred.



We reject what you call pearls because they have no value to those who feel centered, well-grounded, and content without them.

Also, I don't see why you value them. You must have some need met by religious belief that I meet without it. There is nothing appealing about needing to be a part of a religion to feel satisfied, or unafraid, or whatever it is that these beliefs do for you. As I've said elsewhere recently, it's great that a person who needs glasses to read can get them, but those who can see well without glasses have no reason to envy such people or want a pair of glasses of their own, even if the frames are inlaid with pearl.



How about that there is insufficient supporting evidence, but that there is evidence against it?

Absence of proof is not proof of absence, but absence of expected evidence is evidence of absence. As has already been explained, certain findings would be in evidence today had there been a global flood that nearly extinguished all terrestrial life on earth. The absence of these findings is evidence against the claim.

Disagree?

Suppose you discover that your paycheck is light a day's wages. Sure, you took Tuesday off without telling anybody, and hoped they wouldn't notice, but your time card wasn't stamped, and your coworkers, who can see you when you are work, say you weren't seen at work Tuesday.

That's not proof that you didn't come to the factory Tuesday, but you're not going to get paid based on the strength of the evidence against you, which in this case is absence of expected evidence, even if you go to the labor board, and even if you sue.

Parable - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable
A parable is a succinct, didactic story, in prose or verse that illustrates one or more instructive lessons or principles. It differs from a fable in that fables employ animals, plants, inanimate objects, or forces of nature as characters, whereas parables have human characters. A parable is a type of analogy.

par·a·ble
[ˈperəb(ə)l]
NOUN
parables (plural noun)

1. a simple story used to illustrate a moral or spiritual lesson, as told by Jesus in the Gospels.
   "the parable of the blind men and the elephant" · "a modern-day parable"
   synonyms:
   allegory · moral story · moral tale · fable · lesson · exemplum · Haggadah · apologue

 

[sooda]

I like how you guys like to always say you, and then add, don't know, or understand. It cracks me up how people ego trip.
I think you already know why I put that to you.

You are therefore making assumptions.

Between a variety of mining operations and exploration for oil, gas, bauxite, coal, iron ore, uranium, etc. trained geologists would have seen some evidence for global flood. Are you a trained geologist?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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.

I am a secular humanist, undoubtedly a worldview that you would call worldly. My beliefs and values derive from experience and the process of trial and error by the application of reason to evidence and empathy - not holy books. The ideas that worked to produce desired outcomes were collected, and those that didn't discarded, the latter including Christianity, which did not bring me anything except cognitive dissonance toward the end. So I left it some 35 years ago, and have been well satisfied with that decision since.

I imagine based on your comment above that you would advise me to return to Christianity, but surely that would be a mistake for me unless the God of the Christian Bible exists and intends to damn me if I don't - a belief I have no reason to hold even if true.

You [ @Subduction Zone ] ignore anything that shows you were wrong, or that you can't answer to without admitting that you are wrong

I didn't see that. Perhaps you can point to an example of something substantial from you that he ignored.

When the Bible uses beginning, it refers to a point in time, of course it does not refer to the ultimate beginning.

I have no reason to believe that, either. What is your evidence that beginning doesn't mean the beginning of the world - when it first began? Contradictory scripture written by another Bible writer?

One who reads the Bible, must try to understanding in it's context, not in the context of what we believe.

If I do that, why read it at all. The Bible is either a timeless book authored by an unchanging deity, in which case context, by which I mean the ways, conditions, and thoughts of the time and place in which it was written, is irrelevant

Or it's a book written by ancient men using the literary device of a god to tell others what they believed then, in which case context is important, but the message isn't.

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.

How about understanding the context of this discussion - a biblical apologist disagreeing with unbelievers about what the words in the Bible mean? It's the context of this relationship that allows me to disregard opinions like this one above, and conclude that there is no reason to believe that the writer of those words didn't mean what they say if the only people that say otherwise are those who have a huge stake in the Bible not being wrong.

 

[Workman]

I am a secular humanist, undoubtedly a worldview that you would call worldly. My beliefs and values derive from experience and the process of trial and error by the application of reason to evidence and empathy - not holy books. The ideas that worked to produce desired outcomes were collected, and those that didn't discarded, the latter including Christianity, which did not bring me anything except cognitive dissonance toward the end. So I left it some 35 years ago, and have been well satisfied with that decision since.

I imagine based on your comment above that you would advise me to return to Christianity, but surely that would be a mistake for me unless the God of the Christian Bible exists and intends to damn me if I don't - a belief I have no reason to hold even if true.



I didn't see that. Perhaps you can point to an example of something substantial from you that he ignored.



I have no reason to believe that, either. What is your evidence that beginning doesn't mean the beginning of the world - when it first began? Contradictory scripture written by another Bible writer?



If I do that, why read it at all. The Bible is either a timeless book authored by an unchanging deity, in which case context, by which I mean the ways, conditions, and thoughts of the time and place in which it was written, is irrelevant

Or it's a book written by ancient men using the literary device of a god to tell others what they believed then, in which case context is important, but the message isn't.



How about understanding the context of this discussion - a biblical apologist disagreeing with unbelievers about what the words in the Bible mean? It's the context of this relationship that allows me to disregard opinions like this one above, and conclude that there is no reason to believe that the writer of those words didn't mean what they say if the only people that say otherwise are those who have a huge stake in the Bible not being wrong.

Do you know anything at all...except of what you don’t know of??

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Do you know anything at all...except of what you don’t know of??

