Should Genesis be taken literally?

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Are you saying that all the stories in the OT are allegorical or just some. So when the Bible says David did this and David did that are they true and accurate stories or are they made stories like George Washington and the cherry tree? How about Samson or Elijah and Elisha? What about Solomon and Abraham? Are those true history or made up history? What about the Israelites and Egypt? What about God giving them the law? True history or made up?

There is no way to answer that question from you unless you admit to a method of scripture interpretation that allows for accurate understanding of the history of life and the history of the universe. Then, once you admit that method, see what that method does for your question here. As long as you cling to a method that gives you the wrong answers to understanding the history of life and the history of the universe, you cannot answer that question.

 

[rjs330]

There is no way to answer that question from you unless you admit to a method of scripture interpretation that allows for accurate understanding of the history of life and the history of the universe. Then, once you admit that method, see what that method does for your question here. As long as you cling to a method that gives you the wrong answers to understanding the history of life and the history of the universe, you cannot answer that question.

Huh? Either it's real history or its not. Either the Bible is accurate history or it's not. Was there a guy named Abraham? Either there was or there wasn't. If there does the Bible tell his story or does it make up his life and the things that happened to him. It's not that hard to answer. Did they exist or didn't they. If they were historical persons are the stories in the bible about them made up or are they real events? You are making it to hard.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Huh? Either it's real history or its not. Either the Bible is accurate history or it's not. Was there a guy named Abraham? Either there was or there wasn't. If there does the Bible tell his story or does it make up his life and the things that happened to him. It's not that hard to answer. Did they exist or didn't they. If they were historical persons are the stories in the bible about them made up or are they real events? You are making it to hard.

Its not hard to admit that the earth has been around for 4+ billion years and that life is of common descent. Failure to admit this is to be in error. So what does that leave you for bible interpretation? Certain literal interpretations are ruled out for acceptance. Others are not. That's all there is to that.

 

[rjs330]

Its not hard to admit that the earth has been around for 4+ billion years and that life is of common descent. Failure to admit this is to be in error. So what does that leave you for bible interpretation? Certain literal interpretations are ruled out for acceptance. Others are not. That's all there is to that.

Life is not of a common descent. That's not in any way been proven. It can't be tested reproduced or observed. It's an assumption. The Bible is true. Let God be true and every man a liar.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Life is not of a common descent. That's not in any way been proven. It can't be tested reproduced or observed. It's an assumption. The Bible is true. Let God be true and every man a liar.

Well, there are tests. For example, there should be one true tree of life by which one could trace the original form and how life diversified.

The common descent hypotheses passes that test.

The fossils we find should, in their history, support the earlier simple forms becoming later, more complex forms.

The common descent hypotheses passes that test.

Supporting evidence is also found in a common chemistry of all life. A common usage of DNA in all life. With the same order of nucleotids coding for the same proteins throughout all the various branches of life.

God is true. His word, found in the stars, the rocks and the genomes, is what I am suggesting we should, indeed trust, and His word, found in the stars, the rocks, and the genomes, is what you deny.

After all, we both agree on one thing . . . that God is reponsible for all that DNA. So why not trust what it tells us? It is from Him.

 

[rjs330]

Well, there are tests. For example, there should be one true tree of life by which one could trace the original form and how life diversified.

The common descent hypotheses passes that test.

The fossils we find should, in their history, support the earlier simple forms becoming later, more complex forms.

The common descent hypotheses passes that test.

Supporting evidence is also found in a common chemistry of all life. A common usage of DNA in all life. With the same order of nucleotids coding for the same proteins throughout all the various branches of life.

God is true. His word, found in the stars, the rocks and the genomes, is what I am suggesting we should, indeed trust, and His word, found in the stars, the rocks, and the genomes, is what you deny.

After all, we both agree on one thing . . . that God is reponsible for all that DNA. So why not trust what it tells us? It is from Him.

