Should Genesis be taken literally?

[AnnaliseH]

I don't think anyone here bases his interpretation of Genesis on Apostolic Tradition. The YECs certainly don't, because they don't believe that Apostolic Tradition exists. Those of us who do believe in Apostolic Tradition don't look to it to provide an interpretation of Genesis.

Anyway, it is disingenuous of a creationist to ask such a question, because the YEC position (as expressed in this thread, anyway) appears to be that the churches which profess belief in Apostolic tradition really don't, and have actually, secretly, embraced Sola Scriptura ever since Apostolic times.

So, all in all, you neither deserve nor should expect an answer to your question.

I'm asking you to explain your beliefs, yet you refuse. If you refuse to even defend what you believe, how do you expect to convince anyone else?

Oh, I have no doubt that Catholics and Anglicans, and those of their sort, believe in Apostolic Tradition. After all, such churches persecuted the reformers for believing in Sola Scriptura.

 

[rjs330]

Why did the US Army allow the Baghdad museum to be sacked?

I don't know.

 

[rjs330]

I will believe that when I SEE whales walking out of the sea on legs. ... And when pigs fly.

They do my friend, evolutionists call them birds.

 

[rjs330]

You are going to have to rephrase - I don't understand. Science does not deal in proof. You can post as many kooks saying otherwise as you like; it will not change what everyone even mildly conversant with science knows: Science is not in the business of "proving" anything, in the sense of establishing that something is true with absolute certainty.

So, yes, evolution has not been proven; it has instead simply been shown to be a superb explanation for observations. As such, it can legitimately be called a "fact" in the same sense that it is a fact - a virtual, although not absolute certainty - that swallowing radioactive bars of uranium causes illness.


You are mistaken - I challenge you to find anyone with a professorship at a real university - who agrees that science "proves" anything.

From Wikipedia:

While the phrase "scientific proof" is often used in the popular media, many scientists have argued that there is really no such thing. For example, Karl Popper once wrote that "In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory.

And to anticipate a response that this asserts only that "many" scientists have made this claim. You can't conclude that the ones who haven't believe otherwise - they may have simply not chosen to comment on this issue.

From Psychology Today:

One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.

Had enough? I can provide more - this a no-brainer: science is not in the "proof" business. Yes, some scientists might casually use the word "proof" to refer to their findings. Well, they are mistaken and would surely admit this if challenged - people are sometime careless in their speech and actions.

Like when people post quotes allegedly showing that some scientists think evolution is a religion, and it turns out the quotes are fakes or are taken out of context.

This price thing is such a joke. Can science prove electricity exists? Can science prove that humans have a heart that pumps blood through the body? Can science prove that water boils at certain temperatures? Of course it can. But when it comes to evolution it can't. And then claims it doesn't have to because science can't prove anything. Such nonsense. It's only an excuse. And a dumb one at that.

 

[Speedwell]

I don't know.

The Baghdad museum was not well cataloged, who knows what was in it? But Iraq contains a large number of archaeological sites of biblical significance and the museum was a vast collection of artifacts from these sites. Artifacts which might prove that the Bible was true and historical, but that YECism was wrong. The fundamentalists who followed our army into Iraq couldn't take the risk. The collection had to be destroyed and so the army had to allow, or perhaps even encourage it.

 

[Speedwell]

This price thing is such a joke. Can science prove electricity exists? Can science prove that humans have a heart that pumps blood through the body? Can science prove that water boils at certain temperatures? Of course it can. But when it comes to evolution it can't. And then claims it doesn't have to because science can't prove anything. Such nonsense. It's only an excuse. And a dumb one at that.

No, science can't prove any of that and doesn't claim to. Science works by inductive logic which can offer no proof. Only deductive logic can prove things. Of course, science can "prove" things in the colloquial sense of the term, but formally speaking it cannot.

 

[HenryM]

The only laws of inheritance I'm aware of are the Mendelian laws of inheritance. Darwinian evolution is a philosophy of natural history that presupposes exclusively naturalistic causes.

Thank you. And those laws explain only microevolution, as I am aware of. Is that correct?

