It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Does science support Genisis, chapter one

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 7 2006 @ 01:43 PM
link   
Here is a question I and my step-father posed in a recent debate regarding our origins. I thought i would post it and see what evidence people can come up with for and against the topic.

From the start, our position was not to prove the existence of God. Our position was to determine if the Bible foretold the origin of the universe and life, consistent with the scientific knowledge mankind has gained. Can science validate occurences in Genesis?

It could be stated that scientific proof of God may be a better path to God than religeon itself. If understanding our origins of life and the universe, as foretold in the Bible and if it can be proven to be consistent with physical laws of science then they could be considered bound together.

So the questions I ask are:
*Does Genesis, Chapter one tell us how the universe was created?
*Does the Genesis version of creation conform to the laws of physics (nature)?
*Does Genesis, Chapter one contain events that are inconsistent with physical laws regarding the origins of life and the universe (Take into account misunderstanding the actual content)?
*Does Genisis support celestial objects such as stars and planets?

I'll start with the famous "let there be light" Genesis chapter one verse 3. Isn't the first thing to escape a big bang type event light? Before this it was void and darkness covered the deep. Let's Discuss some events and verses to see if and what we can come up with.

Weston




posted on Dec, 7 2006 @ 01:51 PM
link   
Many of the descriptions in Genesis 1 are comparable to the general theories relating to the formation of the universe/solar system/Earth.

Genesis 1:1 (KJV)
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
That's simple enough.

1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
It is commonly believed that the Earth was formerly a large dust cloud of mass which condensed due to gravitational forces. This would certainly sound "without form, and void" to me.

1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
You mentioned this. I suppose some would argue that light would have had to have existed prior to this.

Other events in the chapter occur much in the order that science would have them to occur, though some do not. I suppose it's just a matter of which you believe is more powerful, God or science.



posted on Dec, 7 2006 @ 09:42 PM
link   
southern cross, the bible says that plants came before the sun
light came before light sources
not at all scientific

so ions, the biblical account of creation is not supported by science



posted on Dec, 7 2006 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by ions
I'll start with the famous "let there be light" Genesis chapter one verse 3. Isn't the first thing to escape a big bang type event light?


As far as I know, no.

Light is produced by radiation of electromagnetic energy from atoms. There were no atoms for about 300,000 years after the big-bang.



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 12:22 PM
link   
Thanks for the responses. I know that if there was a God he probably wouldn't bother himself with telling moses the details such as atoms and possibly even the exact order of which it occured. Moses is generally excepted as having written the first books, correct? Besides, we were made in his image. He must have known we would figure most of this out.

I am especially interested in picking out verses and trying to find a corrilation. Southern_cross what is your opinion on verse 6:

Then God said, "Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."

Could he not be talking about the Earth itself but the seperation of the inner and out planets as we know most, if not all have or did have water on them. In 7-8 he seperates the waters with an expanse. and he called the expanse heaven. Could that be the universe around us as we know it? Intereting stuff.



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 05:39 PM
link   
You're correct that the Bible describes plants as coming before the Sun, however, Light is described as being independent of the Sun, and it came before the plants, according to Genesis 1. I can't explain this scientifically, but it is scriptural.



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 05:56 PM
link   
Well you can not blame the people that wrote the bible, they made the best description of their surrounding in the best way they understood them.

Through nature itself.

No . . . the bible can no answer or support science because it holds no scientific studies, is just a compilation of myth and stories.



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by southern_cross3
You're correct that the Bible describes plants as coming before the Sun, however, Light is described as being independent of the Sun, and it came before the plants, according to Genesis 1. I can't explain this scientifically, but it is scriptural.


It certainly can't be explained by the reality of evidence.

Stars came after plants according to genesis - the life and death of stars would be required for the heavy atoms that even compose complex organisms such as plants and their nutrients (nitrates, carbon dioxide, water, potassium, phosphorous, minerals).

[edit on 8-12-2006 by melatonin]



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
You're correct that the Bible describes plants as coming before the Sun, however, Light is described as being independent of the Sun, and it came before the plants, according to Genesis 1. I can't explain this scientifically, but it is scriptural.



It certainly can't be explained by the reality of evidence.

Both statements, totally untrue, and based on a simplistic and in fact, quite uninformed understanding of the Bible and Genesis in particular.