You prove my point by the words you use. You used the word "should". We should find. That is a presupposition that one thing is true. Yet we cannot prove any of it. The tree of life thing is not proven because we have never seen anything like that occur. We can't test that. The fossil record has no transitional fossils. The evolutionists THINK some might be transitional but we don't really know. We have never observed it or been able to test it. All that common stuff you mention is no more evidence of evolution than it is evidence of common design because God knew what each creature would need to exist and adapt to this world he made.

Science is often wrong about stuff. Especially about stuff they can't really observe or test. God is NEVER wrong and he told us in his word how he did created life and how long it took him. I choose to believe Him who was the creator over man who has no clue.

 

[expos4ever]

You prove my point by the words you use. You used the word "should". We should find. That is a presupposition that one thing is true. Yet we cannot prove any of it. The tree of life thing is not proven because we have never seen anything like that occur. We can't test that.

There are two explanations for this line of reasoning:

1. You are deliberately misrepresenting the nature of scientific inquiry;
2. You genuinely are misinformed.

I will be generous and assume the latter. Here is some material from Scientific American that rectifies the misunderstanding you are demonstrating:

Creationist Misunderstanding: Evolution is unscientific, because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created.

This blanket dismissal of evolution ignores important distinctions that divide the field into at least two broad areas: microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution looks at changes within species over time--changes that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species. Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related.

These days even most creationists acknowledge that microevolution has been upheld by tests in the laboratory (as in studies of cells, plants and fruit flies) and in the field (as in Grant's studies of evolving beak shapes among Gal¿pagos finches). Natural selection and other mechanisms--such as chromosomal changes, symbiosis and hybridization--can drive profound changes in populations over time.

The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries. For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest-known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 100,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominid creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not--and does not--find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (144 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly.

Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence.

It should be noted that the idea of falsifiability as the defining characteristic of science originated with philosopher Karl Popper in the 1930s. More recent elaborations on his thinking have expanded the narrowest interpretation of his principle precisely because it would eliminate too many branches of clearly scientific endeavor.

Do you now understand how it is that evolution theory is legitimate science even though we cannot (in the main at least) "test it in the present"?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

You prove my point by the words you use. You used the word "should". We should find. That is a presupposition that one thing is true. Yet we cannot prove any of it.

You missed it where it was proven, I see. Or you decided to reject the many proofs, which is more likely.

The tree of life thing is not proven because we have never seen anything like that occur. We can't test that.

Yes we can, as I explained, and as others have explained, and the "tree of life thing" has passed the tests.

The fossil record has no transitional fossils.

Of course it does. Lots of them. Archaeopteryx. Tiktaalik. Here's a link to oodles of them:

List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia

The evolutionists THINK some might be transitional but we don't really know. We have never observed it or been able to test it. All that common stuff you mention is no more evidence of evolution than it is evidence of common design because God knew what each creature would need to exist and adapt to this world he made.

The hypothesis of common design is ruled out by the pattern of inherited DEFECTS that trace through the same tree of life as the pattern of positive, useful attributes and the pattern of inherited VESTIGIAL PARTS.

Science is often wrong about stuff. Especially about stuff they can't really observe or test. God is NEVER wrong and he told us in his word how he did created life and how long it took him. I choose to believe Him who was the creator over man who has no clue.

How can you tell science is often wrong about stuff? Science is self correcting. And your thoughts about things being really unable to be observed or tested are simply false, scientists will continue to ignore your religious objections to their findings. God is never wrong, and so we can trust His direct revelations, shown us in the stars, the rocks, and the genomes. I choose to believe Him who is Creator over man. And man has the clues God has given us.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Its not hard to admit that the earth has been around for 4+ billion years and that life is of common descent. Failure to admit this is to be in error. So what does that leave you for bible interpretation? Certain literal interpretations are ruled out for acceptance. Others are not. That's all there is to that.

