The Stories of Genesis: Myth or Literally True

[Dawnofhope]

Young Earth creationism directly contradicts the scientific consensus of the scientific community. A 2006 joint statement of InterAcademy Panel on International Issues (IAP) by 68 national and international science academies enumerated the scientific facts that young Earth creationism contradicts, in particular that the universe, the Earth, and life are billions of years old, that each has undergone continual change over those billions of years, and that life on Earth has evolved from a common primordial origin into the diverse forms observed in the fossil record and present today Evolutionary theory remains the only explanation that fully accounts for all the observations, measurements, data, and evidence discovered in the fields of biology, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, anthropology, and others.

As such, young Earth creationism is dismissed by the academic and the scientific communities. One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science".An expert in the evolution-creationism controversy, professor and author Brian Alters, states that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution". A 1991 Gallup poll found that about 5% of American scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists. For their part, Young Earth Creationists say that the lack of support for their beliefs by the scientific community is due to discrimination and censorship by professional science journals and professional science organizations. This viewpoint was explicitly rejected in the rulings from the 1981 United States District Court case McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education as no witness was able to produce any articles that had been refused publication and the judge could not conceive how "a loose knit group of independent thinkers in all the varied fields of science could, or would, so effectively censor new scientific thought". A 1985 study also found that only 18 out of 135,000 submissions to scientific journals advocated creationism.

Young Earth creationism - Wikipedia

 

[omega2xx]

Well, it is clear that Morris and other creationists, as well as your faith in your myth, have blinded you to what science has to offer.

First of all you have no evidence what I believe is a myth. You accept it is the same way you accept that evolution is based on science and it is not. You cant pose one thing the TOE preaches that has eve been proven. To believe whale evolution is based on science laughable, and indicates indoctrination, not scientific knowledge.

Gould did NOT destroy using the fossil record! Just wow. The whole reason evolution was first discussed is that the actual evidence isn't consistent with the flood story from the Bible. This was discovered 200 years ago. That religious fanatics are still debating it is just sad.

Saying "new species usually appear in the fossil record suddenly, not connected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates, is saying the fossil record is inadequate to prove evolution.

Stephen Stanly an evolutionists echos the same thought---"The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphogic transition."

Gould himself says, "I regard the failure to find a clear vector of progress in life's history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record...we have sought to impose a pattern that we hoped to find on a a world that does not really display it..

If you believe the fossil record support evolution is not because of any evidence, it is because of your indoctrination.

 

[omega2xx]

You clearly do not understand what the world "myth" means...

myth
miTH/
noun

1. 1.
   a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.
   synonyms: folk tale, folk story, legend, tale, story, fable, saga, mythos, lore, folklore, mythology
   "ancient Greek myths"

Do you really not understand that the definition of myth does not make anything a myth?

Objectively false.
The corn you eat today was once a wheat-like grass. There was a time when modern corn did not exist at all.

Evolution of Corn

Not true and your link is far from proof. For one thing it offers no evidence. If you want to accept opinions as evidence, be my guest.

 

[omega2xx]

In the beginning of what?

DUUH. Read the rest of Genesis 1 and 2.

 

[Dawnofhope]

here is my best advice---sincerely pray o God and ask Him to how you the truth. I am not able to convince anyone of anything. I can' only tell you what I believe and why I beleive it.

Thank you for sharing your views.

Several questions:

(1) Who was the woman Cain found as a wife when he went to the land of Nod? (Genesis 4:16)

(2) In the story of Adam and Eve, a serpent talked to Eve. Don't you find that a little strange?

(3) How could all the known species of the animals and plants be collected into one place ie Noah's ark? How did they fit? How did they manage to distribute themselves around the earth including travelling over considerable distances over the Ocean?

Once again, I appreciate your contributing to this thread as it is the views of the YEC I seek to understand.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

DUUH. Read the rest of Genesis 1 and 2.

In the beginning of what?

 

[Native]

As such, young Earth creationism is dismissed by the academic and the scientific communities.

"Young Earth creationists" believes that nothing was creted before the Bible was written, not even the material it was written on On the other hand modern scientific consensus claims the Universe to magically have originated from nothing in a crazy Big Bang idea

 

[Dawnofhope]

"Young Earth creationists" believes that nothing was creted before the Bible was written, not even the material it was written on On the other hand modern scientific consensus claims the Universe to magically have originated from nothing in a crazy Big Bang idea

So what about the scientific evidence such as geology, fossils, and radiometric dating that demonstrates the earth to be billions of years old?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

"Young Earth creationists" believes that nothing was creted before the Bible was written, not even the material it was written on On the other hand modern scientific consensus claims the Universe to magically have originated from nothing in a crazy Big Bang idea

^ that's cute -- it's also crap.

See, for example: What Triggered the Big Bang? It's Complicated, paying particular attention to ...

In the beginning, there was a question mark. All else followed. The end.

We've all heard of the Big Bang theory (I'm talking about the cosmological model, not the TV show), but it's important to understand what that theory is and what it's not. Let me take this opportunity to be precisely, abundantly, emphatically, ridiculously, fantastically clear: The Big Bang theory is not a theory of the creation of the universe. Full stop. Done. Call it. Burn that sentence into your brain. Say it before you go to sleep, and first thing when you wake up.