I have found a way to live to be happy. Have you? If not, let me know and I'll try to help if I can.

 

[Workman]

I have found a way to live to be happy. Have you? If not, let me know and I'll try to help if I can.

Thanks for the offer!..I’m good as always, but not even you cant help of what you dont recognise..and yes off coarse! I believe you, you definitely have found a way, infact! You’ve found many different ways of being happy! Well Good for you!..but heres the problem that I know...that you don’t.

You see!..happiness can be found from many different ways, of many different forms..in many different angles..and places, it’s that easy now that you can buy your self happiness...but there’s one thing for sure though..

To be happy for..is to believe for, right?

So here now is a question for you..how is your happiness better than mine?

 

[Windwalker]

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.

I didn't mention anything about philosophy in this context. I'm talking basic research, fact-finding, and a good knowledge through higher education. You seem to have the mistaken notion that faith requires us to lobotomize our minds and deny reason when it presents clear evidence that challenges our beliefs.

That is not what a true Biblical faith is. To deny reason's voice is not Biblical. That is a distortion of faith in the service of fear. It does not serve Truth. It serves yourself to keep you from faith itself.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.

Good science may still lead to incorrect data interpretation. That's the real issue I was encapsulating with "bad science".

 

[BilliardsBall]

Why should he? He's demonstrated that he is literate in English.

Most of us decide for ourselves what the meaning of writing is whatever we're reading, with no help from others. What other books do you tell people that they are not qualified to understand apart from technical material written in specialized jargon?

I know where this idea that only certain people can understand what words mean comes from. It's a defense against unbelievers pointing out the errors and contradictions in the Bible. The Bible says, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Science says that the earth was formed billions of years after the heavens, and therefore wasn't present in the beginning. That's a clear contradiction.

The unbeliever is free to notice that and say so, but the believer generally is not. He won't say that there is an error in the Bible, and will attempt to disqualify those who do.

There is no reason for the unbeliever to believe that the writer of those words didn't mean what the words appear to mean unless you also believe that the Bible is divinely authored and therefore cannot be wrong - that if it seems to be wrong, it must be understood in some other way, and perhaps call it metaphor or allegory.

But metaphor or allegory for what? What really happened?

Can't one say that about every error found anywhere? "Where were you last night? Oh, I wasn't wrong about dinner reservations being for 7PM. That was just a metaphor for we have theater ticket for 8 PM. You didn't take it literally and actually go to the restaurant, did you?"



I never saw your definition of good science, just a couple of orphan links to websites (orphan because they are provided to support an argument, but in lieu of one). If I haven't told you this already, I'll tell you now. Many of us are not interested in reading the arguments of people not present to defend them. If you don't make the argument yourself, there is no reason to look at the link. You've said nothing, and I can't debate your link's author, so what's the point? If you don't want to make the argument yourself, then don't, but don't expect others to care enough to look at something that you didn't care enough to paraphrase or summarize.

Why? I've lost count of how many times in the past I opened and read somebody's orphan link, and replied to the supplier of the link only to discover that he didn't actually read the article, or read it but misunderstood it, or the paragraphs in the link that I responded to weren't the part of interest to the link poster, making my response irrelevant to whatever was his actual point that he never made.

I didn't read either link because I already know what good and bad science is. The matter of interest was what you thought they were. We still don't know. Because you have never defined what you mean by good and bad science, others have done that for you. They think that what you mean is that science that contradicts your faith-based beliefs is bad, the rest good. You've given them no reason to think otherwise.



I take all scripture (and all other prose from any source) at face value unless it is clearly indicated that the words are a parable, like the parable of the prodigal son or the parable of the lost sheep. In the case of other sources, unless the material is clearly satire, or humor, or called fiction, we have no reason and no license to alter the apparent meaning of the words as written.

Absent a clear indication that specific passages were not meant to be understood literally or as historical fact, we have no reason to believe that the Bible writers didn't mean them as such.



That is the case with the nonbeliever, and why he is a nonbeliever. Where the believer invokes metaphor and allegory to prevent that collapse, others who see no reason not to believe that the writers didn't mean what they wrote, or didn't believe that those events actually occurred and could have been witnessed by anyone present when they occurred.



We reject what you call pearls because they have no value to those who feel centered, well-grounded, and content without them.

Also, I don't see why you value them. You must have some need met by religious belief that I meet without it. There is nothing appealing about needing to be a part of a religion to feel satisfied, or unafraid, or whatever it is that these beliefs do for you. As I've said elsewhere recently, it's great that a person who needs glasses to read can get them, but those who can see well without glasses have no reason to envy such people or want a pair of glasses of their own, even if the frames are inlaid with pearl.



How about that there is insufficient supporting evidence, but that there is evidence against it?

Absence of proof is not proof of absence, but absence of expected evidence is evidence of absence. As has already been explained, certain findings would be in evidence today had there been a global flood that nearly extinguished all terrestrial life on earth. The absence of these findings is evidence against the claim.

Disagree?

Suppose you discover that your paycheck is light a day's wages. Sure, you took Tuesday off without telling anybody, and hoped they wouldn't notice, but your time card wasn't stamped, and your coworkers, who can see you when you are work, say you weren't seen at work Tuesday.

That's not proof that you didn't come to the factory Tuesday, but you're not going to get paid based on the strength of the evidence against you, which in this case is absence of expected evidence, even if you go to the labor board, and even if you sue.

1) It is not religion that gives me succor but a person/God.

2) It is not "evidence against" but "evidence for".