For example:

1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Quite simple and succinctly stated. Did you folks somehow miss this very first statement of Genesis? The Heavens, including the Earth and Stars are created before the first day.

What's next?

1:2 And the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.

Now Stars, the Earth, etc. are out of the picture... the earth was dark... for whatever reason... cloud cover, etc., but stars, that is the heavens were already there. Whatever happened between the initial Creation event, and the formation of Earth and Sun are not relevant to the Bible and are only referred to as "the Beginning." Genesis picks up sometime after the Earth was formed, and water existed on the suface.

It's particularly noteworthy that the original Hebrew uses the word rachaph for in the case of moving. The word itself is generally taken to mean 'hovering' or 'brooding.' What is further noteworthy is that this word rachaph, only appears one other time in the OT, and it refers specifically to an Eagle watching over her brood. As if a Creator was watching over His fledgling Creation.

And this is of course completely in concert with scientific belief that the first life appeared in the Ocean.

What's next?

1:3 Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.

1:4 And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.

1:5 And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

This can be interpreted as simply a removal of the cloud or other covering that was obscuring the light of the already created sun from reaching the Earth.

The day and night simply refer to the rotation of the Earth on it's axis, which would now be more pronounced due to removal of the dense cloud layer covering the Earth. Incidentally, dense cloud over is hypothesized to be a property of early planet formation.

The next portion


1:6 Then God said, "Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."
1:7 And God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so.
1:8 And God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.
1:9 Then God said, "Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear"; and it was so.
1:10 And God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good.


appears to be describing the formation of both plate tectonics and the hydrologic cycle,

Next:

1:11 Then God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit after their kind, with seed in them, on the earth"; and it was so.
1:12 And the earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit, with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good.
1:13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.

So this implies more than a single day... that is the Earth doesn't bear fruit in a single day, nor does it yield seed after a single day, perhaps some of the strongest support for day-age.



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 10:22 PM
link   
continued.

Now is apparently where some more 'controversy' starts.


1:14 Then God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years;
1:15 and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth ";and it was so.
1:16 And God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also.
1:17 And God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth,
1:18 and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good.
1:19 And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

People allege this implies that the sun and moon were created now... that is on the fourth day. As I've described in the previous post, this is not an accurate interpretation of the Bible either in the context of the full Genesis story, or the original Hebrew text.
It's likely that this passage refers to removal of some other superficial atmospheric phenomenon that was contributing to the opacity of the atmosphere and obscuring the visible form of both the sun and moon.

First, the thick cloud cover, that prevented all light from reaching the Earth's surface was removed, then the more superficial cloud layer, similar to but more persistent than the cloud cover we see during a bad thunderstorm was removed. Such cloud cover isn't sufficiently thick to obscure both day and night as in the earlier portions of Genesis, but is certainly capable of obscuring both the sun and moon.

Indeed when one actually sits and reads the Bible academically, perhaps even using a concordance, such absurd straw men as those offered thus far in this tread are easily refuted. Those who make broad statements like 'the sun was formed after plants' are making simplistic and uninformed statements about a topic they've obviously not even tried to understand.

In response to the OP... does science support Genesis Chapter 1... in a broad sense, perhaps it does. But science is one thing and faith is another. Both may indeed be a search for some variety of truth... but they do not necessarily seek the same truths. While science may a monopoly on the scientific method, it certainly doesn't maintain a monopoly on the truth. Religion doesn't seek to justify science, and science should seek to neither prove nor disprove religion.

To paraphrase one of my favorite authors, SJ Gould, science and religion deal with different varieties of truth and for all intents and purposes should be considered to be non-overlapping magisteria.



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 10:37 PM
link   
The creation account is simple and yet complex at the same time.

The saying, "Let there be light" has nothing to do with the firing up of the stars. The stars were already burning hot, with the planets already in orbit around their parent stars at the time of this saying.

The stars, planets and moons were created when Genesis 1:1 was uttered. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." This heaven was not the spirit realm, this was the heavenly bodies of the physical universe. This period could have lasted billions of years.

Earth and all the rest of the planets of the universe were deadly to fleshly things at that time. Then the earth is taken note of and a decision is made to begin construction for habitation. The earth is originally found with a highly pressurized and dense gasious atmosphere. The atmosphere was rich in carbon dioxide just as Venus is today. The air would have killed any land animal at the time. Plants would probably thrive in the carbon rich atmosphere, but the sun's rays limited the growth because it could not reach the surface of the earth.

