Does believing Genesis is wrong make me a bad Christian?

[Hawkins]

Nobody can disprove what has been proven, obviously. Proof is everywhere that the whole world and all of nature evolved over billions of years, not less than a week. Mass extinctions including the biggest flood in world history are known to have occurred hundreds of millions of years prior to the existence of humans, especially homo sapiens - the last remaining species. I simply cannot for the life of me believe what the Bible says about the Creation and timing of the Great Flood, at least in terms of being the worst ever, is more accurate than what scientists discover. But in my heart I believe the Bible is God's Word and believe in miracles, so I don't want to feel like I am betraying Him in favor of sinners. Am I screwed up about my religion?

You don't understand science as I can tell.
"Proof" in terms of science has very strict meaning. It requires a theory being falsifiable at least for the theory itself to stand as a scientific truth. The more comprehensive meaning of this is we humans don't have the ability to tell a future, if a theory allows us to predict a future without mistake we thus deem this theory is holding a truth. This is the in-depth meaning of what a scientific proof is.

We can land on the surface of moon because this action is very predictable and with a 100% chance of success repeatedly. That's why whenever we failed our mission it's always something else in mistake but not the orbital physics. We won't say it's our physics in error, it must be something else such as human errors, engineering and applied science issues such as fuel burning behavior and so on but never our physics (it is 100% correct and predictable).

Not everything can be with such a high rate of predictability, even when we call it a science. Sometimes we call something a science simply because we try our best to assist our research with scientific methods and equipment but not necessarily with a strict sense of proof. It is so because something not repeatable cannot be made predictable and falsifiable, including the theory of evolution and the theory of big bang. They are not falsifiable because humans don't have the ability to make it repeat. We can't make it repeatable for a human (or a bird or a dog etc.) to evolve from a single cell organism for us to get to the falsifiable "proof".

In order for this "not falsifiable" science to stand as a "science", we thus need a lot of assumptions which make sense to our scientists but not necessarily true when a spiritual sense is applied. That depends on your assumption on how far humans knowledge have gone, in which position the level of science we are at. Do we already mastered most knowledge both inside and outside of universe, or our knowledge by far is still limited. If you are humble enough you may reckon the latter. If you are arrogant enough you probably will pick the former.

That said, science has to tick out the factor of God in order to get to a possible result. If we assume God into our scientific formulas, we made no progress in terms of science. If we completely tick out the factor of God, it is a scientific way to go but if God is a truth then we can't possibly get to this truth as we already ticked it out in order for our science to make progress. So science remains only one of the many possible ways to get to a truth (involving the truth of God). It can't, by its very nature, to possibly get to a truth involving God (as God must be out in order to make progress). To put it another way, to those we call "science" such as ToE and BBT which are not falsifiable, we are in a situation that they work for us if God has no effect on them. They won't work for us if God has an effect on them. This is not about a God of gap, it is about how we can get to a truth as if God is truth science is not the tool.

Genesis when we comprehend, is a creation within our 3D space such that we can understand conceptually. However it may be a huge mistake if we have to assume that God created everything one using 1 3D space. It is like when you are asked to cook a dozen eggs one at a time, you don't have to use one fry pan only. You can use 12 fry pans to cook the 12 eggs separately at the same time. God can create our universe in one space, and create our earth in another then put them together on day 4. That's why trees may appear earlier than the stars.

Scientifically we don't actually understand the nature of time. Time is something very different from our human concept when calculated in both quantum physics and relativity. While our dating methods relying on the behavior (half life) of some inert isotopes, we made a huge assumption that earth is in its current position (in terms of space and time) all the times starting with the Big Bang. This assumption is however flawed if God created this universe and earth in separate spaces and times. Science in this case is based off an assumption which we can't confirm in the case that God is true. We can't possibly tell how the different isotopes behave if earth is somehow created else where and was "plugged" into its current position at a later time.

In the Bible, God ever stopped the Sun (to achieve an effect to freeze time) to allow the Israelites to win. We can't possibly know how He did so in terms of physics, whether He follows unknown physics laws or breaks them. We can't possibly tell how the (half life of) isotopes behave during this process. We assumed the time continues the same as now for the isotopes to behave as we expect. Again, it is in the same situation that if God is true, science is not the tool. Science is a truth here only when God is not true. If God is true and He is capable of altering time and space, it left no room for our dating methods to remain reliable.

 

[Stephen P]

I'm not at all concerned about what evolutionists think. And I think the "intelligent design" proponents usually go down a rabbit hole trying to prove a very narrow concept of ID.

