Genesis & Science - Friend or Foe?

[Subduction Zone]

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.

It was an observation. That is a dishonest debating technique. If you have no clue about evolution the proper action to take is to ask questions.

And there is no debate. There are only corrections at this time. Creationists were shown to be wrong a long time ago.

 

[metis]

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.

I used that in relative terminology, thus not to be taken literally.

Two things before I go, with one of them being that the Genesis creation narratives do not match what we do know about the early stages of the universe, Earth, and the evolution of life forms, and the second is that I believe it's likely that God was behind it all, and that "all" may well be a multiverse that we may be in that even predates the BB.

 

[viole]

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

They do not. Not even close. I think the huge problems do not start in the first page. They start in the first line.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Left Coast]

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.

Great, so since you're not evading anything, you'll actually answer my question: what parts of Genesis, if any, do you take literally?

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

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.

Your understanding of punctuated equilibrium appears incomplete:

Views from Understanding Evolution: Parsimonious Explanations for Punctuated Patterns

The idea of punctuated equilibria is an important, but often-misinterpreted, model of how evolutionary change happens. The model does not:

• 
  Suggest that Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection is wrong
  
  
• Contradict the central ideas of evolutionary theory, that life is old and organisms share common ancestors
  
  
• Negate previous work on how evolution by natural selection works
  
  
• Imply that evolution only happens in rapid bursts

 

[Subduction Zone]

Great, so since you're not evading anything, you'll actually answer my question: what parts of Genesis, if any, do you take literally?



Your understanding of puntuated equilibrium appears incomplete:

Views from Understanding Evolution: Parsimonious Explanations for Punctuated Patterns

I do get a bit tired of creationists that bring up that old strawman. Of course one can often tell when they call evolution "Darwinism" . Yes, Darwin was a very bright man that got quite a bit correct in very limited information. But because that information was limited there were bound to be tweaks and minor corrections to his theory as we learned more. No one can be taken seriously that thinks punctuated equilibrium in any way harms the theory of evolution.

We do not make the mistake of worshiping Darwin. That is their flaw.

 

[viole]

Please state how science conflicts with the Genesis account. Saying you don't find evidence for this or that is not a conflict.
I don't find evidence that there isn't a city in the universe doesn't mean science discovered there is no city in the universe.

h

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

The earth is a planet of a second generation star. Ergo, it was “created” about 8 billions years after the so called beginning.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Nakosis]

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.

Neither do I since Genesis offers nothing for science to validate.

 

[shunyadragon]

Neither do I since Genesis offers nothing for science to validate.

Nor does science offer anything to validate Genesis as historically nor scientifically accurate. Science is science and Genesis is Genesis. Science is neither friend nor foe of Genesis. Though through science and archaeology it has been determined that Genesis and much of the Pentateuch is an involved evolution of text from Sumerian, Babylonian, Canaanite and Ugarit cultures and text and udited, redacted and compiled by the Hebrews between ~1000 and 600 BCE reflecting Hebrew culture..Many fundamentalists this makes science an enemy.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.

As you said, "GOOD science".

Perhaps when Subduction Zone et al find some, there will be a clearer, more thoughtful response to your OP.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As you said, "GOOD science".

Perhaps when Subduction Zone et al find some, there will be a clearer, more thoughtful response to your OP.

Good science does not mean that it agrees with your book of myths. Your beliefs are among the worst since you in essence call God a liar. That is not a wise move for any theist to make.

 

[shunyadragon]

As you said, "GOOD science".

Perhaps when Subduction Zone et al find some, there will be a clearer, more thoughtful response to your OP.

Science education, education, education, which you lack, instead of ENRON science by fundamentalist creationists..

 

[loverofhumanity]

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 understand that Genesis is speaking about the spiritual creation God, of the cycle we are in not about evolution as it is a spiritual book not a science thesis.

Genesis to me is only about one spiritual cycle but before genesis the universe existed and there were other cycles but we don’t possess records of them.

 

[David1967]

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

I agree. There is no conflict between Genesis and science, because Genesis is not a science book. And how do you personally define "good science"?

 

[Skwim]

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

An ad hom argument already? Hell, the thread was only one hour and 15 posts old, and already your desperation was showing. Might want to take a deep breath . . . .or drink . . . . . or whatever it is that brings you back to reason.

.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Notice. I never said Genesis is a science journal. Why do you ask?
Do you have any disagreements, that Genesis conflicts with scientific discoveries?
Please, "you have the floor".

Let's start with talking serpents.

 

[Sapiens]

Yes, I agree the Genesis account is history, not science. I didn't say otherwise.
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 Genesis account (and all of the Bible, for that matter) is bad science and bad history. There is occasional congruence between the Bible and scientific and historical fact, but that is accidental and serendipitous.

 

[QuestioningMind]

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.

If you can read the account of a global flood in genius and claim that you see no conflict between that and good science then I can only conclude that you don't have a clue what good science is.

 

[sealchan]

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.

The order in which things were created is scientifically wrong.

The fact that what Genesis mentions includes only that which is visually obvious about the contents of our natural world makes the account highly inadequate scientifically.

The basic initial structure of the Universe is wrong.

 

[nPeace]

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?

Well, according to the OP, it says, "I see no conflict between the account of Genesis, and good science." So as soon as I am finished looking over the other posts, we can discuss whether this is good science or not. Of course we can look at the scientific method, as it is a favorite for all here. Okay?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Why do you ask about evolution? Is that one of the things you say disagree with the Genesis account? Then please elaborate.

I'm sure that you are aware of the accounts in Genesis 1 and 2. Are you aware of the science? Do they say the same thing - tell the same story?

The Big Bang theory also contradicts Genesis. I suspect that there is no way to show this to you due to a faith-based confirmation bias that protects you from Bible contradiction, or you would already know. It's would be like you asking me what evidence I have for global warming. If you don't know by now, you are likely a faith-based thinker willing to ignore evidence, or unable to see it, meaning that there is no way for anybody to help you see these things.

Make a list of items that occurred according to Genesis, and those that occurred according to the Big Bang theory. You won't find any mention of making woman from a rib in the scientific account, nor of the inflationary epoch in the biblical account. You'll find the occasional area of overlap, but that isn't an argument for how compatible the two are, but how little they have in common and how many ways they are mutually exclusive.

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

When describing the early history of the universe, we are doing both - a scientific account of the history of the universe.

Genesis attempts to do what science and history do, at at least their ancient equivalents - narratives accounting for how the world works and how it got that way.

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

The science contradicts scripture. You were asking for illustrations of where the two are not compatible.

those who understand Genesis in part to be literal, do not have a problem with evolution

Christianity says that man was created in God's image, and with a soul that survives death. Evolution says that natural selection is a blind and undirected process with no purpose or intent (it is dysteleogical). There is no place for a soul or a god in this theory. They are mutually exclusive. One invokes directed mutation, the other doesn't. One makes man a special creature in the eyes of a god, the other regards us as just another unintended consequence of natural selection operating on genetic variation withing populations over generations, and not a qualitatively different type of creation.