The Big Bang theory is a model of the history of the universe, tracing the evolution of the cosmos to its very earliest moments. And that's it. Don't try to stuff anything else into that framework. Just stop. You can keep your meta safely away from my physics, thank you very much.​

 

[Native]

All religions are not the same. Christianity is unique.

Dear oh dear Keep on dreaming

 

[Native]

The Big Bang theory is a model of the history of the universe, tracing the evolution of the cosmos to its very earliest moments. And that's it. Don't try to stuff anything else into that framework. Just stop. You can keep your meta safely away from my physics, thank you very much.

Model or theory, I really don´t care. Modern cosmologists know just as little of the creation as they in their mythical confusion accuses the religous/mythical telling to contain.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Model or theory, I really don´t care.

Obviously. Hence the petty drivel about "mythical confusion."

 

[Polymath257]

First of all you have no evidence what I believe is a myth. You accept it is the same way you accept that evolution is based on science and it is not. You cant pose one thing the TOE preaches that has eve been proven. To believe whale evolution is based on science laughable, and indicates indoctrination, not scientific knowledge.

On the contrary, evolution has been proven scientifically in many different ways, from genetics, to the fossil record, to actual studies on living populations. Yes, whales evolved from land animals. They are mammals. That is simply a scientific fact.

Yes, I do have plenty of evidence that the belief in a literal interpretation of Genesis is a myth. First of all, it is derived from a part of the Epic of Gilgamesh, which is a much older Babylonian story. Second, the flood, as described in the Bible, is simply impossible. Not only is there not enough water (no, not even in a canopy, which would have other very nasty effects), but the specifics of a 'laminar flood' do not *at all* correspond to what we see in the actual geological strata.

Furthermore, the claims that the Earth is less than a few tens of thousands of years old is clearly refuted by multiple lines of evidence in science, from geology, to biology, to physics, to cosmology, to planetary geology, etc. ANYONE who claims that the Earth is less and a few billion years old is at least misinformed. If they are claiming to be informed and saying this, they are lying.

Saying "new species usually appear in the fossil record suddenly, not connected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates, is saying the fossil record is inadequate to prove evolution.

On the contrary, we have many examples of species appearing from a long line of intermediates. The horse and human fossil records are particularly good in this. But, and this is important, while we often don't have the resolution for specific species, we *do* have the resolution for categories above that of the species level: genera, families, etc. This is quite enough to prove that bilogical species change over geological time. And *that* is evolution.

Stephen Stanly an evolutionists echos the same thought---"The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphogic transition."

This is called quote mining. It is taking a statement out of context. This is a very typical technique of creationists. And it is a lie.

We do, in fact, have several cases of major morphological change demonstrated in the fossil record. The transitions from fish to amphibian, from basal reptiles to early mammals, and from certain dinosaur and searly birds are all very well documented and, while not complete, are certainly enough to show this 'major morphological change'.

Gould himself says, "I regard the failure to find a clear vector of progress in life's history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record...we have sought to impose a pattern that we hoped to find on a a world that does not really display it..

Again, a quote mine. The pattern he was talking about wavolution per se, but the gradualist model that was very common at one point. Remember that Gould was an advocate of punctuated equilibria: where there are long periods of stasis in morphology and rather quick changes when the environment changes.

Subsequent to Gould, it has been realized that Punk Eq if often the case, but it isn't the *only* pattern we actually see in the record. We do see other examples where there are gradual transitions over millions of years. And don't forget-Gould arrived at his conclusions based on the fossil record.

If you believe the fossil record support evolution is not because of any evidence, it is because of your indoctrination.

On the contrary, if you do *not* believe in the fossil record, it is because of your religious faith and not because of the scientific evidence. You have been listening to people who are lying to you about the science. I have read their books (many of them) and have gone to the actual research articles they point to. The actual articles are *usually* saying exactly the opposite of what the creationists are claiming. And that is a lie.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Thanks for sharing

(1) The story of creation in seven days as recorded in Genesis 1.
Should we take this as being literally true? If so how long ago did it all take place?

Yes, God prepared the earth in 6 time-periods called days in Genesis 1. These are not 24-hour periods, IMO, but long time periods lasting at least thousands of years. After each creative "day", the record says; 'And there was evening and there was morning, a first day, second day, etc' This obviously is not a 24 hour period. Of the entire creative epoch, Genesis 2:4 states; "This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time they were created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven." Thus "day" is used in Genesis to refer to time periods other than 24 hours.

At least you have the days divided into much longer periods. However we would be looking in the order of millions of years if we wanted to reconcile with science. Does it matter to you whether your beliefs align with science?

(2) The story Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden as recorded in
Genesis 2 and Genesis 3.
I believe this account is the true history of mankind's beginning. Jesus Christ believed it also.

How do you account for Cain's wife that he found in the land of Nod? (Genesis 4:16)

Do you believe a serpent literally talked? How can this be possible?