Sounds like a typical non-answer to me - the sort that politicians usually give when asked a difficult question. In the UK, we used to call it "ducking and diving." This is a prime example of the difficulties that people get into when they put man's fallible ideas above God's absolute truth. There's mountains of evidence from astronomy alone, to put serious doubt on the long-age naturalistic origins of the universe, which ought to cause people to ask - If those ideas don't work, perhaps there's a better explanation - could Genesis be right after all?

 

[Not_By_Chance]

I thought the idea of Archaeopteryx being some kind of transitional form had been put to bed a long time ago and fossils tell us absolutely nothing about the relationship between one type of creature and another - they are just a pile of dead bones. Maybe you should start looking at the other side of these arguments; ones that actually support what the Bible tells us. There's tons of faith-strengthening material out there nowadays that refutes much of the naturalistic nonsense we keep hearing about in the media.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Sounds like a typical non-answer to me - the sort that politicians usually give when asked a difficult question. In the UK, we used to call it "ducking and diving." This is a prime example of the difficulties that people get into when they put man's fallible ideas above God's absolute truth. There's mountains of evidence from astronomy alone, to put serious doubt on the long-age naturalistic origins of the universe, which ought to cause people to ask - If those ideas don't work, perhaps there's a better explanation - could Genesis be right after all?

Sounds like a typical denial answer to me . . the sort that a certain kind of religious thinker usually gives when faced with findings about reality that conflict with his religion. Your kind has been opposing the findings of science since science started, a prime example of the difficluties that people get into when they put man's opinions developed by faith against findings based on actual evidence. There are NO pieces of evidence from astronomy to put doubt on the long-age naturalistic origins of the universe. All you can find that is anything like that at all would be an unsolved puzzle or two. And if your list is anything like such lists I've seen in the past, you've got some solved puzzles in your unsolved puzzle list.

 

[expos4ever]

I believe this "debate" (and I use the parentheses intentionally) has implications for how those of us who accept the legitimacy of science should conduct any advocacy if we are concerned about the consequences of science denial in our world. And concerned we should be. While believing that Adam rode a dinosaur is arguably not directly dangerous, the rejection of the legitimacy of science that goes with it certainly should be. The same lack of respect for science that energizes creationism also enables many to dismiss one of the greatest threat humanity has faced: global warming.

I believe that those of us who accept the science are, on average, only slightly more scientifically literate than the creationists. And perhaps no more. The difference is tribalism: the creationist gains an essential part of his identity from his fundamentalist ideas. So to critique those ideas is a non-starter - no matter how powerful the evidence, the creationist will double-down since to concede that evolution happened poses a profound threat to his sense of who he is. To be fair, we who accept evolution are also tribal in this sense. But, and here is the key difference, the howls of creationist protest notwithstanding: those of us who accept evolution are members of a tribe whose defining trait is respect for the legitimacy of science. If, somehow, the scientific method were to be legitimately cast into disrepute (although this is hard to imagine), we would be behaving the same way.

What does this cash out to? If you are concerned about science denial, you should probably give up on the creationist and direct your evangelical fervour for science to the young who have not yet drunk the Kool-Aid.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Your kind has been opposing the findings of science since science started

Would that be one of the originally created kinds then, or some descendant of some mythical species from long ago?

a prime example of the difficluties that people get into when they put man's opinions developed by faith against findings based on actual evidence.

I think this should read, "a prime example of the difficulties that people get into when they put man's opinions developed by faith against those clearly given to us by the word of God in his Holy book known as The Bible."

There are NO pieces of evidence from astronomy to put doubt on the long-age naturalistic origins of the universe.

Oh, so that's why they had to invent "Dark Matter" and when that didn't work, "Dark Energy" to try to account for the 95% of the universe that they know absolutely nothing about. That's why many of the planets and moons in our solar system either shouldn't exist at all or have features that can't be explained. That's why there is no known way for stars to form (or universes out of nothing for that matter) or why galaxies should have appeared so early in the life of the universe. It must also be why they had to invent something called an "Inflaton" to try to explain how inflation worked, which now leaves them pondering why the universe's expansion is apparently speeding up again. And then of course, they eventually end up heading off into the bizarre world of multiverses, Boltzmann Brains et al. Just because they cannot accept that God really did create this wonderful universe, just like he told us in the Bible.

