If the beginnings of Genesis aren't literally true, then what way are they true?

[Doveaman]

No, in science one first makes a hypothesis then it is tested with evidence. If the evidence says "no" the hypothesis is refuted in its present form. It may then be corrected or dropped. After a hypothesis is tested many times and is tested by the scientific community as a whole it becomes a theory. The theory may still be changed as more evidence comes in, but it is always wrong to fit the evidence to the theory.

In other words, you have an idea/hypothesis, you then go searching for evidence to support the idea. If the evidence fits the idea, the idea is then accepted by the scientific community.

First there's the idea/hypothesis, then the evidence is fitted to the idea before the idea is accepted.

Then according to your logic atheism is more correct than Christianity since it is an extremely small minority.

According to you logic atheism is a religion.

 

[Doveaman]

No one religion is held by the majority of people.

There are many religions, but only one religious truth, which is held by a minority.

 

[Doveaman]

In the terms of evolution. The evidence itself appeared before the hypothesis, such as dinosaur bones.

So what?

The evidence still needs to be fitted to the idea/hypothesis before it is accepted.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In other words, you have an idea/hypothesis, you then go searching for evidence to support the idea. If the evidence fits the idea, the idea is then accepted by the scientific community.

First there's the idea/hypothesis, then the evidence is fitted to the idea before the idea is accepted.

According to you logic atheism is a religion.

Wrong, there is no "fitting". If the idea is shown to be wrong by the evidence the idea is changed. The evidence is not changed to fit the idea. The whole purpose is to find out what really happened. That is why all ideas are tentative. If one is shown to be wrong one must change his opinion. And it is always in a scientists best interest to test his idea as hard as he can and to correct it where it is shown to be wrong. Because the next step is to release one's idea to the public and other scientists get rewarded for showing that other scientists are wrong. If you have new idea you would want to test it as hard as you can because once you release it no one else will take any pity on your idea.

And no, atheism is not a religion in this sense and the scientific method endorses neither atheism or theism. Now science may show that certain beliefs, such as creationism, are wrong, but that does not mean they show that the idea of God is wrong. It seems that you have forgotten the lesson of Galileo. He was attacked because the Bible puts the Earth at the center of the universe. He showed that to be wrong. Yet he did not show Christianity itself to be wrong, only certain versions of it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So what?

The evidence still needs to be fitted to the idea/hypothesis before it is accepted.

Once again this is backwards. The idea must be fitted to the evidence. You are still thinking like a creationist and creationists have been shown to be wrong thousands if not millions of times. Creationists do the sin that you just described. You are projecting your sins upon others.

 

[Goonie]

There are many religions, but only one religious truth, which is held by a minority.

Yep but the believers in the flying spaghetti monster are growing. Oh wait a minute you don't mean them?

 

[HitchSlap]

There are many religions, but only one religious truth, which is held by a minority.

That's what they all say.

 

[Loudmouth]

So what?

The evidence still needs to be fitted to the idea/hypothesis before it is accepted.

False. The theory is changed to fit the evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

There are many religions, but only one religious truth, which is held by a minority.

Based on what? Dogma?

 

[Doveaman]

Then explain it.

Where in Genesis does it say that?

Genesis 1 does not mention dinosaur bones, nor does dinosaur bones contradict a literal interpretation of Genesis 1.

Link to where it says that in Genesis please.

Link to where it says this. so I can tell you it's wrong.

I think you are missing the point.

I’m not trying to show that Genesis is supported by the evidence, I am simply showing that the evidence does not necessarily contradict a literal interpretation of Genesis 1.

Our DNA goes back to long before your Adam and Eve.

And as I explained before, it is likely that Adam was formed from the fossilized remains (dust) of an extinct homo sapian in a similar way to Eve being formed from Adam's bone, so it makes sense that our DNA would go back long before Adam.

Links please. You say a lot based on wishful thinking, and a lot of it is wrong. You have only what's written in the bible to work from.

I don’t need links. I just need to show why your evidence does not contradict a literal interpretation of Genesis 1.

What species emerged in the last 5,000 years?

The ones that were discovered within the last 5,000 years. Scientists are discovering new species all the time.

As for before, yes species were becoming extinct for millions of years before the Ice Sheet melted and caused the Black Sea to flood. With Göbekli Tepe being so close to the region and closer in time to the flood, it's likely the story started there and spread.

Noah’s flood event occurred before the stories were written, so I’m sure there are many versions to the story of that event.