I'm satisfied with marveling at each scientific discovery and saying, "Wow. So that's how God did that! Cool!"

Yeah that's what I'm doing as well..
Would be interested if you can see my posts and if you think the intelligent design can also be God's design.

 

[Stephen P]

You don't understand science as I can tell.
"Proof" in terms of science has very strict meaning. It requires a theory being falsifiable at least for the theory itself to stand as a scientific truth. The more comprehensive meaning of this is we humans don't have the ability to tell a future, if a theory allows us to predict a future without mistake we thus deem this theory is holding a truth. This is the in-depth meaning of what a scientific proof is.

We can land on the surface of moon because this action is very predictable and with a 100% chance of success repeatedly. That's why whenever we failed our mission it's always something else in mistake but not the orbital physics. We won't say it's our physics in error, it must be something else such as human errors, engineering and applied science issues such as fuel burning behavior and so on but never our physics (it is 100% correct and predictable).

Not everything can be with such a high rate of predictability, even when we call it a science. Sometimes we call something a science simply because we try our best to assist our research with scientific methods and equipment but not necessarily with a strict sense of proof. It is so because something not repeatable cannot be made predictable and falsifiable, including the theory of evolution and the theory of big bang. They are not falsifiable because humans don't have the ability to make it repeat. We can't make it repeatable for a human (or a bird or a dog etc.) to evolve from a single cell organism for us to get to the falsifiable "proof".

In order for this "not falsifiable" science to stand as a "science", we thus need a lot of assumptions which make sense to our scientists but not necessarily true when a spiritual sense is applied. That depends on your assumption on how far humans knowledge have gone, in which position the level of science we are at. Do we already mastered most knowledge both inside and outside of universe, or our knowledge by far is still limited. If you are humble enough you may reckon the latter. If you are arrogant enough you probably will pick the former.

That said, science has to tick out the factor of God in order to get to a possible result. If we assume God into our scientific formulas, we made no progress in terms of science. If we complete tick out the factor of God, it is a scientific to go but if God is truth then we can't possibly get to this truth as we already ticked it out in order for our science to make progress. So science remains only one of the many possible ways to get to a truth (involving the truth of God). It can't, by its very nature, to possibly get to a truth involving God (as God must be out in order to make progress). To put it another way, to those we call "science" such as ToE and BBT which are not falsifiable, we are in a situation that they work for us if God has no effect on them. They won't work for us if God has an effect on them. This is not about a God of gap, it is about how we can get to a truth as if God is truth science is not the tool.

Thanks for this.. That is sort of answering an issue I had.
Scientists work with "I drop something, it will always hit the floor."
However when they think of God they see someone who could go "I drop something, it will hit the floor only if God wants it to."
I am trying to connect the two.
For example, Dr Gerald Shroeder said the Bible say God gave us THE ADAM, not god MADE Adam.
If so, then God chose a representative Ape, and said OK I will give it my Spirit. (The ADAM) and I will call him Adam. This way, Creationists can Evolutionarily trace us back to Australopithecus without breaching the Bible.

 

[Stephen P]

You don't understand science as I can tell.
"Proof" in terms of science has very strict meaning. It requires a theory being falsifiable at least for the theory itself to stand as a scientific truth. The more comprehensive meaning of this is we humans don't have the ability to tell a future, if a theory allows us to predict a future without mistake we thus deem this theory is holding a truth. This is the in-depth meaning of what a scientific proof is.

We can land on the surface of moon because this action is very predictable and with a 100% chance of success repeatedly. That's why whenever we failed our mission it's always something else in mistake but not the orbital physics. We won't say it's our physics in error, it must be something else such as human errors, engineering and applied science issues such as fuel burning behavior and so on but never our physics (it is 100% correct and predictable).

Not everything can be with such a high rate of predictability, even when we call it a science. Sometimes we call something a science simply because we try our best to assist our research with scientific methods and equipment but not necessarily with a strict sense of proof. It is so because something not repeatable cannot be made predictable and falsifiable, including the theory of evolution and the theory of big bang. They are not falsifiable because humans don't have the ability to make it repeat. We can't make it repeatable for a human (or a bird or a dog etc.) to evolve from a single cell organism for us to get to the falsifiable "proof".

In order for this "not falsifiable" science to stand as a "science", we thus need a lot of assumptions which make sense to our scientists but not necessarily true when a spiritual sense is applied. That depends on your assumption on how far humans knowledge have gone, in which position the level of science we are at. Do we already mastered most knowledge both inside and outside of universe, or our knowledge by far is still limited. If you are humble enough you may reckon the latter. If you are arrogant enough you probably will pick the former.