(3) The story of Noah building an Ark and the great flood as recorded in Genesis 6 - 9. Did this all actually happen?
Yes, the Flood of Noah's day is historical fact, IMO. Again, Jesus Christ spoke of the flood as real, and a warning that God will not tolerate wickedness indefinitely. (Luke 17:25-27)

So how did Noah and his family go about collecting all the known species and how did they fit onto the Ark?

Hope you don't mind answering these questions.

 

[jonathan180iq]

First of all you have no evidence the creation story in Genesis is a myth.

Geology - Wikipedia

Second, "in the beginning" points to the beginning. If any thing is copied, it is copied from what is in Genesis, not the other way around.,

Confirmation bias - Wikipedia

The inner voices of man is not a reliabel way of knowing the truth. There are way to many voices speaking different things.

"Just believe what I believe - don't think about it too much because thinking about it makes you question things. And questioning things is bad!"

This is great advice for creating followers but not for discerning truth.

All religions are not the same. Christianity is unique.

"There is nothing new under the sun..."

I'll argue that there is absolutely nothing unique about Christianity. Name a facet of the faith and I'll show you a religious idea that predates it and most likely influenced it.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Do you really not understand that the definition of myth does not make anything a myth?

It's not the definition that makes your myth a myth - it's your explanation.

You said that the Tower of Babel adequately explains various languages, right? You are accepting of the story of Babel not based on factual information, or on archaeologcial evidence, or on outside sources. You are only accepting the story because it came from the Bible and, to you, adequately explains the source of various languages... That's the very definition of Myth, my friend.

Not true and your link is far from proof. For one thing it offers no evidence. If you want to accept opinions as evidence, be my guest.

Oh, would you like some more evidence?
I'm happy to oblige!

Zea (plant) - Wikipedia
Doebley Lab
How Did Corn Evolve?
What is teosinte?
Teosinte - Zea Diploperennis | Baker Creek Heirloom Seeds
http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2009/03/23/corn_domesticated_8700_years_ago/

Maize - Wikipedia
Tracking the Ancestry of Corn Back 9,000 Years
Plant and Soil Sciences eLibrary
https://dl.sciencesocieties.org/pub...mymonogra/cornandcornimpr/1?access=0&view=pdf
History of Corn - Where does corn come from? - Quatr.us

Don't take my word for it though. You're probably right - I'm just accepting opinions as evidence...

 

[David T]

Ha ha. Its an opportunity to express what you really believe, preferably with reasons if you feel comfortable. Its important to consider the evolution of thinking about these texts. Certainly the eighteenth century accompanied by the age of reason and so called enlightenment thinking witnessed a shift from viewing these texts literally towards more allegorically.

if I point to myself and proclaim.i am "enlightened" what does that even mean? In. The "enlightenment" period animals and humans were separate, the earth was thousands of years old sperm wet tiny people homosexuality was obviously a character flaw, and Indians were sub human and africans were slaves.. i could say whats primary whats "objective" what's "subjective" and i certainly dont get any indication from.that period that even understood, not that the now is my clearer. In my schooling I ran into the bible being literal and alagoical metaphorical etc in an interesting convient mixture depending on the individual..if that is variably inconsistent then the text is rather opaque. The split between the conservative literalism and the liberal metaphorical alagory is facinating. It allows the conservative to nend the text to impose their will in strict authoritarian eays, it allows the liberal to bend the text to their will in very confident ways. Both bend the text to fit the reality they percieve. Is that the text? If ee do that witb something so simple as the bible that we create

 

[Aupmanyav]

What are you people trying to do? Change the views of a Bible thumper?

 

[jonathan180iq]

What are you people trying to do? Change the views of a Bible thumper?

Simply exposing bad ideas for what they area.
Flawed logic is flawed logic, regardless of who it comes from.

 

[omega2xx]

Thank you for sharing your views.

Several questions:

(1) Who was the woman Cain found as a wife when he went to the land of Nod? (Genesis 4:16)

It doesn't say he found a wife. It says he went to the land of nod and had relations with his wife. IOW he took his wife with him. He married one of hi sister(Gen 5:4).

(2) In the story of Adam and Eve, a serpent talked to Eve. Don't you find that a little strange?

No. It is obvious that a serpent is a metaphor for Satan(Rev 12:9).

(3) How could all the known species of the animals and plants be collected into one place ie Noah's ark? How did they fit? How did they manage to distribute themselves around the earth including travelling over considerable distances over the Ocean?

The ark had 1,396, 000 C.F. of space. That is approximately the CF of - 522 standard box cars.

-There are approximately one million species today.

• Eliminating all aquatic species there is a need to house about 35,000 animals. The average size of these animals would be about the size of a sheep.
  
  
• The average boxcar can hold approximately 120 animals of this size.
  
  
• It would only take 146 boxcars to hold these animals. So there is plenty of room in the ark.
  

Also there is a good chance the animals were not full grown adult. That would give them even more room IMO, God may have put the animals in a state of hibernation.

There is a good chance all of the species were in the area at that time.

Once again, I appreciate your contributing to this thread as it is the views of the YEC I seek to understand.[/QUOTE]

Your welcome. You may have guessed I enjoy discussing the Bible and giving conservative view some exposure.