This is when Genesis 1:3 took effect by the saying, "Let there be light". The atmosphere began to gradually thin out over a long period of time, possibly a few thousand years or maybe a few million years. Not until the fourth creative day was the sun, moon and stars clearly visible from the surface of the earth.



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ions
Isn't the first thing to escape a big bang type event light?

Genesis doesn't describe an Inflation Event.


Before this it was void and darkness covered the deep.

This is poetic langauge, saying that the world was a mass of chaos, and the oceans, the abyss, the deep, were covered. Then the world starts getting assembled because of magic words spoken by the diety.


I am especially interested in picking out verses and trying to find a corrilation

I think that this method will just confirm whatever a person already wants to confirm. If you take a line of text, especially a vague and poetic one, then you can have lots of interpretations on it.
Does 'let there be light' mean that electro-magnetic radiation was the first things that existed in the universe?? Or does it mean that knowledge and thought, light, crafted a structured universe out of a messy chaotic one? Or are they trying to describe the creation of the universe as a recapitulation of the rising of the sun each day, or is light 'god's love' causing things to come together, etc etc.


Could he not be talking about the Earth itself but the seperation of the inner and out planets

IT could be interpreted that way, sure. It can be interpreted lots of ways. These texts were written by bronze age semi-nomadic goat herders. They didn't know about stellar accretion and the differentiation of the proto-planetary disc. We should probably try to interpret the verses as they would've been perceived by those old goat herders.



kallikak
The Heavens, including the Earth and Stars are created before the first day.

If there is no sun, then there simply isn't going to be any plantlife. The sun is said to be created after the first verses, therefore, its not a rational, objective, description of the formation of the world.

And this is of course completely in concert with scientific belief that the first life appeared in the Ocean.

Kinda a half and half chance there no? And the bible says that life was created in the oceans, and then seperately created on land. Science says that it formed in one place, and spread to land, not that it was seperately created there.
The simple fact is that we have science to tell us what happened in the past, and, given that, we can look at the bible and try to see if we can interpret is as having 'really' been talking about what science has already told us.

This can be interpreted as simply a removal of the cloud or other covering that was obscuring the light of the already created sun from reaching the Earth.

The problem here of course is that there is no mention of a cloud or anything covering earth, and blocking sunlight from reaching the surface of the earth. IF god says 'let there be light', he's talking about in the whole univers, let light be created for the first time, not 'let there be light.....on the surface of the earth, by moving away these clouds, that I created for some reason but don't need anymore". Thats just adding too much to the text, to try and make it 'jive' better with science. Whats the sense in using science to edit and add to the gospels?

appears to be describing the formation of both plate tectonics and the hydrologic cycle,
[
None of that is a description of plate tectonics. None of that is a description of the cycle of evaporation of bodies of water, transport through the atmosphere across the globe, condensation and cooling and sinking of wet air, and precipiation, forming rivers, draining to oceans, evaporating, repeating, etc.
All is says is that the world was chaotic, and then god started to make things more orderly. From a wet sloppy mess, he has water seperate from land, the elements become distinct and formed.

that is the Earth doesn't bear fruit in a single day

In the bible it does. It clearly says 'day'. Its poetic language. The people that wrote these texts had no idea about the past, and they created this sort of 'dreamtime' conception where the entire universe is formed in 'days', important events that explain why things are like they are today (water, dry land, animals, plants, etc) happen on their own 'day'.

People allege this implies that the sun and moon were created now

It pretty straightforwardly says that, after the previous events, instead of just having magic light appearing anywhere god wants it to, he created the luminaries, the sun moon stars, etc.



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 11:43 PM
link   
If you are looking for someone to tell you GOD and everything about him is real. That can't happin.
I don't think there will ever be anyone who will be able to.
But I will say that I have never met a scientest who was not religous (in some aspect or another).
Science can tell you what happins in a situation, But can not tell you why things are the way they are.
That is what faith is for. And if you have faith that their is truth in the words of the bible. Then "seek and you shall find" the proof you are looking for.
Don't expect to recieve tangable truth that you will be able to show the earth. It will probably be a more personal thing.
I can say, that if you realy look for the answers(it will take a lot of your time sitting alone,reading,and questioning), questions will be answered.
Or at least I feel like they were for me.
Not that I'm so smart



posted on Dec, 9 2006 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by kallikak

It certainly can't be explained by the reality of evidence.

