Genesis & Science - Friend or Foe?

[Left Coast]

For example.
Clearly you must define evolution, because there are various understandings of what evolution is, and those who understand Genesis in part to be literal, do not have a problem with evolution... of course depending on how you are using it.
So please explain so that we can all understand each other.

Your evasiveness doesn't bode well. What parts of Genesis, if any, do you take literally?

The evidence indicates that life evolved slowly over millions of years, becoming progressively more diverse and complex. Genesis, read literally, says this occurred in 6 days.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Explain please.

What was not obvious from the post?

Are you impressed when Muslims distort both science and their holy book to get them to agree?

 

[metis]

The Genesis creation accounts, taken literally, simply do not match what we now know about the real "creation" of our universe and Earth. But taking it as allegory makes so much more sense as it seems most likely to be a rebuttal against the Babylonian creation narratives that are polytheistic, to reflect the Jewish believe in there being One God. Plus there are some other differences as well that reflect Jewish morals and values.

Going through the 1:1 creation account verse by verse, and then comparing that to known information on how this all started, simply does not match by-and-large. Nor do the creation accounts use objectively-derived evidence since it's really quite clear that these accounts are quite subjective.

Anyhow, gotta go for now.

 

[Workman]

You do not seem to understand that anything close to a literal interpretation of Genesis makes it a foe of science. And there is no way that it can be a friend. That would take extreme cherry picking, an incorrect tactic that should be avoided.

Your certainly right about it!.
But only Instead! you have completely WRONG(ed) yourself into it! You are not to blame!.its mysteries does not allow the kind of evidence you nor science are looking to KNOW of..Hence why its mysterious-ness cannot be measured!..And why? because God has MADE IT THAT WAY for people like you and yours for not understand to it!
For only be GODs chosen few will see it mystery. You in the other hand in your science view(Dark science) is forbidden from it!.. Therefore make the most of what it was given upon to you!.(your life), for when your tomorrow comes..you will be long dusted unto earths owned evident.

 

[nPeace]

Your evasiveness doesn't bode well. What parts of Genesis, if any, do you take literally?

The evidence indicates that life evolved slowly over millions of years, becoming progressively more diverse and complex. Genesis, read literally, says this occurred in 6 days.

I'm not evading anything. Why would I create a thread to evade someone? Inflated ego is a sad thing.
I do not take the six days as literally 24 hour long days.

The evidence do not what you are claiming.
Darwin’s Theory of Gradual Evolution Not Supported by Geological History, NYU Scientist Concludes
Darwin's theory of gradual evolution not supported by geological history, scientist concludes
Gradual Change Vs. Punctuated Equilibrium

Spoiler: Charles Darwin believed that evolution was a slow and gradual process

Charles Darwin believed that evolution was a slow and gradual process. He did not believe this process to be "perfectly smooth," but rather, "stepwise," with a species evolving and accumulating small variations over long periods of time. Darwin assumed that if evolution is gradual then there should be a record in fossils of small incremental change within a species. But in many cases, Darwin, and scientists today, are unable to find most of these intermediate forms. Darwin blamed lack of transitional forms on gaps in the fossil record, a good assertion, because the chances of each of those critical changing forms having been preserved as fossils are very small. However in 1972, evolutionary scientists Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge proposed another explanation for the numerous gaps in the fossil record. They suggested that the "gaps" were real, representing periods of stasis in morphology. They termed this mode of evolution "punctuated equilibrium."

We knew this a long time ago.
Good science is not based on guesswork, or what one thinks.
The scientific method does not work that way. We need observation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your certainly right about it!.
But only Instead! you have completely WRONG(ed) yourself into it! You are not to blame!.its mysteries does not allow the kind of evidence you nor science are looking to KNOW of..Hence why its mysterious-ness cannot be measured!..And why? because God has MADE IT THAT WAY for people like you and yours for not understand to it!
For only be GODs chosen few will see it mystery. You in the other hand in your science view(Dark science) is forbidden from it!.. Therefore make the most of what it was given upon to you!.(your life), for when your tomorrow comes..you will be long dusted unto earths owned evident.

So you are claiming that God deliberately lied? Now that makes no sense at all.

 

[HonestJoe]

I see no conflict between the account of Genesis, and good science. They get along quite well.

Sure, but only in the same kind of way polar bears and penguins do.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not evading anything. Why would I create a thread to evade someone? Inflated ego is a sad thing.
I do not take the six days as literally 24 hour long days.

The evidence do not what you are claiming.
Darwin’s Theory of Gradual Evolution Not Supported by Geological History, NYU Scientist Concludes
Darwin's theory of gradual evolution not supported by geological history, scientist concludes
Gradual Change Vs. Punctuated Equilibrium

Spoiler: Charles Darwin believed that evolution was a slow and gradual process

Charles Darwin believed that evolution was a slow and gradual process. He did not believe this process to be "perfectly smooth," but rather, "stepwise," with a species evolving and accumulating small variations over long periods of time. Darwin assumed that if evolution is gradual then there should be a record in fossils of small incremental change within a species. But in many cases, Darwin, and scientists today, are unable to find most of these intermediate forms. Darwin blamed lack of transitional forms on gaps in the fossil record, a good assertion, because the chances of each of those critical changing forms having been preserved as fossils are very small. However in 1972, evolutionary scientists Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge proposed another explanation for the numerous gaps in the fossil record. They suggested that the "gaps" were real, representing periods of stasis in morphology. They termed this mode of evolution "punctuated equilibrium."

We knew this a long time ago.
Good science is not based on guesswork, or what one thinks.
The scientific method does not work that way. We need observation.

I am rather disappointed in you. Only dishonest people tend to try to use this tactic. This is why the theory of evolution is not "Darwinism".