That said, science has to tick out the factor of God in order to get to a possible result. If we assume God into our scientific formulas, we made no progress in terms of science. If we complete tick out the factor of God, it is a scientific to go but if God is truth then we can't possibly get to this truth as we already ticked it out in order for our science to make progress. So science remains only one of the many possible ways to get to a truth (involving the truth of God). It can't, by its very nature, to possibly get to a truth involving God (as God must be out in order to make progress). To put it another way, to those we call "science" such as ToE and BBT which are not falsifiable, we are in a situation that they work for us if God has no effect on them. They won't work for us if God has an effect on them. This is not about a God of gap, it is about how we can get to a truth as if God is truth science is not the tool.

Genesis when we comprehend, is a creation within our 3D space such that we can understand conceptually. However it may be a huge mistake if we have to assume that God created everything one using 1 3D space. It is like when you are asked to cook a dozen eggs one at a time, you don't have to use one fry pan only. You can use 12 fry pans to cook the 12 eggs separately at the same time. God can create our universe in one space, and create our earth in another then put them together on day 4. That's why trees may appear earlier than the stars.

Scientifically we don't actually understand the nature of time. Time is something very different from our human concept when calculated in both quantum physics and relativity. While our dating methods rely on the behavior (half life) of some inert isotopes. We made a huge assumption that earth is in its current position (in terms of space and time) all the times along with the Big Bang. This assumption is however flawed if God created this universe and earth in a separate space and time. Science in this case is based off an assumption which we can't confirm in the case that God is true.

In the Bible, God ever stopped the Sun (made time with a frozen effect) to allow the Israelites to win. We can't possibly know how He did so in terms of physics, whether He follows unknown physics laws or breaks them. We can't possibly tell how the (half life of) isotopes behave during this process. We assumed the time continues the same as now for the isotopes to behave as we expect. Again, it is in the same situation that if God is true, science is not the tool. Science is a truth here only when God is not true. If God is true and He is capable of altering time and space, it left no room for our dating methods to remain reliable.

Hawkins, re: differences in time, Dr Gerald Shroeder has something to say on this as well (Age of the universe talk) is this what you were alluding to because physicists have to use an ratio adjustment to calculate dates of novas from faraway?
Shroeder used the Scientists ratio and applied to the 14 billion years to get 6.5 days.

RE Stopped sun.. one really way out theory: OK everyone sees a blue sky full of sunlight?
But without an atmospheric scatter, someone on the world would see black space with only a small bright disk which they would not recognise as the sun. I think one of the live SpaceX vids shows this effect. Sunrise and Sunset would dissappear.
I believe the Egyptians saw the stars during the day by standing in a deep well because that removes the atmospheric light scatter, so they knew about this effect in those days.
Obviously It would have to be something MUCH bigger than a well to create this effect - clear winds parting the atmosphere? -- maybe like the winds that parted the Red Sea perhaps?
Perhaps one suggested simple answer to the stopping time in that during the battle is, that everyone used the position of the sun to coordinate attacks, say, using some simple right angled triangle sticks that aligned with a landscape feature and had notches on the diagonal that represented the battle phases, and when the sun was not recognisable, they could not tell what heavenly body to apply the notches to so to them time had stopped?
Cheers
Stephen

 

[Brightmoon]

The universe is about 14 billion years old.

The solar system settled into its current layout about 4.5 billion years ago.

The earliest undisputed evidence of life on Earth dates from at least 3.5 billion years ago.

530 million years ago the first true vertebrate appears.

Non-bird dinosaurs lived between about 245 and 66 million years ago.

Mammals evolved from one lineage of reptiles. This transition began 286 - 248 million years ago.

Homo erectus lived between 1.9 million and 110,000 years ago, and is one of the first recognizable huminids.

Homo neanderthalensis or Homo sapiens neanderthalensis are known from numerous fossils, especially from after 130,000 years ago. They lived in Eurasia until about 40,000 years ago.

The earliest fossil evidence of early Homo sapiens appears in Africa around 300,000 years ago.

The first modern humans began moving outside of Africa starting about 70,000-100,000 years ago.

They developed a capacity for language and behavioral modernity about 50,000 years ago.

one small correction . Our human ancestry lineage started about 7 million years ago not with H erectus .The Hominidae family consists of all of the great apes . I don’t remember what our tiny protohumans and human branch is called ( too busy to look it up right now )

 

[Hawkins]

Hawkins, re: differences in time, Dr Gerald Shroeder has something to say on this as well (Age of the universe talk) is this what you were alluding to because physicists have to use an ratio adjustment to calculate dates of novas from faraway?
Shroeder used the Scientists ratio and applied to the 14 billion years to get 6.5 days.

