Is Genesis consistent with mainstream scientific knowledge??

[Wiccan_Child]

Simple question. Do you believe that Genesis, however you interpret it or however you think it should be interpreted, is compatible with what we know about the universe today?

 

[AV1611VET]

Simple question. Do you believe that Genesis, however you interpret it or however you think it should be interpreted, is compatible with what we know about the universe today?

No.

 

[Jazer]

Simple question. Do you believe that Genesis, however you interpret it or however you think it should be interpreted, is compatible with what we know about the universe today?

Yes of course it is. Science is out to discover the natural laws of the Universe. The God that gave us our Bible is the same God that gives us the laws of the universe.

 

[selfinflikted]

Simple question. Do you believe that Genesis, however you interpret it or however you think it should be interpreted, is compatible with what we know about the universe today?

No.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You know I do.

 

[nebulaJP]

Simple question. Do you believe that Genesis, however you interpret it or however you think it should be interpreted, is compatible with what we know about the universe today?

No because what we know about the universe today is that it is not on and in a crystalline, dome firmament above the earth. Here are two articles from opposing camps.

The Scriptural Basis for a Geocentric Cosmology

The Firmament, Third Heaven, and Structure of Things Biblical

 

[hollyda]

Simple question. Do you believe that Genesis, however you interpret it or however you think it should be interpreted, is compatible with what we know about the universe today?

No

 

[Doveaman]

Simple question. Do you believe that Genesis, however you interpret it or however you think it should be interpreted, is compatible with what we know about the universe today?

No. That's why I reject what you know.

Your science is a 96% blank check. You don't know enough.

If the science is done correctly, then yes.

Genesis is compatible with an electric universe.

Then God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. (Gen 1:3).

 

[Nathan Poe]

Yes of course it is. Science is out to discover the natural laws of the Universe. The God that gave us our Bible is the same God that gives us the laws of the universe.

And here's a symptom of the problem with religious thinking today -- the Bible was not delivered to us by God, but rather, was man's record of their attempts to encapsulate the concept of "God" within their own history and culture.

You might think that God can be contained and codified within the pages of a book; personally, I think he deserves better.

 

[Nathan Poe]

No. That's why I reject what you know.

Your science is a 96% blank check. You don't know enough.

If the science is done correctly, then yes.

Genesis is compatible with an electric universe.

Then God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. (Gen 1:3).

So, you prefer 100% blank to 96%?

 

[selfinflikted]

You don't know enough.

But Christians know more, I assume? How do you come to such knowledge?

 

[Beth-Zur]

Simple question. Do you believe that Genesis, however you interpret it or however you think it should be interpreted, is compatible with what we know about the universe today?

I believe that the Bible, as a whole, and specific to this post, Genesis, is not meant to be an exhaustive work, but a more than sufficient resource. (I'm assuming that when you say "Genesis", you mean the Creation account in the first two chapters.)

Every natural discipline has its tools and measures appropriate to that discipline; carpentry, medicine, biochemistry, neurology, nuclear physics, etc. With the "soft" sciences, cataloging and measuring become a bit more challenging.

The spiritual aspect of man, likewise has it's own unique properties and practices. Spiritual attributes cannot be expressed in inches, grams, mg, velocity, gauss, nanocuries, etc.

That said, the following video surprisingly relates the concepts of science to the concept of a Creator. (Surprisingly, my eyes didn't glaze over when he was speaking about evolution. lol! )

The Message of Modern Science

Dr. Gerald Schroeder, Professor of Biology and Physics

MIT & Weizman Institute​

Dr. Schroeder's argument is so powerful that it influenced one of the worlds leading atheists, Antony Flew to accept the reality of an infinitely intelligent God.

Scientific Proof of God - YouTube

(audio is improved at 480)​

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Beth who's that guy in the vid?

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Dr. Schroeder's argument is so powerful that it influenced one of the worlds leading atheists, Antony Flew to accept the reality of an infinitely intelligent God.

Lol.

Dr. Schroeder's argument is so powerful....

How powerful was it?

It was so powerful, one of the leading atheists, Antony Flew, accepted Jesus.

*rimshot*

Arguments from ignorance do not impress. Just because we don't know yet, doesn't give one the right to insert their pet deity and claim it as so.

 

[Beth-Zur]

Dr. Gerald Schroeder, Professor of Biology and Physics

MIT & Weizman Institute​

_________________

Watch it??

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Dr. Gerald Schroeder, Professor of Biology and Physics​

MIT & Weizman Institute​

_________________

Watch it??

I watched it, I didnt catch his name. I thought you were creditting the source of the arguement used in the vid.
Didnt realize it was the actual source in the vid.
I never knew Schroeder was a jew.

I'm with frenchy though, arguements from ignorance arent valid.

But I did like his explainations, quite able to inspire that bit of wonder we should have when really thinking about what we are. I just wish he wouldnt resort to what I considered to be snide remarks and missrepresentations on the side during his explainations that did nothing to further his point.

 

[juvenissun]

Simple question. Do you believe that Genesis, however you interpret it or however you think it should be interpreted, is compatible with what we know about the universe today?

If I give you a positive example, would you seriously consider it, does not run away from the issue, and does not start to insult me? (frankly, even you say yes, I won't believe you. But I might give you another chance.)

According to what we know now (a big restriction), whatever says in the Genesis is at least 50% scientific. Many of them are 80% or more scientific. Some of them are 100% scientific.

 

[Beth-Zur]

Lol.

Dr. Schroeder's argument is so powerful....

How powerful was it?

It was so powerful, one of the leading atheists, Antony Flew, accepted Jesus.

*rimshot*

Arguments from ignorance do not impress. Just because we don't know yet, doesn't give one the right to insert their pet deity and claim it as so.

I always thought a rimshot was usually preceded by something funny...

"Arguments from ignorance do not impress." Which is why I won't be giving your unsophisticated retort much credence.

Dr. Schroeder made his credentials available. Care to provide yours to support those profound assertions??

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

I always thought a rimshot was usually preceded by something funny...

"Arguments from ignorance do not impress." Which is why I won't be giving your unsophisticated retort much credence.

Dr. Schroeder made his credentials available. Care to provide yours to support those profound assertions??

Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. This is what separates science from religion.

 

[AV1611VET]

Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. This is what separates science from religion.

Yup -- you shoulda seen the scientists appeal to NASA administration [for the blame] when those seven astronauts separated.