So can the Genesis be infallible and inerrant history?

[CabVet]

Those are observation of physical facts, not Darwinian evolution.

And those physical facts are not consistent with the Genesis narrative, and are consistent with evolution (I don't know why you like Darwin so much to keep repeating "Darwinian", the term was dropped more than 100 years ago).

The book was written based on observations.

No, it was written by third parties. There are very few, if any, parts in the Bible written by direct observers.

Yup.

Yup.

 

[Doveaman]

Upton Sinclair used to say "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"

Sounds like Mr.Upton is describing many scientists.

If you change salary to salvation, that might be what motivates some creationists.

If you leave salary as salary, that might be what motivates some scientists.

Of course, millions of Christians believe that salvation does NOT depend on a literal reading of Genesis.

That would be my belief also.

However, in order to understand many biblical passages (both Old and New Testament) a literal reading of Genesis makes the most logical sense.

In addition, a literal reading of Genesis does not necessarily contradict observed facts, but it does contradict Darwinian evolution.

But if salvation depends on believing lies and rejecting evidence, then salvation can take a hike.

I agree.

 

[Subduction Zone]

[/COLOR]However, in order to understand many biblical passages (both Old and New Testament) a literal reading of Genesis makes the most logical sense.

In addition, a literal reading of Genesis does not necessarily contradict observed facts, but it does contradict Darwinian evolution.

Really? I don't think so. Since Jesus very often used allegory as teaching tools the obvious mythical parts of the Old Testament, and much of the New Testament too, viewing it as allegorical makes the most logical sense to me.

Sorry, but a literal reading of Genesis does disagree with observed facts. There is no population bottleneck of all life that would correspond to either the creation myth or the flood myth. The observed age of the Earth does not agree with the creation myth. The lack of evidence of a flood 5 miles deep does not agree with the flood myth. There are countless examples of observed science that disagree with the book of Genesis.

 

[CabVet]

In addition, a literal reading of Genesis does not necessarily contradict observed facts, but it does contradict Darwinian evolution.

Ok, let's debate this now. Take for example the fossil record. Forget "Darwinian" evolution. Actually, let's assume evolution is wrong. Here is what we see in the fossil record:

1) The first organisms to appear on earth were animals (not plants).
2) Insects (creeping things) and land mammals (cattle) appeared on this planet before whales.

Let's keep it simple and start with these two statements. These are observations of our fossil record, they have nothing to do with evolution. Please tell me how a literal reading of Genesis does not contradict the above observed facts.

 

[Gameplay]

If the Genesis creation account had legitimate proof of ever happening it would be History but it is and always has been Fantasy.

 

[AV1611VET]

If the Genesis creation account had legitimate proof of ever happening it would be History but it is and always has been Fantasy.

So something is a fantasy until proof comes along?

In that case, only alcoholics are real.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So something is a fantasy until proof comes along?

In that case, only alcoholics are real.

Let's give him the benefit of the doubt that he meant "evidence".

And yes, anything as major as claimed as in the book of Genesis would leave some sort of evidence that supports it. Instead all we can find is evidence that contradicts it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Let's give him the benefit of the doubt that he meant "evidence".

So something is a fantasy until evidence comes along?

Nothing is held in abeyance?

And yes, anything as major as claimed as in the book of Genesis would leave some sort of evidence that supports it.

I disagree.

Instead all we can find is evidence that contradicts it.

Contradicts what? all you guys call it is "poof" and "magic;" then wonder why you don't understand?

 

[CabVet]

So something is a fantasy until evidence comes along?

Nothing is held in abeyance?

I wouldn't call it fantasy, I would call it an untested hypothesis until evidence comes along. In the case of the Genesis narrative, evidence already came along and said evidence is not consistent with the narrative.

I disagree.

And you do so because of your faith and regardless of the evidence. Remember "evidence can take a hike"?

Contradicts what? all you guys call it is "poof" and "magic;" then wonder why you don't understand?

Evidence contradicts everything in the Genesis narrative, from the order of creation to the timeline.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So something is a fantasy until evidence comes along?

Nothing is held in abeyance?

Did I say that? Did I even come close to implying that? If you think so read the post again.

I disagree.

Yes, we know. You are also demonstrably wrong.

Contradicts what? all you guys call it is "poof" and "magic;" then wonder why you don't understand?

You name the Biblical claim and I will tell you the evidence against it.

And no, we are pointing out that it is your side that believes in magic. You don't like it called that, but that is your belief.

 

[AV1611VET]

I wouldn't call it fantasy, I would call it an untested hypothesis until evidence comes along.

Okay if I take his post with a grain of sodium chloride then?

Evidence contradicts everything in the Genesis narrative, from the order of creation to the timeline.

As it should.

 

[AV1611VET]

You name the Biblical claim and I will tell you the evidence against it.

God created the moon.

 

[CabVet]

Okay if I take his post with a grain of sodium chloride then?

You can take it with whatever chemical you want.

As it should.

You should tell that to Mr. Dove. Apparently he is out of the loop:

In addition, a literal reading of Genesis does not necessarily contradict observed facts

I am curious though, why do you think creation should "contradict" observations? I mean, I understand why it would leave no evidence (if it did, it would require no faith), but contradict what we see? Why?

 

[Subduction Zone]

God created the moon.

Countless craters on the surface of the Moon are evidence that it was the accumulation of countless meteors. The age of the Moon as dated by radiometric dating also supports that claim and totally denies that of an Ussher based date.

 

[AV1611VET]

I am curious though, why do you think creation should "contradict" observations? I mean, I understand why it would leave no evidence (if it did, it would require no faith), but contradict what we see? Why?

Remember my snowman challenge?

I create this guy ex nihilo:

Immediately true or false: he is partially melted?

 

[AV1611VET]

Countless craters on the surface of the Moon are evidence that it was the accumulation of countless meteors. The age of the Moon as dated by radiometric dating also supports that claim and totally denies that of an Ussher based date.

Groovy.

 

[CabVet]

Remember my snowman challenge?

The answer to your challenge is: true. There is nothing in your melted snowman that contradicts the fact that it is partially melted. This challenge has no relation to my question. Why should we expect to find evidence that contradicts Genesis?

 

[CabVet]

God created the moon.

As stated, I have to say that there is no evidence against that, and likewise, none for it. You should be a bit more detailed though. When and how did God create the moon?

 

[Gameplay]

So by your logic; Unicorns,The Tooth Fairy,Dracula and Spiderman are real?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why should we expect to find evidence that contradicts Genesis?

You shouldn't.

Genesis 1 left no evidence behind for scrutiny.

And the reason it left no evidence behind is because no evidence was generated.

Thus, to get the proper chronological order, documentation would have to be supplied.