Both statements, totally untrue, and based on a simplistic and in fact, quite uninformed understanding of the Bible and Genesis in particular.

For example:

1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Quite simple and succinctly stated. Did you folks somehow miss this very first statement of Genesis? The Heavens, including the Earth and Stars are created before the first day.


I think Nygdan has provided the foremost example of 'denying ignorance' for your post, so I'll just reiterate from where I was.

At no point during genesis 1.1 does it mention stars or sun. We know from cosmological evidence that stars are required for the heavier elements to be produced via stellar and explosive nucleosynthesis. The Iron that is the core of the earth would have been produced this way. We would require the birth, life, and death of stars to see these elements formed.

As I think Sagan coined - we are stardust.

Only later in genesis do we see stars and the sun in place, this is clear and irrefutable (and after plants, which we know is impossible). A bit of literal and logical gymnastics can make it say whatever you want, but the words and meaning are pretty clear.

As nygdan says, take it as poetic story of creation from people who had no real idea of the cosmos. Or take it as magic from an omnipotent being who can create his own laws of physics and do whatever he likes. But don't take it as a scientific explantion of a cosmological creation.

[edit on 9-12-2006 by melatonin]



posted on Dec, 9 2006 @ 08:58 AM
link   
Genesis can be interpreted in a variety of ways according to what you want it to mean. However, I'm sure if you looked you could find other creation myths that fit the facts just as well.

Of course, as those who have actually studied the bible will tell you, Genesis contains 2 separate accounts of creation, written by 2 different people, melded together into one. It's why, for example, the name of the creator God varies.

So which version are we interpreting today?



posted on Dec, 9 2006 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
If there is no sun, then there simply isn't going to be any plantlife. The sun is said to be created after the first verses, therefore, its not a rational, objective, description of the formation of the world.

No... it doesn't say this.. this is your interpretation. Genesis 1:1 clearly states the Heavens and Earth were created before the first day. That is the sun and Earth were already in existence prior to the first day.



Kinda a half and half chance there no? And the bible says that life was created in the oceans, and then seperately created on land. Science says that it formed in one place, and spread to land, not that it was seperately created there.

No. The Bible doesn't allude to 'separate' creations. The English text is "let the earth bring forth," how does this imply a separate creation event, and perhaps more importantly, how does it exclude land life evolving from sea life. From my reading, it doesn't.


The simple fact is that we have science to tell us what happened in the past, and, given that, we can look at the bible and try to see if we can interpret is as having 'really' been talking about what science has already told us.

Science is forced to reconstruct the past based on observation and inference. The scientific method may lead us closer to truth, but science does not have a monopoly on truth and isn't the only source of truth. Furthermore, there's nothing saying that science is correct. Theories change. Perhaps you've heard of the Steady State theory?

The point of the thread is Does science support Genesis Ch1, the answer is no, but only because that's not the purpose of science or Genesis 1. However, Gen1 doesn't necessarily contradict science as many would have us believe.



The problem here of course is that there is no mention of a cloud or anything covering earth, and blocking sunlight from reaching the surface of the earth.

Wrong. Sure Genesis Ch1 doesn't say this, but you're not considering the Bible as a coherent whole. The idea that Earth was covered in thick clouds is supported both scientifically, and biblically

Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding... Or who enclosed the sea with doors, When, bursting forth, it went out from the womb; when I made a cloud its garment, and thick darkness its swaddling band Job 38:4-9

The Bible in fact quite explicitly states this.

IF god says 'let there be light', he's talking about in the whole univers, let light be created for the first time, not 'let there be light.....on the surface of the earth, by moving away these clouds, that I created for some reason but don't need anymore". Thats just adding too much to the text, to try and make it 'jive' better with science. Whats the sense in using science to edit and add to the gospels?

So? There can be light on my entire house, hell there can be light on in my bedroom, and I can still be blocked from the light by being behind the closet door. Because light is obscured from my vantage point doesn't make light not exist.

Similarly, the Bible clearly states that the Earth was shrouded in clouds, this shroud would prevent light from reaching the Earth, not from existing.


