A New Interpretation of Genesis

[razzelflabben]

That's because I have seen nothing that would indicate that a creator even exists, I've heard the stories but as far as I am concerned that's all they are, stories, every country has a different story to tell but they all have the same evidence backing the stories up, none.

okay, let's play scientist for a brief moment...what would we expect to see if our world was created by a supernatural being verses a spontaneous reaction? iows what are our predictions that we can test or even look at the evidence for createdness vs. non created? Be specific, remember your the one claiming there is no such evidence existing, so show us what evidence doesn't exist....

 

[CarlaB]

awesome....so what is the question then, so far we haven't even dealt with "magic and miracles", but I guess if you want we can try to apply both to any question you want to ask....

That's just the point, why do you think religions call on magic and miracles? because they claim to solve all the problems people do not have answers for yet in reality solve nothing.

 

[razzelflabben]

That's just the point, why do you think religions call on magic and miracles? because they claim to solve all the problems people do not have answers for yet in reality solve nothing.

Listen, I am sure some rely on "magic and miracles" but the Bible is more specific about the mechanism for the change we see in our world (aka life) than the theory of evolution is. You see, according to the Bible, the mechanism of change is God and even more specifically, the word or command of God. That is very specific and even more specific than is the theory of evolution, that is, the theory of change. Change or evolution, does not give us a specific mechanism, it gives us a general one, which is why evolutionist theists even exist in the world.

 

[CarlaB]

so show us what evidence doesn't exist....

That really made me laugh out loud it really did.
"Show us what evidence doesn't exist" that has got to be a first even for this forum.
You should really tell you pastor that you asked someone that question.

 

[razzelflabben]

That really made me laugh out loud it really did.
"Show us what evidence doesn't exist" that has got to be a first even for this forum.
You should really tell you pastor that you asked someone that question.

lol...I have been repeatedly asked for evidence that doesn't exist, so I'm not sure why you think it is a concept I came up with, but cool....so how about answering the heart of the post, you know, the evidence we should find but don't?

BTW, when I point out the insanity of that, I'm told to stop being difficult and inflammatory...funny how things change when someone else is speaking isn't it?

 

[CarlaB]

Listen, I am sure some rely on "magic and miracles" but the Bible is more specific about the mechanism for the change we see in our world (aka life) than the theory of evolution is. You see, according to the Bible, the mechanism of change is God and even more specifically, the word or command of God. That is very specific and even more specific than is the theory of evolution, that is, the theory of change. Change or evolution, does not give us a specific mechanism, it gives us a general one, which is why evolutionist theists even exist in the world.

I can't answer that because it's all meaningless, why should I be interested in what the Bible has to say? you are the Christian believer not me, to me the Bible is nonsense just as the Koran is to you.

 

[CarlaB]

I have been repeatedly asked for evidence that doesn't exist,

No I expect you have been asked for evidence for the things you claim happened or exists, there's a difference,
if you claim something happened or something exists then it's up to you to provide evidence for those claims.

 

[razzelflabben]

I can't answer that because it's all meaningless, why should I be interested in what the Bible has to say? you are the Christian believer not me, to me the Bible is nonsense just as the Koran is to you.

you were not ask to give evidence the Bible says would exist, you were asked to give what evidence you think should exist if there is a creator, we aren't even specifying what creator at this point...why so insistent that you can't do this? It should be an easy thing since you are so adamant that there is no evidence of a creator.

IOWs from a scientific standpoint, not a biblical one, we should be able to predict what things we should see if there is a creator vs. what we should see if there is no creator. From those predictions, we test to see what we find. Since you and I don't have a lab to work with, we would rely on the evidence that already does exist, but first we determine what we should see if there is a creator vs. what we should see if there is no creator, iow's what would falsify a creator?

Not a Biblical question, not a hard question, a question based on your claims.

 

[razzelflabben]

No I expect you have been asked for evidence for the things you claim happened or exists, there's a difference,
if you claim something happened or something exists then it's up to you to provide evidence for those claims.

no, you are wrong....in fact, not long ago, I said....there doesn't seem to be any evidence for or against X. In fact, I have looked and can't find any evidence for or against X...It was demanded that I evidence my claim that no evidence exists. I asked what that would look like and all I got was ridicule for asking. So I presented several search wordings that I tried since that could be reproducible and I was told to stop being inflammatory and evidence that I can't find any evidence for or against X....it happens all the time on these boards....however, you were asked for the scientific predictions that we would expect so that we could evidence your claim that there is no evidence to support, which is a much different thing even though you want to pretend it isn't .

So, since you made the claim that there is no evidence of a creator and we are talking about scientific methods, you need to provide the predictions that would evidence your claim.

 

[CarlaB]

you were not ask to give evidence the Bible says would exist, you were asked to give what evidence you think should exist if there is a creator, we aren't even specifying what creator at this point...why so insistent that you can't do this? It should be an easy thing since you are so adamant that there is no evidence of a creator.

You really haven't thought this through have you? in reality there is no creator so there will be no evidence of a creator, in your world there is a creator so whatever exists was put there by your imaginary creator.

IOWs from a scientific standpoint, not a biblical one, we should be able to predict what things we should see if there is a creator vs. what we should see if there is no creator. From those predictions, we test to see what we find. Since you and I don't have a lab to work with, we would rely on the evidence that already does exist, but first we determine what we should see if there is a creator vs. what we should see if there is no creator, iow's what would falsify a creator?

