If the beginnings of Genesis aren't literally true, then what way are they true?

[joshua 1 9]

But the problem here, is not that we can't bury each other with proof or evidence or the witness of millions of people all throughout history...it is your definition of proof.

They just want to know what science has to say about it. So at least they believe in something. Even if science does not always agree with itself.

 

[HitchSlap]

They just want to know what science has to say about it. So at least they believe in something. Even if science does not always agree with itself.

Who is this "science" person you speak of, and how do I contact her?

 

[ScottA]

A strange statement, seeing as the people who wrote the bible weren't there either. In the life of Man the bible writers were in the last 3500, of a time that stretches back 500,000 years. So not even in 1% of the time.

How do we know this? We can see the proof.

And in all those layers, all around the world, you and I can see for ourselves Genesis is a fictional story. You and I can see how life evolved on Planet Earth. Evidence we can find, touch, own and learn from. Something the bible and priests always want to deny.

And to claim because the bible contains the word serpents, that explains dinosaurs is frankly absurd. As absurd as some say they were put there to confuse us, there is no confusion. So OP if you want to know the truth about Genesis, don's read a Bronze Age book. Google the nearest place you can visit to see the different strata in sedimentary rocks. You may even find fossils for you to own.

And please do watch the TV program "Your Inner Fish". It will scare the Fundamentalists, because it's true to what we have learned so far. Like how embryo prove how we go back to reptiles. And even fish. The bible doesn't have an answer for the truth.

Scientific dating is a huge failure. Anonymous samples were given to scientists from Mount St. Helens lava that they claimed was millions of years old. It is all based on the "assumption" that things are old, not on the facts at all.

And it doesn't take a genius to know that the number of layers from the top of the Grand Canyon to the bottom is NOT 500,000, let alone millions. Why don't you go count them, and if there are more than 6,000, we can talk again.

 

[HitchSlap]

Scientific dating is a huge failure. Anonymous samples were given to scientists from Mount St. Helens lava that they claimed was millions of years old. It is all based on the "assumption" that things are old, not on the facts at all.

And it doesn't take a genius to know that the number of layers from the top of the Grand Canyon to the bottom is NOT 500,000, let alone millions. Why don't you go count them, and if there are more than 6,000, we can talk again.

Do you even science, Bro?

 

[Loudmouth]

Scientific dating is a huge failure. Anonymous samples were given to scientists from Mount St. Helens lava that they claimed was millions of years old.

They sent it to a lab that was incapable of measuring young samples. The only dishonesty was on the part of the creationists.

"Considering that the half-life of potassium-40 (40K) is fairly long (1,250 million years, McDougall and Harrison, 1999, p. 9), the K-Ar method cannot be used to date samples that are much younger than 6,000 years old (Dalrymple, 1991, p. 93). A few thousand years are not enough time for 40Ar to accumulate in a sample at high enough concentrations to be detected and quantified. Furthermore, many geochronology laboratories do not have the expensive state-of-the-art equipment to accurately measure argon in samples that are only a few million years old. Specifically, the laboratory personnel that performed the K-Ar dating for Austin et al. Specifically, personnel at Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, performed the K-Ar dating for Austin et al. This laboratory no longer performs K-Ar dating. However, when they did, their website clearly stated in a footnote that their equipment could not accurately date rocks that are younger than about 2 million years old ("We cannot analyze samples expected to be younger than 2 M.Y."; also see discussions by Bartelt et al.)."
http://www.oldearth.org/dacite.htm

It is all based on the "assumption" that things are old, not on the facts at all.

It is based on the measured amounts of isotopes in rocks, not on assumptions.

And it doesn't take a genius to know that the number of layers from the top of the Grand Canyon to the bottom is NOT 500,000, let alone millions. Why don't you go count them, and if there are more than 6,000, we can talk again.

What are you talking about?

 

[ScottA]

They just want to know what science has to say about it. So at least they believe in something. Even if science does not always agree with itself.

The problem is science is not where the evidence can be found. Most objectors wrongfully assume that it is. That would be like demanding evidence of the existence of the Culinary Institute by examining a muffin...and worse, they keep going on and on about the muffin. Hello?

 

[ScottA]

COLLECTIVE ANSWER:

You guys are the experts on scientific matters. I'm not trying to challenge you on that...well, maybe I am, because it's not foolproof. It's just that you are looking in the wrong spot for the answers. It doesn't matter what is true of false within the realm of science...the greater truths of life are well beyond scientific reach.