None of that is a description of plate tectonics. None of that is a description of the cycle of evaporation of bodies of water, transport through the atmosphere across the globe, condensation and cooling and sinking of wet air, and precipiation, forming rivers, draining to oceans, evaporating, repeating, etc.
All is says is that the world was chaotic, and then god started to make things more orderly. From a wet sloppy mess, he has water seperate from land, the elements become distinct and formed.

No, not a detailed description as you've provided, but plate tectonics and a hydrologic cycle would make things more orderly, undeniably.



posted on Dec, 9 2006 @ 09:25 AM
link   

In the bible it does. It clearly says 'day'. Its poetic language. The people that wrote these texts had no idea about the past, and they created this sort of 'dreamtime' conception where the entire universe is formed in 'days', important events that explain why things are like they are today (water, dry land, animals, plants, etc) happen on their own 'day'.

Ummm... I think you'd realize that Bible wasn't written in English. You do know that right. The word 'day' is taken from the Hebrew yom Yom actually has more than a single meaning. Yom can refer to the portion of a solar day bathed in sunlight (i.e., sunrise to sunset), a 24-hour solar day, or a long period of time. If you consult Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew definitions, here yom definitions are noted that refer to long periods of time such as "year," "lifetime," and "time, period."

In fact to force Genesis into 6 literal 24 hour creations isn't coincident with what the Bible says. In the context of 'bearing fruit or seed' to interpret yom as a 24 hour period is foolish.


It pretty straightforwardly says that, after the previous events, instead of just having magic light appearing anywhere god wants it to, he created the luminaries, the sun moon stars, etc.

It doesn't say he created them de novo it simply refers to the fact that the lights are now visible and capable of providing information about seasons and years, etc.

To interpret this as meaning de novo Creation of the Sun and Moon implies that ancient people had no idea that the Sun was the source of light on the Earth... People may not have been technologically advanced when the Bible was written, but they surely knew the sun was the source of 'light' on the Earth. To interpret Genesis otherwise appears to be an attempt to discredit it for personal reasons.

In any case, one shouldn't look to science to support the Bible, nor should one look to the Bible uphold science.



posted on Dec, 9 2006 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
I think Nygdan has provided the foremost example of 'denying ignorance' for your post, so I'll just reiterate from where I was.

Of course you do. It supports your atheistic world view.


At no point during genesis 1.1 does it mention stars or sun. We know from cosmological evidence that stars are required for the heavier elements to be produced via stellar and explosive nucleosynthesis. The Iron that is the core of the earth would have been produced this way. We would require the birth, life, and death of stars to see these elements formed.

It doesn't need to. It simply describes God as having created the Heavens and the Earth in the Beginning. It doesn't speak to the singularity, decoupling, nucleosynthesis, etc. These are irrelevant to the story. Whatever happened between 'The Beginning' and the formation of the Earth, is irrelevant. Millions of stars could have been born and died in this time period. We simply don't know... at least not from the Bible. The Bible isn't meant to be a detailed account of cosmological or biological origins. While your statement above may be true, it's simply not in conflict with the Bible. Genesis 1:2 apparently picks up after stars have gone supernova and produced heavier elements, it begins after Earth is formed, thus the formation of the heavy elements is presumed.


Only later in genesis do we see stars and the sun in place, this is clear and irrefutable (and after plants, which we know is impossible). A bit of literal and logical gymnastics can make it say whatever you want, but the words and meaning are pretty clear.

Again, this is based on your limited knowledge of the Bible. It doesn't claim that the Sun and moon were created after plants. This is based on your presuppositions and biases only. Based on what you've written you must believe that ancient people were so backwards, so unobservant, that they were unable to pick up on the single most prominent fact that anyone who is alive can't deny: The sun is the source of light on the Earth. All ancient people knew this, there were religions based around the idea. So despite that the Sun is the source of light on Earth is now, and has been widely known pretty much throughout history, it seems to have escaped the ancient Hebrews notice, is that your assertion? That's what it appears to be. To interpret Genesis in this manner is foolish and appears to be an effort to support your own beliefs.


As I think Sagan coined - we are stardust.

Okay... but this doesn't conflict with Genesis in any way.


Only later in genesis do we see stars and the sun in place, this is clear and irrefutable (and after plants, which we know is impossible). A bit of literal and logical gymnastics can make it say whatever you want, but the words and meaning are pretty clear.
It's not clear and irrefutable, it based off an erroneous interpretation of book that is not only not written in its native language but is in fact quite anachronistic. In many people's understanding, the Heavens and Earth, including the Stars and Moon were created in the Beginning... before Genesis 1:1.