RE Stopped sun.. one really way out theory: OK everyone sees a blue sky full of sunlight?
But without an atmospheric scatter, someone on the world would see black space with only a small bright disk which they would not recognise as the sun. I think one of the live SpaceX vids shows this effect. Sunrise and Sunset would dissappear.
I believe the Egyptians saw the stars during the day by standing in a deep well because that removes the atmospheric light scatter, so they knew about this effect in those days.
Obviously It would have to be something MUCH bigger than a well to create this effect - clear winds parting the atmosphere? -- maybe like the winds that parted the Red Sea perhaps?
Perhaps one suggested simple answer to the stopping time in that during the battle is, that everyone used the position of the sun to coordinate attacks, say, using some simple right angled triangle sticks that aligned with a landscape feature and had notches on the diagonal that represented the battle phases, and when the sun was not recognisable, they could not tell what heavenly body to apply the notches to so to them time had stopped?
Cheers
Stephen

Thanks Stephen.

My advocate on the frozen sun is that our earth doesn't follow the orbit inside our space, it may have gone off the space orbit that it follows a path outside of our current space which gives an effect of a frozen sun. We are in another space which makes us as if we are stopped in our current space, sort of.

Even our science requires a god to justify an explanation on how we come to existence. We need a multiverse model (which is imaginary and not falsifiable) in order to produce our this universe to facilitate life to exist, including the 50 billion years window inside which life can exist in this universe with its different kind of field forces held within. With our current scientific concepts, we can only know of 5% of matters supposedly existing inside our universe. Our knowledge is in the minority in this case. Dark matters and dark energy which we cannot speculate by far is in a dominating status.

 

[Stephen P]

one small correction . Our human ancestry lineage started about 7 million years ago not with H erectus .The Hominidae family consists of all of the great apes . I don’t remember what our tiny protohumans and human branch is called ( too busy to look it up right now )

Howdy, are these the afarensis droids U are looking for? There also appears to be a proconsul before this.
BTW I vote Homo Neanderthalis or Denisovans are Cains family.
Cain breeded with the Nephalim.. So maybe he was Neand, or Maybe he was Denisov..
Pity the Neanderthals are proven to not have red hair, as that would have made a good mark of Cain.
Then again, what if Cain / Enoch became Orangs? Orangs are Mighty men..

 

[NBB]

"NBB" Have a look at my post on Dawkins.. Does this answer what you are thinking of?
Dawkins did create this program, and I was at one of his presentations in 1970's in London U.K...
There is a simple way to have both God and Dawkins correct.

Actually that little program is directed in what to choose, i throw a random letter in there and select it, too easy, that is deceiving, evolution can't choose it has to build from zero.

 

[Stephen P]

Thanks Stephen.

My advocate on the frozen sun is that our earth doesn't follow the orbit inside our space, it may have gone off the space orbit that it follows a path outside of our current space which gives an effect of a frozen sun. We are in another space which makes us as if we are stopped in our current space, sort of.

Even our science requires a god to justify an explanation on how we come to existence. We need a multiverse model (which is imaginary and not falsifiable) in order to produce our this universe to facilitate life to exist, including the 50 billion window inside which life can exist in this universe with its different kind of field forces held within. With our current scientific concepts, we can only know of 5% of matters supposedly existing inside our universe. Our knowledge is in the minority in this case. Dark matters and dark energy which we cannot speculate by far is in a dominating status.

Hawkins
AAH Thats a VERY interesting point..
Hows this thought using a common astral body?
There was a big asteroid, just like the one that went through Russia but SLOW moving, and went across the path of the Earth?
As it approached, it came from behind the sun on a very narrow angle so no one saw it coming. - Something I believe scientists are worried about.
Anyway the effect would be that the sun grew much larger as the asteroid, replacing the suns glow "narrowly" missed the Earth. And as the asteroid was basically almost heading towards the Earth, the sideways movement would not have been noticable until right at the point of passing the Earth.
So therefore the "sun did not move." to an Earthly observer?
Hows that?
Cheers
Stephen

 

[Stephen P]

Actually that little program is directed in what to choose, i throw a random letter in there and select it, too easy, that is deceiving, evolution can't choose it has to build from zero.