All you can find that is anything like that at all would be an unsolved puzzle or two.

How about the chances of the first cell starting on it's own being 1 in 10 to the power of 40,000 and then it's got to find a way to reproduce! I don't see "an unsolved puzzle or two" - I see an unfathomable amount of puzzles. I think God must be laughing at our futile efforts to try to understand what he has done.

 

[rjs330]

You missed it where it was proven, I see. Or you decided to reject the many proofs, which is more likely.



Yes we can, as I explained, and as others have explained, and the "tree of life thing" has passed the tests.



Of course it does. Lots of them. Archaeopteryx. Tiktaalik. Here's a link to oodles of them:

List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia



The hypothesis of common design is ruled out by the pattern of inherited DEFECTS that trace through the same tree of life as the pattern of positive, useful attributes and the pattern of inherited VESTIGIAL PARTS.


How can you tell science is often wrong about stuff? Science is self correcting. And your thoughts about things being really unable to be observed or tested are simply false, scientists will continue to ignore your religious objections to their findings. God is never wrong, and so we can trust His direct revelations, shown us in the stars, the rocks, and the genomes. I choose to believe Him who is Creator over man. And man has the clues God has given us.

Sorry, I do utterly dismiss evolution. It is nothing but assumptions. I've seen and read all the stuff and it's still all assumptive. The fossils record is assumptive. That's all it is and that's all it ever will be.

I just find it interesting that you claim that science is a higher authority than the word of God.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I believe this "debate" (and I use the parentheses intentionally) has implications for how those of us who accept the legitimacy of science should conduct any advocacy if we are concerned about the consequences of science denial in our world. And concerned we should be. While believing that Adam rode a dinosaur is arguably not directly dangerous, the rejection of the legitimacy of science that goes with it certainly should be. The same lack of respect for science that energizes creationism also enables many to dismiss one of the greatest threat humanity has faced: global warming.

I believe that those of us who accept the science are, on average, only slightly more scientifically literate than the creationists. And perhaps no more. The difference is tribalism: the creationist gains an essential part of his identity from his fundamentalist ideas. So to critique those ideas is a non-starter - no matter how powerful the evidence, the creationist will double-down since to concede that evolution happened poses a profound threat to his sense of who he is. To be fair, we who accept evolution are also tribal in this sense. But, and here is the key difference, the howls of creationist protest notwithstanding: those of us who accept evolution are members of a tribe whose defining trait is respect for the legitimacy of science. If, somehow, the scientific method were to be legitimately cast into disrepute (although this is hard to imagine), we would be behaving the same way.

What does this cash out to? If you are concerned about science denial, you should probably give up on the creationist and direct your evangelical fervour for science to the young who have not yet drunk the Kool-Aid.

A good part of the reason for debunking the unfounded ideas of science deniers is for the lurkers.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Would that be one of the originally created kinds then, or some descendant of some mythical species from long ago?

What kind of kind would unkindly exhibit that kind of thinking about kinds?

Oh, so that's why they had to invent "Dark Matter" and when that didn't work, "Dark Energy" to try to account for the 95% of the universe that they know absolutely nothing about.

Those mysteries have nothing to do with the age of the earth, the age of the universe, and the fact of evolution.

That's why many of the planets and moons in our solar system either shouldn't exist at all or have features that can't be explained.

Huh? You have some kind of list you think scientists made about what should be in our solar system? Scientists don't tell the universe what it should be, scientists discover what the universe actually is, a thought that you can't assimilate because you don't like what they found out.

That's why there is no known way for stars to form

From collapsing vast clouds of interstellar gas

(or universes out of nothing for that matter) or why galaxies should have appeared so early in the life of the universe.

Why not? And exactly how early is it they assert galaxies appeared, and why is that "too early"?