That's a question you should answer because you are the one claiming a creator exists not me, all I'm doing is say I don't believe you, I am not saying there is no creator I am saying "I don't know" because as I have said I don't know how we all got here and I see no evidence of a creator.

Not a Biblical question, not a hard question, a question based on your claims.

Not my claims your claims.

 

[CarlaB]

So, since you made the claim that there is no evidence of a creator and we are talking about scientific methods, you need to provide the predictions that would evidence your claim.

I will make a deal with you, you show me the evidence for a creator and I will show you why that evidence is false, and please don't point to the trees as being evidence for a creator.

 

[razzelflabben]

You really haven't thought this through have you? in reality there is no creator so there will be no evidence of a creator, in your world there is a creator so whatever exists was put there by your imaginary creator.

Your the one not thinking things through...if there is a creator, then we would expect to have evidence of there being a creator. The creator is not important until we either evidence or falsify that there is one.

That is how the scientific method works, you don't rule out a possible until that possible is falsified, you aren't even providing predictions for testing.

That's a question you should answer because you are the one claiming a creator exists not me, all I'm doing is say I don't believe you, I am not saying there is no creator I am saying "I don't know" because as I have said I don't know how we all got here.Not my claims your claims.

You claimed that there is no evidence for a creator, that makes it up to you to provide predictions that we can test.

Personally, I do find evidence, but you have to understand this concept before you will be able to understand the evidence I find and what that evidence really does tell us.

 

[razzelflabben]

I will make a deal with you, you show me the evidence for a creator and I will show you why that evidence is false, and please don't point to the trees as being evidence for a creator.

That is not how science works....the scientific method requires that we start with predictions which is what you were asked for in relation to your claim...take time to think it through if you want, but without predictions, evidence is meaningless.

 

[Moral Orel]

I call you out on this one. This is a pure projection. No atheist I know about of would say that.

I have noticed that a lot of former creationists that turned atheist and as well those that still are YEC's reason that if Genesis cannot literally be true then the entire bible must be false.

I don't know what caused someone to become an atheist, but once they are an atheist, they use this reasoning. Also, notice I just said "a lot" not "most" or "all" or anything of the sort. I'm not making a generalized statement about atheists, I'm making a statement about how widespread the notion is.

 

[Moral Orel]

Perhaps you can tell us how your non-god created everything from nothing? Where did the stuff in your Big Bang come from?

God of the Gaps.

 

[essentialsaltes]

An Inferential Test for Expert Testimony
One can be reasonably certain if witness accounts of the past are consistent or not consistent with physical evidence in the present, but one cannot reliably surmise past events from physical evidence unless there is only one plausible explanation for that evidence.

I guess OJ was not guilty.

 

[Moral Orel]

You claimed that there is no evidence for a creator, that makes it up to you to provide predictions that we can test.

Personally, I do find evidence, but you have to understand this concept before you will be able to understand the evidence I find and what that evidence really does tell us.

That isn't how it works. The person making a claim provides evidence and predictions. The person denying that claim needs not provide these things. Until evidence is produced, and predictions are proved true, there is no reason for the denier to begin believing in a claim.

You can't flip things and make the denial of a claim a claim itself that needs disproven. That's where flying spaghetti monsters come from.

 

[Hoghead1]

The problem, Pratical, is that many Christians do not want their belief system critically reviewed or challenged in any way whatsoever. They use their own beliefs as the criterion to evaluate the truths of science. Real science works differently. It seeks to test out one's beliefs and then change them if they don't survive a rigorous reality testing. Many Christians go to the Bible, automatically assuming that it is inerrant, that everything happened the way the Bible says it does. They also naively assume the world of biblical scholarship works the same way. Far from it. The world of biblical scholarship and study is light years beyond the world of the laity. It's methods are different, its are different, and often its conclusion s are way different from that of the laity. In real biblical scholarship, we go to the Bible open-minded. Maybe it is inerrant, maybe not. Let us see. Consequently, the conclusion reached by modern biblical studies can be very different from those of the laity and very threating to the latter. Education alienates. Occupational hazard. For example, I consider biblical inerrancy to be a major mistake. Divinely inspired as the Bible may be, it still is the product of a semi-barbaric, pre-scientific culture. It is only to be expected that it would not have any scientifically accurate knowledge of the cosmos or creation. God always works with the grain, not against it. God can move only as fast as we are ready. So God was not about to impart advanced scientific knowledge to the ancient Hebrews. I find the Genesis account actually consists of two highly contradictory creation stories written by different authors at different times. That shoots down the popular idea that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. But that is the price you pay for gaining knowledge. Sometimes your cherished beliefs need correction.

 

[Hoghead1]

Yes, that is very true, Norbert, those of us in biblical scholarship do view the Genesis account very differently from that of the laity. The world of biblical studies is light years from the world of the laity. It's methods are very different and its conclusions can be very different. Often, the laity can feel very threatened by the conclusions scholarship reaches. Education alienates. Occupational hazard. For example, I hold the Genesis account of creation is actually two contradictory accounts placed back to back. These accounts were written by different authors and very different times.

 

[Hoghead1]

That doesn't follow at all, -57. The fact that the Bible or any account is mythic at one point does not automatically that is true of everything else it has to say. The Bible, as many literary works, is a mixture of myth and fact.