 

[rjs330]

The Baghdad museum was not well cataloged, who knows what was in it? But Iraq contains a large number of archaeological sites of biblical significance and the museum was a vast collection of artifacts from these sites. Artifacts which might prove that the Bible was true and historical, but that YECism was wrong. The fundamentalist who followed our army into Iraq couldn't take the risk. The collection had to be destroyed and so the army had to allow, or perhaps even encourage it.

Really? I never heard of such a thing. What was there that might have.prived YEC wrong? And who were the YEC people who ordered such a thing and where are the orders that would indicate that's what they were doing? Where's the proof that this is what and why it happened? How can YEC be proven wrong by finding things that prove the bible right and historical? I don't get it.

 

[KWCrazy]

Under pressure from the Religious Right, the US army allowed, or perhaps encouraged, the sacking of the Baghdad museum in the belief that something in it might show the Bible to be true and historical, but not to the standards of YECism.

Your post is an insult to the men and women of the Armed forces and has no relation whatever to the truth. Iraqi's looted the museum. The US military worked to get the items back.

The television company NBC televised a report about the devastating invasion of the National Museum of Antiquities of Iraq in Baghdad by looters. NBC said that according to witness reports the looters plundered exhibits, burned documents and inventory lists stored in the museum and got into the underground storage rooms where especially valuable artifacts were kept.

Marine Corps Reserve Colonel Matthew Bogdanos organized a large-scale investigation into what happened and a search for the missing property on April 16, 2003. His team was able to assess the scale of the events and offer amnesty to the people of Baghdad for returning cultural artifacts. That resulted in the return of almost two thousand exhibits to the museum. A large number of exhibits were also found during special raids. In addition, Bogdanos gave information about the destruction of the museum to UNESCO, museum curators and antiquarians in Europe and the United States, the coalition forces headquarters and the customs services of all Middle Eastern states. These actions led to the recovery of a large portion of the stolen exhibits—about five to six thousand items, including the gold of Nimrod that had disappeared in 1991.
source

 

[expos4ever]

This price thing is such a joke. Can science prove electricity exists? Can science prove that humans have a heart that pumps blood through the body? Can science prove that water boils at certain temperatures? Of course it can.

No. No. No.

You can insist that science "proves" things all you like - people who actually understand science will disagree with you: science does not "prove" anything.

From Oregon State University (I added the emphasis):

Another word that is commonly misused (sadly, sometimes even by scientists, who should know better) is "proof".

What "proof" means in everyday speech: In casual conversations, most people use the word "proof" when they mean that there is indisputable evidence that supports an idea.

Scientists should be wary of using the term "proof". Science does not "prove" things. Science can and does provide evidence in favor of, or against, a particular idea. In science, proofs are possible only in the highly abstract world of mathematics.

 

[mark kennedy]

Thank you. And those laws explain only microevolution, as I am aware of. Is that correct?

You would have to define those terms because adaptive evolution has natural boundaries, see my signiture.

 

[JacksBratt]

No. No. No.

You can insist that science "proves" things all you like - people who actually understand science will disagree with you: science does not "prove" anything.

From Oregon State University (I added the emphasis):

Another word that is commonly misused (sadly, sometimes even by scientists, who should know better) is "proof".

What "proof" means in everyday speech: In casual conversations, most people use the word "proof" when they mean that there is indisputable evidence that supports an idea.

Scientists should be wary of using the term "proof". Science does not "prove" things. Science can and does provide evidence in favor of, or against, a particular idea. In science, proofs are possible only in the highly abstract world of mathematics.

Oh man..... not the "definition game"............

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Traits of all kinds (physical, mental) that favour survival till offspring are produced. This should not be new to someone who is at least somewhat conversant with evolutionary theory.


Is this a serious question? Evolution, at least the kind that is really at issue here, operates over relatively long time-scales - you can't see it happening on a day-to-day basis.

So how do you know it does? Seems like faith to me. I watched a video debate recently, admittedly a few years out of date, between an "expert" in the biological evolution story and a creation science teacher. I didn't see one thing that the evolutionist produced that I found the least bit convincing. All I saw were pretty computer simulations. I did see tons of logical arguments against all that stuff from the creationist guy.