Yes, as usual computers cannot simulate the real thing as well!
Dawkins basically started with a | then had a tool box full of, say {,},|,\, /,X,_,+
The simpler version of the program that he showed us added or removed the shape by throwing a 1-8 random number, and a variable for add/remove.. It stored what had been chosen so Dawkins could "replay"the random selection when he was presenting.
In real life, { could have been being white moth instead of Black, + could have been looking like something more dangerous, etc etc
A good body development would be the eye to apply this program to, as eyes vary greatly.
[Edit] He may have started by trying to simulate Mendel's peas experiments on computer.
Cheers
Stephen

 

[NBB]

Yes, as usual computers cannot simulate the real thing as well!
Dawkins basically started with a | then had a tool box full of, say {,},|,\, /,X,_,+
The simpler version of the program that he showed us added or removed the shape by throwing a 1-8 random number, and a variable for add/remove.. It stored what had been chosen so Dawkins could "replay"the random selection when he was presenting.
In real life, { could have been being white moth instead of Black, + could have been looking like something more dangerous, etc etc
A good body development would be the eye to apply this program to, as eyes vary greatly.
[Edit] He may have started by trying to simulate Mendel's peas experiments on computer.
Cheers
Stephen

Sure things change over time, but i don't think evolution can build brains or whatever, that stretching things too far, actually we christians shuold know that God made man, not man made man.

 

[Andrewn]

one small correction . Our human ancestry lineage started about 7 million years ago not with H erectus .The Hominidae family consists of all of the great apes . I don’t remember what our tiny protohumans and human branch is called ( too busy to look it up right now )

You may be thinking of Homo habilis. I think the data about this species being an ancestor of humans have been debunked. Most scientists believe it's a kind of apes. But actually Homo habilis lived 2.4 to 1.4 million years ago.

I believe God created the world and different kinds of plants and animals. Every kind evolved and diversified but humans were created humans, apes were created apes, horses were created horses, and so on.

BTW, I appreciate all additions and corrections to the list of dates.

 

[Andrewn]

BTW I vote Homo Neanderthalis or Denisovans are Cains family.

In Gen 6 there are "sons of god" and "daughters of people." I previously considered that Homo sapiens could be sons of God (the wise species) and that daughters of people were Neanderthals. Interesting but no proof .

 

[Brightmoon]

You may be thinking of Homo habilis. I think the data about this species being an ancestor of humans have been debunked. Most scientists believe it's a kind of apes. But actually Homo habilis lived 2.4 to 1.4 million years ago.

I believe God created the world and different kinds of plants and animals. Every kind evolved and diversified but humans were created humans, apes were created apes, horses were created horses, and so on.

BTW, I appreciate all additions and corrections to the list of dates.

You’re missing a lot of the ancestral human lineage Hominidae from your timeline .Not all were in genus Homo like neanderthalensis and the denisovians . Australopithecus was the ancestral genus of Homo and there were still others who were closely related but not ancestors of genus Homo . And btw I wasn’t referring to H habilis

 

[Brightmoon]

In Gen 6 there are "sons of god" and "daughters of people." I previously considered that Homo sapiens could be sons of God (the wise species) and that daughters of people were Neanderthals. Interesting but no proof .

. H Neanderthalensis was a closely related species that was able to interbreed with H sapiens . Some people classify them as a subspecies because we were able to interbreed . The same with the denisovians . They were humans just different

 

[Brightmoon]

Humans evolved from an ancestral primate the eventually gave rise to the great apes. Human evolved out of the great ape lineage. I don’t accept fantasy stories about confirmed biological facts because the fantasies can be harmful .

 

[Job 33:6]

. H Neanderthalensis was a closely related species that was able to interbreed with H sapiens . Some people classify them as a subspecies because we were able to interbreed . The same with the denisovians . They were humans just different

For @Andrewn , the following image might help.

Sahelanthropus tchadensis has been dated around 6-8 million years old, marking the rough timing in which people and chimpanzees split in their lineage. Homo erectus, and the somewhat vast plethora (10-15 ?) of various species of the genus homo (archaic species similar to homo sapiens), would have been between then and now up until a few hundred thousand years ago.
View attachment 278346

 

[Job 33:6]

I'll never understand how pasting images works on this forum:

 

[Brightmoon]

Here’s a H neanderthalensis and a H sapiens . For a layman the obvious differences are the shape of the pelvis and the xmas tree shaped ribs of H neanderthalensis . Then there are the skulls which don’t show up well in this picture

 

[Archivist]

It's a fabricated story that's the problem. Pure fiction which is then called science. Whatever title you put on it doesn't mean it's true.

Proof of that please. You made the claim.