It must also be why they had to invent something called an "Inflaton" to try to explain how inflation worked, which now leaves them pondering why the universe's expansion is apparently speeding up again.

Unsolved mysteries of science don't abrogate solved mysteries of science.

And then of course, they eventually end up heading off into the bizarre world of multiverses, Boltzmann Brains et al. Just because they cannot accept that God really did create this wonderful universe, just like he told us in the Bible.

Do you yourself think this is the only world God ever created and we are the only living creatures? Most theologians who consider God's creations consider them to be, like Him, infinite. So your objections are silly. In addition, nothing about pondering alternate universes is an assertion that there is no creator.

How about the chances of the first cell starting on it's own being 1 in 10 to the power of 40,000 and then it's got to find a way to reproduce! I don't see "an unsolved puzzle or two" - I see an unfathomable amount of puzzles. I think God must be laughing at our futile efforts to try to understand what he has done.

Surely the number of unsolved science mysteries is very, very large. But your declaration about the odds of the first cell starting are based on assuming there was no simpler form that evolved into a cell as we know it, and so that calculation is misleading. But your assumptions seem to be that as long as there is an unsolved mystery in science, we can't trust science about anything at all. That's not going to get very far.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

What kind of kind would unkindly exhibit that kind of thinking about kinds?

I agree, it is unkind to consider that man descended from some ape-like creature when God clearly told us that he created man in his image, male and female he created them. Sorry.

Those mysteries have nothing to do with the age of the earth, the age of the universe, and the fact of evolution.

Of course they do, God told us he us made the earth and the universe a few thousand years ago. He even provided a genealogy for us to prove it. Do you believe God or the stories that man has invented to try to cast doubt on the veracity of his word?

Huh? You have some kind of list you think scientists made about what should be in our solar system? Scientists don't tell the universe what it should be, scientists discover what the universe actually is,

And when they do, they can't explain what they find when measured against their own theories and assumptions. The more they discover, the more foolish their naturalistic theories become.

From collapsing vast clouds of interstellar gas

Really? Does gas collapse in on itself? How? Have you ever seen a star forming out of all the trillions in the night sky?

And exactly how early is it they assert galaxies appeared, and why is that "too early"?

Very early and before even stars should have formed.

Do you yourself think this is the only world God ever created and we are the only living creatures?

Of course it is. Why else would he need to die on the cross? Or has he got to die over and over again for each of the other worlds where sin may have entered? And doesn't it say, "the whole of creation has been groaning.." That would mean that any of those other worlds where sin hadn't been committed would also be paying the price.

But your declaration about the odds of the first cell starting are based on assuming there was no simpler form that evolved into a cell as we know it, and so that calculation is misleading.

Not really. What simpler life form would that be? How would you even get any lifeform at all from non-living chemicals? It's still statistically an impossibility. What about the chirality problem and the myriad of other problems that can't be explained? Honestly, do you really consider the nettles in the field or the spiders in your house your very distant relatives?

 

[-57]

Huh? Either it's real history or its not. Either the Bible is accurate history or it's not. Was there a guy named Abraham? Either there was or there wasn't. If there does the Bible tell his story or does it make up his life and the things that happened to him. It's not that hard to answer. Did they exist or didn't they. If they were historical persons are the stories in the bible about them made up or are they real events? You are making it to hard.

I find it interesting that there are christians who don't believe their bible. Kinda weird.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Well, they do actually (believe their bibles that is) - it's just that their bibles generally have less pages in than ours because they have torn out the parts that they can't agree with. Of course, some do replace the parts they have torn out with other stuff instead. Take a look at post #23 on this other thread to see what I mean.

 

[-57]

Well, they do actually (believe their bibles that is) - it's just that their bibles generally have less pages in than ours because they have torn out the parts that they can't agree with. Of course, some do replace the parts they have torn out with other stuff instead. Take a look at post #23 on this other thread to see what I mean.

I've noticed some fill it on with this nonsense.