As nygdan says, take it as poetic story of creation from people who had no real idea of the cosmos. Or take it as magic from an omnipotent being who can create his own laws of physics and do whatever he likes. But don't take it as a scientific explantion of a cosmological creation.

I don't, and I've clearly indicated this in my posts. In fact, I referred to Gould and his pleas for NOMA that have gone unanswered. Science and religion seek different truths.

[edit on 9-12-2006 by melatonin]



posted on Dec, 9 2006 @ 10:50 AM
link   
As I said, literal and logical gymnastics...

Maybe you can explain how creating flowering seed-bearing plants before all animals (sea and land), birds before land animals, whales before land animals, is an adequate explanation of the real evidence...

But it seems you are crossing the line for NOMA. I don't see any scientific validity in genesis, you seem to want the square peg to fit the round hole. Not me, I can accept it was an explanation produced without real knowledge and certainly not god-given. It was their 'truth', their explanation. You seem to want this model of creation to be validated by science, whereby validating your version of god. I don't think it invalidates the existence of a deity, or even that science has the ability to do this. It can falsify particular claims though, which generally leads to either acceptance as allegory of such claims or literal, logical gymnastics.

Which is why I agree with Dawkins that NOMA is a load of bull. The idea that science and religion are separate 'magisteria' is a one way street - science should not invalidate religious claims, but religious claims shall be validated by science (as you are attempting to do). We see this all the time with prayer studies, the recent speaking in tongues imaging experiment, and when the big-bang theory was developed. If we find positive evidence of religious claims, NOMA will fall faster than Paris Hilton's draws.

I generally see myself as more agnostic rather than atheist, probably agnostic-atheist (or weak atheist). I'm an atheist for the biblical god though.

[edit on 9-12-2006 by melatonin]



posted on Dec, 9 2006 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
As I said, literal and logical gymnastics...

Maybe you can explain how creating flowering seed-bearing plants before all animals (sea and land), birds before land animals, whales before land animals, is an adequate explanation of the real evidence...

It's not, and I didn't say it was. My statements have been and continue to be that
  1. When one reads and considers the biblical Creation stories in the context that they were written, and light of other Biblical stories, believing in science and believing in some sort of Biblical authority are not mutually exclusive.
  2. The Bible isn't a scientific account of creation, and shouldn't be taken as such.
  3. Science and religion are concerned with different varieties of truth.


    But it seems you are crossing the line for NOMA. I don't see any scientific validity in genesis, you seem to want the square peg to fit the round hole.

    No... not at all. These are just my personal observations and feelings about the interpretation of scripture in light of scientific evidence. But apologetics per se isn't my thing. I find no reason to reconcile the long day or any thing like that. My point is that people of faith shouldn't consider themselves threatened by scientific evidence. There are a variety of ways to interpret scripture, and it should be considered in context.


    Not me, I can accept it was an explanation produced without real knowledge and certainly not god-given. It was their 'truth', their explanation.

    It's not a scientific explanation, and shouldn't be taken as such. It's a figurative and mythical description of human origins passed on orally, and finally written down in its present form x number of years ago.

    I wouldn't go so far as to say that it isn't based on 'real' knowledge. Science doesn't have a monopoly on knowledge, and I would imagine that, like many myths, this one does contain a certain amount of basis in reality.

    Whether or not the knowledge contained in the Bible is God-given is a matter of opinion, just as whether or not a God exists is a matter of opinion.


    You seem to want this model of creation to be validated by science, whereby validating your version of god.

    I want nothing of the sort. Indeed my God need not be validated by science, but a strong belief in a Bible-based Creator doesn't preclude one from a belief in the ability of the scientific method to reveal a truth not contained in the Bible. Indeed it, it can be viewed as another of God's gifts.


    I don't think it invalidates the existence of a deity, or even that science has the ability to do this. It can falsify particular claims though, which generally leads to either acceptance as allegory of such claims or literal, logical gymnastics.

    I agree in that I don't think science can invalidate the existence of a deity. I'm not sure that science can falsify history per se... science can generate mounds of evidence against a certain hypothesis, but science is limited in its ability to reveal information about history.

    While I wouldn't use science to attempt to prove something like the long day, I wouldn't use science against it either.

    continued



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join