 

[nPeace]

The Genesis creation accounts, taken literally, simply do not match what we now know about the real "creation" of our universe and Earth. But taking it as allegory makes so much more sense as it seems most likely to be a rebuttal against the Babylonian creation narratives that are polytheistic, to reflect the Jewish believe in there being One God. Plus there are some other differences as well that reflect Jewish morals and values.

Going through the 1:1 creation account verse by verse, and then comparing that to known information on how this all started, simply does not match by-and-large. Nor do the creation accounts use objectively-derived evidence since it's really quite clear that these accounts are quite subjective.

Anyhow, gotta go for now.

What may I ask, is this "known information on how this all started"?
I also gotta run. Be back tomorrow oops, I forgot that tomorrow and Sunday I am tied up, God's will... Monday.

 

[exchemist]

I see no conflict between the account of Genesis, and good science. They get along quite well.
@Subduction Zone, I think you and others disagree. So I welcome your objections. Thank you.

I and countless thousands of scientists with Christian faith and/or upbringing would wholeheartedly agree. The approach to Genesis of early fathers of the church such as Origen teaches us the way to interpret it. There is no issue.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I and countless thousands of scientist with Christian faith and/or upbringing would wholeheartedly agree. The approach to Genesis of early fathers of the church such as Origen teaches us the way to interpret it. There is no issue.

I do believe that @nPeace is more of a literalist, though he has not clearly stated his beliefs as yet. I may be mistaken, but I could swear that he was a Jehovah's Witness, in which case he would be stretching it if he did not accept that the Seven Days were actual days, so he may have changed a bit of us was a JW.

 

[Workman]

So you are claiming that God deliberately lied? Now that makes no sense at all.

Be careful with your words!..
You seem quite jumpy!..therefore your understanding will NOT fit for controlling. Stick to words I’m using!..mysteries does not mean lying..it means making true senses of its meaning. Hence why you are confused.

 

[nPeace]

Seeing that Monday is quite a ways from here, I will see what I can squeeze in some part of today, but for now, I must go.
@Subduction Zone, is that the best you can do... call someone dishonest? You call that debating?
I was hoping you would make the effort this time, seeing that I created this thread especially for you.
Later.

 

[sayak83]

I see no conflict between the account of Genesis, and good science. They get along quite well.
@Subduction Zone, I think you and others disagree. So I welcome your objections. Thank you.

According to science humans evolved from ancient apes over a course of 10-8 million years til modern humans appear about 500,000 years ago.
How does this gel with Genesis account?

 

[Brickjectivity]

I see no conflict between the account of Genesis, and good science. They get along quite well.
@Subduction Zone, I think you and others disagree. So I welcome your objections. Thank you.

Science plays no part in seeing God. According to Jesus quote its the peacemakers, the pure in heart, the merciful etc who will see God, not just anybody with a telescope. God is invisible, which definition means God can't be detected. Genesis is filled with miracles, none of which can be tested, repeated, observed. They are not a means of seeing God. They are as invisible as God, hint hint; and so they can't be observed through Science. Even if they are physical miracles, even so Science only tests natural events and principles not miraculous ones. They'd have nothing to do with it. ICR is a flop. Creation-science authors are frequently scam artists. There's nothing to be done about it except to ignore them completely. Tell me this that if someone rose from the dead and started preaching about an afterlife would anyone be moved to repent? No, they wouldn't. They wouldn't see God despite the miracle. Nor would anyone repent if Science were to somehow provide evidence of a world wide flood, which it doesn't; but its irrelevant. Eyes of faith are the way to see God, but the creation-science teams declare eyes of faith to be atheism. Eyes of faith are a threat to creation science and subtract from its funding base.

Looking for some Scientific sign to prop up an argument about Genesis that argument can only be used to enslave people not free them. Creationism of the natural world is a vain philosophy used to suppress people and keep them and is part of the buying and selling of lives. Its evil. There's no better descriptor for it.

 

[exchemist]

I do believe that @nPeace is more of a literalist, though he has not clearly stated his beliefs as yet. I may be mistaken, but I could swear that he was a Jehovah's Witness, in which case he would be stretching it if he did not accept that the Seven Days were actual days, so he may have changed a bit of us was a JW.

Well, we shall find out. All I can do is answer the question as posed.

It will be interesting to see if it turns out to be nPeace that is the one with the objections.

 

[shunyadragon]

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

Considering Genesis history conflicts with science.

I didn't say otherwise.

You have failed to clarify your view coherently.

I'm not sure I understand your last question. I could strain by brain to understand it, but I am not in that frame of mind right now, So would you mind simplifying the question please?

The question is clear and specific, your dodging the question.

@nPeace do you accept the contemporary science as is, or conditionally accept science constrained by the belief and historicity of Genesis?

 

[shunyadragon]

For example.
Clearly you must define evolution, because there are various understandings of what evolution is, and those who understand Genesis in part to be literal, do not have a problem with evolution... of course depending on how you are using it.
So please explain so that we can all understand each other.

There is only one legitimate definition of the science of evolution, and NOT various understandings of what evolution is. Please respond coherently and address to question of the science of evolution, which makes no theological assumptions one way nor the other.

 

[shunyadragon]

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

The flood account is a significant problem with science. Please address it and do not avoid it. It is not a personal hangup, because it is as a matter of fact in conflict with science as described in the Bible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Be careful with your words!..
You seem quite jumpy!..therefore your understanding will NOT fit for controlling. Stick to words I’m using!..mysteries does not mean lying..it means making true senses of its meaning. Hence why you are confused.

I was not the careless one. You seemed to be claiming that God is a liar. We know why Genesis can't be literally true unless your God lied.