Nope, sorry, I'll stick with my faith in the Bible being God's word thank you very much. I know I can trust that.

 

[Speedwell]

You need to adjust your tin foil hat. It isn't keeping out all the looney rays.
Congratulations for completely discrediting yourself with that crazy conspiracy theory.

Pull the other one. I've lived in the Bible Belt, chum. I've seen for myself what unpleasantness and even violence fundamentalists get up to when they think they have the upper hand. And what other group in Iraq at the time had a motive for seeing the collection destroyed?

 

[expos4ever]

Oh man..... not the "definition game"............

Nice try. The facts are clear:

1. You claim that scientists prove things;
2. Scientists do not claim to prove anything.

I have cited quotes from a reputable university, from Karl Popper (famous philosopher), and from Psychology Today.

All these quotes clearly assert that science is not in the "proof" business.

 

[joshua 1 9]

, I contend that your statement is deliberately false.

Another flame and another violation of the rules. No personal attacks are allowed.

Prove it. Show me the passage.

Psalm 90 was written by Moses v4: "A thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night."

2 Peter 3:8 "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day."

Psalm 90:4
For a thousand years in Your sight Are like yesterday when it passes by, Or as a watch in the night.

 

[joshua 1 9]

All I saw were pretty computer simulations.

The best part is when they continue to use their pretty pictures even when what they are trying to promote has been falsified.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I am aware of this possibility. That is why I very intentionally used, and underlined the word "may" in my post:

And that certainly may present a challenge

Do you not agree that we also have to concede that, if we take Adam to be a real human being - or even if we take him as a symbol for all humanity at some point in time - we need to concede that earlier "pre-humans", even ones almost identical to Adam, would not be subject to the "death via sin" effect.

So I think you and I, as believers in evolution, still have some work to do. Don't you agree?

Earlier pre humans would have died without being immortal, wouldn't they?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

You can find as many sites stating that evolution is a religion as you can for those that emphatically state the opposite...

what? There are sites on the internet that take . . . the wrong position? (gasp!)

However, I like this one. Since evolution is unprovable it is by faith that you believe it. Anyway, here's the definition:

Dr. Michael Ruse, from the Department of Philosophy at the University of Guelph in Ontario, is a philosopher of science, particularly of the evolutionary sciences. He is the author of several books on Darwinism and evolutionary theory and in an article in the National Post he wrote:7

Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.

You are cherry picking from Ruse's thoughts. He also said this:

So, what does our history tell us? Three things. First, if the claim is that all contemporary evolutionism is merely an excuse to promote moral and societal norms, this is simply false. Today's professional evolutionism is no more a secular religion than is industrial chemistry. Second, there is indeed a thriving area of more popular evolutionism, where evolution is used to underpin claims about the nature of the universe, the meaning of it all for us humans, and the way we should behave. I am not saying that this area is all bad or that it should be stamped out. I am all in favor of saving the rainforests. I am saying that this popular evolutionism--often an alternative to religion--exists. Third, we who cherish science should be careful to distinguish when we are doing science and when we are extrapolating from it, particularly when we are teaching our students. If it is science that is to be taught, then teach science and nothing more. Leave the other discussions for a more appropriate time.

Michael Ruse, Science 299, 1523 - 1524

 

[Speedwell]

How can YEC be proven wrong by finding things that prove the bible right and historical? I don't get it.

We know it can. What I am needling you about is to find out why. Take Noah's ark for an example. The Bible tells us it was 300 cubits long and 50 cubits wide. Now, we don't know exactly what a cubit was, but the ratio of length to width is established infallibly and exactly at 6:1, right? Now, suppose the real and indisputable remains Noah's ark were discovered. If the ratio of length to width was not exactly 6:1, the Abrahamic religions of the world would nonetheless justifiably rejoice that the story of Noah had been verified. But YECism would be in the toilet, all hope of converting the rest of Christendom lost. A smart YEC who came across Noah's ark would be best advised to torch it and keep his mouth shut; the risk to his religion would be just too great.