No worldwide flood as the bible describes. No great extinction either. Unless your god hid all the evidence and as a joke buried all the fossils on the 8th day.

A single continent or large island surrounded by water would be all that was needed to support life in the time of Noah since the earth’s population was still relatively small. If all life on the planet lived in one local area, then only that local area would need to be flooded.

New continents and islands emerged after the flood, and even during that time humans still congregated together in one local area before they became scattered around the planet from the city of Babel.

When conclusions are drawn from the facts, more than one conclusion can be drawn.
But when the facts support the conclusion, the conclusion is most likely correct.

The joke is on you.

 

[Loudmouth]

Genesis 1 does not mention dinosaur bones, nor does dinosaur bones contradict a literal interpretation of Genesis 1.

What would? What mixture of features in a fossil would falsify Genesis? What features in rocks would falsify Genesis? What features would a geologic feature need in order to falsify a literal Genesis? What shared genetic markers would falsify a literal Genesis?

For every question I ask, I can list multiple pieces of evidence that would falsify standard geology and the theory of evolution. I bet you can't name one for any of those questions. That's because the evidence doesn't matter to you.

 

[Doveaman]

What would? What mixture of features in a fossil would falsify Genesis? What features in rocks would falsify Genesis? What features would a geologic feature need in order to falsify a literal Genesis? What shared genetic markers would falsify a literal Genesis?

For every question I ask, I can list multiple pieces of evidence that would falsify standard geology and the theory of evolution. I bet you can't name one for any of those questions. That's because the evidence doesn't matter to you.

The evidence doesn't matter because there is no evidence to falsify a literal Genesis.

Interpretations may be falsified, but not a literal Genesis.

 

[HitchSlap]

The evidence doesn't matter because there is no evidence to falsify a literal Genesis.

Interpretations may be falsified, but not a literal Genesis.

Well, "in the beginning, god...," for starters.

 

[Goonie]

Genesis 1 does not mention dinosaur bones, nor does dinosaur bones contradict a literal interpretation of Genesis 1.

I think you are missing the point.

I’m not trying to show that Genesis is supported by the evidence, I am simply showing that the evidence does not necessarily contradict a literal interpretation of Genesis 1.

And as I explained before, it is likely that Adam was formed from the fossilized remains (dust) of an extinct homo sapian in a similar way to Eve being formed from Adam's bone, so it makes sense that our DNA would go back long before Adam.

I don’t need links. I just need to show why your evidence does not contradict a literal interpretation of Genesis 1.

The ones that were discovered within the last 5,000 years. Scientists are discovering new species all the time.
Noah’s flood event occurred before the stories were written, so I’m sure there are many versions to the story of that event.

A single continent or large island surrounded by water would be all that was needed to support life in the time of Noah since the earth’s population was still relatively small. If all life on the planet lived in one local area, then only that local area would need to be flooded.

New continents and islands emerged after the flood, and even during that time humans still congregated together in one local area before they became scattered around the planet from the city of Babel.

When conclusions are drawn from the facts, more than one conclusion can be drawn.
But when the facts support the conclusion, the conclusion is most likely correct.

The joke is on you.

The himalayas say hello. Rewriting geology to suit your conclusion is not science. The biblical flood story is clearly plagirising gilgamesh an account of a flood predating the bible by 600 years. Just one more edample of flood myths thatcdevelop around flood plains such as mesopotamia, the nile, china.

 

[Beaker]

Can you point out a few please.

Read Revelation or Matthew 24 and you will see the prophesies of the end times which are presently coming to pass.

 

[Goonie]

Read Revelation or Matthew 24 and you will see the prophesies of the end times which are presently coming to pass.

Don't forget matthew 23:34 christ predicts his return in the lifetime of his original followers, a view supported for example by by Paul. Christianity is still waiting. All of the end time prophecies are dusted off whenever society is in upheavel, for example 1640s England, the civil war.

 

[HitchSlap]

Read Revelation or Matthew 24 and you will see the prophesies of the end times which are presently coming to pass.

I can write history to fulfill any prophecy. Just try me.

 

[Beaker]

You can WRITE History, BUT you cannot create History to fulfill any promises. The promises quoted were predicted over 2,000 years ago.

 

[HitchSlap]

You can WRITE History, BUT you cannot create History to fulfill any promises. The promises quoted were predicted over 2,000 years ago.

Which promise was that, exactly?

 

[Beaker]

Which promise was that, exactly?

The promise of HIS return which is getting closer by the day.