Genesis 1 Again

[Nostromo]

He said something falsifiable.

 

[Split Rock]

If your theories do not mesh with that facts of Scripture then your evidence is being misrepresented.
My theory is not seeking equal footing with your science. Your science is biased against the facts of Scripture. My theory isn't.

Why do you assume the problem is with the evidence and not your fallible interpretation of scripture?

 

[Jazer]

Sorry John, but the earth was not in a "state of ruin."

Here in this part of the country the glaciers left about 15 feet of muck behind. In other areas they were flooded and going under water. If that is not "ruin" then what is? Have you seen what global warming is doing to some of the towns in Alaska?

 

[Skaloop]

Here in this part of the country the glaciers left about 15 feet of muck behind. In other areas they were flooded and going under water. If that is not "ruin" then what is? Have you seen what global warming is doing to some of the towns in Alaska?

That's not the Earth in ruin, that's some portions of human civilization in ruin. Not anywhere near the same thing. If varying shorelines constitute ruin, then the Earth is ruined with every waxing or waning tide.

 

[Doveaman]

Sorry John, but the earth was not in a "state of ruin."

It's not possible for you to know it was not ruined.

All you can do is make present-day observations, then speculate on those observations to form an idea that may or may not be true.

 

[Doveaman]

Well, the first mistake you're making, that science doesn't, is to assume your hypothesis is "fact" before you've even managed to prove anything (i.e. "facts of Scripture").

The facts of Scripture are not a hypothesis; they are what we observe in Scripture. We then form theories based on those observed facts.

"In the beginning God created the Heaven and the earth" is a fact.

We then form theories based on this fact, such as the OP.

Science is about making observations and finding evidence to arrive at the facts, which are then explained in theory. That's part of what makes it useful and practical.

Your definition of science looks a bit suspect to me, so I'll stick with the definition of science I'm familiar with:

Science is about making observations that are considered facts, these facts then serve as evidence for an idea which is explained in theory.

I accept your facts, but I reject your theory.

 

[Doveaman]

Why do you assume the problem is with the evidence and not your fallible interpretation of scripture?

Actually, I'm assuming the problem is with your fallible interpretation of nature. Not evidence.

I accept your evidence, but I reject your interpretation.

 

[Split Rock]

It's not possible for you to know it was not ruin.

All you can do is make present-day observations, then speculate on those observations to form an idea that may or may not be true.

We can observe the strata from the time period and make inferences from those observations. There was no ruin. There was plenty of life. Only some megafauna became extinct. There was no mass extinction that wiped out most life, therefore no "ruin."

Actually, I'm assuming the problem is with your fallible interpretation of nature. Not evidence.

I accept your evidence, but I reject your interpretation.

I reject your erroneous, fanciful, naive interpretation of scripture.

 

[Split Rock]

Here in this part of the country the glaciers left about 15 feet of muck behind. In other areas they were flooded and going under water. If that is not "ruin" then what is? Have you seen what global warming is doing to some of the towns in Alaska?

That's not the Earth in ruin, that's some portions of human civilization in ruin. Not anywhere near the same thing. If varying shorelines constitute ruin, then the Earth is ruined with every waxing or waning tide.

What he said.

 

[Hentenza]

We can observe the strata from the time period and make inferences from those observations. There was no ruin. There was plenty of life. Only some megafauna became extinct. There was no mass extinction that wiped out most life, therefore no "ruin."

Inferences are highly interpretative and speculative hence the debates within the scientific community.

 

[Skaloop]

Inferences are highly interpretative and speculative hence the debates within the scientific community.

Sure there are debates, but those debates are about certain specific details rather than the general theory, and not at all on the scale that would bring several billion down to several thousand.

There may be debate about the actual nature of life at a certain time in the past, or the cause of a mass extinction, but there is no real debate about whether there was life or whether there was an extinction event.

 

[Hentenza]

Sure there are debates, but those debates are about certain specific details rather than the general theory, and not at all on the scale that would bring several billion down to several thousand.

There may be debate about the actual nature of life at a certain time in the past, or the cause of a mass extinction, but there is no real debate about whether there was life or whether there was an extinction event.

lol Even science agrees that there was a mass extinction event during the Mesozoic era. I've seen estimates ranging from 50% to over 90% of all life was mass extincted then.

No, the debates are substantial. What happens eventually is that one side will become the "accepted" view and most subsequent research filters through it.

 

[Nostromo]

"Even science"?

What's the Hebrew word for Mesozoic?

 

[Doveaman]

We can observe the strata from the time period and make inferences from those observations. There was no ruin. There was plenty of life. Only some megafauna became extinct. There was no mass extinction that wiped out most life, therefore no "ruin."

Inferences are highly interpretative and speculative hence the debates within the scientific community.

What he said.

 

[Hentenza]

"Even science"?

What's the Hebrew word for Mesozoic?

When was the word "Mesozoic" coined?

 

[AV1611VET]

What's the Hebrew word for Mesozoic?

המזוזואיקון

 

[Nostromo]

When was the word "Mesozoic" coined?

Well the way you were talking I assumed it was some time around 1300BC, because they obviously already knew about it, and eventually Even Science found out.

 

[Nostromo]

המזוזואיקון

Well we know for a fact your Bible doesn't have that word in, so there isn't much point you getting involved.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well we know for a fact your Bible doesn't have that word in, so there isn't much point you getting involved.

Would it really matter if that word is in the Bible or not?

I mean, seriously, would it?

I suspect not.

 

[Skaloop]

Would it really matter if that word is in the Bible or not?

I mean, seriously, would it?

I suspect not.

It would certainly be impressive if the Bible had a word in it for something that wouldn't be known or even contemplated for millennia.