Why didn't you do this, your first post - page 4? Why ten pages after?
I hardly thought there was a need for this, since there is no evidence to support a claim that science and Genesis are in harmony. If there were any evidence, you would have provided it in such a list as I did. You never did.
The order of creation is given as a record.
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. It tells me nothing. It is a list. A record, records an event and these are not events supported by any evidence. It is not even an accurate list. Your statement does not explain the out of step order.
The way scientists determine the order of the phyla to create a hypothetical - an evolutionary tree, to support common descent is largely based on opinion on selective organism with similarities, and is not based on the supportive evidence.
This is your major problem. You have not got the first clue how systematicists and taxonomists establish a phylogeny. Relationships among organisms is not opinion. They are hypotheses that are tested. They include all the known specimens for the group or groups of interest and outgroups (known specimens not closely related) are included. Successful tests result in a phylogeny based on the evidence. I cannot speak for the entire field outside of insects, but traditionally, much of the hypotheses were based on the morphological data from insects, but more recent work with molecular data has shown the older morphological work was very sound and a significant portion of it has held up.
Opinions. That is a good one. LOL! Maybe if you spent some time learning what scientists do you would not have to construct easily refuted straw man arguments to support your claims.
Since the conclusion is not arrived at by proper use of the scientific method, it is not good science.
Based on what I have seen of your knowledge of science, there is no way that you have the ability to make this determination. It is contrived out of a desire that what you believe takes precedence over what can be demonstrated.
The conclusion of relationships and descent are arrived at through a proper use of the scientific method and are good science. Testing is done using validated techniques with data on morphology, ecology, genetics and molecular biology. You have not demonstrated that they are otherwise. You have not demonstrated an ability to even make the attempt.
I never read in Genesis where plants preceded the sun. I think it is a matter of how one studies, or more specifically, fails to study the Bible, that they arrive at that, but that's my view. Others have theirs.
Then you must never have read Genesis.
There are many arguments for evidence of a flood. Many ignore this.
What that has to do with science, I don't know, but many disagree that there is no evidence for a flood. So much, that they say the flood did occur, but locally, not global.
However, based on how one sees the geography of the earth and at what period, can influence one's conclusions.
There is no evidence that supports the occurrence of a global flood during the last 20,000,000 years. This is just your attempt to deny this fact and continue to consider what you believe is facts, when it is just what you believe. Following the evidence and the lack of expected evidence leads to the "No Flood Conclusion". It does not lead anywhere else.
The myth of evolution does indeed conflict with the Genesis account. Of course it does, because it's not good science, but the OP says, 'no conflict between the Genesis account, and good science, So that's not a problem.
I do not know what the myth of evolution is? Is that the creationist belief that there is no evolution? It must be, since they can neither refute the theory nor address the fact of it in any rational way.
Yes. I know. You were careful to include your version of "good science", but the real version of good science includes the theory of evolution that is the most well-supported, well-worked out theory in all of science. It is the foundation of modern biology. All you are doing is rejecting good science and claiming that your repetition of rejection is an argument.
Again, in my view, for those who may read the Bible, but not study it, they may well believe that the sis days are very short periods - like 24 hours, but a study of the Bible, evidently does not suggest this, but shows that a creation day was a long period of time.
Though I believe the age of earth assumed by scientists is much shorter, there is no conflict there, since Genesis does not give the age of the earth, which was there long before God said, "Let there be light".
It conflicts with a literal interpretation, but in order for it to even be considered to match, the text has to be filtered through an interpretation. Sure. Day/Age creationists have done this. It is hardly compelling evidence of harmony. It is meaningless, considering how out of harmony Genesis and science are.
There is no attempt in this thread, as assumed here, to make "Genesis a version of history and science".
It is a historical record, which has been referred to throughout generations.
It needs no opinion to verify it.
No one is looking to science for verification either.
That's an absurd idea, imo.
It is the underlying creationist assumption that drives this obsessive need to continually make silly claims about science and the Bible. It is absurd, but it does not seem to give creationists pause to do a little critical thinking about their own ideas.
Good science is not science that agrees with your beliefs. Bad science is not science that disagrees with your beliefs. You have already been given some excellent and real definitions of those terms by others. Science is following the evidence. You want the evidence to follow what you believe. You are committed to using bad science.
Genesis and science are not in harmony. Science contradicts the claims of Genesis and only in a few areas can vast interpretation bring a few parts of Genesis anywhere close to aligning with science. I will note that it is those that are trying to make Genesis a fact that must change their interpretation to match science.