These debates are like old world experts denying new world discoveries, or flat world experts debating the possibility of the earth being spherical, or landlubbers not believing that man could fly. You are the same skeptics making the same claims of insanity and emotional imbalance. Most of you are obviously here because you have an ax to grind, or on a witch hunt.

History has proven you wrong.

Yet, here we are again going where no one has ever been, seen, or proved anything...and here you are again incapable of the vision necessary to move forward.

So...don't.

 

[Loudmouth]

COLLECTIVE ANSWER:

You guys are the experts on scientific matters. I'm not trying to challenge you on that...well, maybe I am, because it's not foolproof. It's just that you are looking in the wrong spot for the answers. It doesn't matter what is true of false within the realm of science...the greater truths of life are well beyond scientific reach.

In my experience, people claiming to have the "greater truths" are the people least likely to have them.

These debates are like old world experts denying new world findings, or flat world experts debating the possibility of the earth being spherical, or landlubbers not believing that man could fly. You are the same skeptics making the same claims of insanity and emotional imbalance.

We have the evidence on our side. The people you are describing are the ones who ignored the evidence and clung to their "greater truths".

"First, . . . to want to affirm that in reality the sun is at the center of the world and only turns on itself without moving from east to west, and the earth . . . revolves with great speed about the sun . . . is a very dangerous thing, likely not only to irritate all scholastic philosophers and theologians, but also to harm the Holy Faith by rendering Holy Scripture false."--Cardinal Bellarmine, 1615

This is the same argument that we hear from creationists, that the science has to be wrong because it conflicts with their religious beliefs.

 

[Loudmouth]

The problem is science is not where the evidence can be found. Most objectors wrongfully assume that it is. That would be like demanding evidence of the existence of the Culinary Institute by examining a muffin...and worse, they keep going on and on about the muffin. Hello?

The evidence is found in the universe around us. Ignoring that evidence does not make it go away. Even worse, ignoring the data because it conflicts with your religious beliefs is a fool's errand.

 

[paulm50]

They just want to know what science has to say about it. So at least they believe in something. Even if science does not always agree with itself.

That's the beauty, when scientist disagree they challenge each other finds, to arrive at the truth. Whereas to believe what you want to, is to ignore those pictures of the evidence I posted. And to need to think a layer represents a year.

The problem is science is not where the evidence can be found. Most objectors wrongfully assume that it is. That would be like demanding evidence of the existence of the Culinary Institute by examining a muffin...and worse, the keep going on and on about the muffin. Hello?

So where can the evidence be found that a book has it correct? We know a muffin exists and a Culinary Institute. It's like proving Harry Potter Exists by using Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone as evidence.

Scientific dating is a huge failure. Anonymous samples were given to scientists from Mount St. Helens lava that they claimed was millions of years old. It is all based on the "assumption" that things are old, not on the facts at all.

And it doesn't take a genius to know that the number of layers from the top of the Grand Canyon to the bottom is NOT 500,000, let alone millions. Why don't you go count them, and if there are more than 6,000, we can talk again.

It doesn't take a genius to realise each layer isn't a year, it takes people with a will to read up before posting. These layers aren't like tree rings. The Mount St. Helens error is admitted to, strange other refuse to admit their mistakes. One cuckoo a summer does not make.

The problem here is people refusing to think and Google their objection or comment before posting. It makes shooting them down so easy. And shows up their blind faith and ultimately their take on religion.

 

[ScottA]

In my experience, people claiming to have the "greater truths" are the people least likely to have them.



We have the evidence on our side. The people you are describing are the ones who ignored the evidence and clung to their "greater truths".

"First, . . . to want to affirm that in reality the sun is at the center of the world and only turns on itself without moving from east to west, and the earth . . . revolves with great speed about the sun . . . is a very dangerous thing, likely not only to irritate all scholastic philosophers and theologians, but also to harm the Holy Faith by rendering Holy Scripture false."--Cardinal Bellarmine, 1615

This is the same argument that we hear from creationists, that the science has to be wrong because it conflicts with their religious beliefs.

So...you are saying that the Wright brothers were the least likely to fly, Columbus the least likely to find a route to the east from the west. Right.

You have the evidence you now hold to convince you of what you now believe is true. But that does not mean that it is...in fact history has proven otherwise. Science deserves NO credit for waiting for someone else to take the next uncharted step, before affirming it. Demanding proof, you act as if science never takes a chance, or makes a test, but waits upon the facts. Right.

With regard to religion or science: I am not claiming to "believe" anything. I will leave that to them, and to you. On the contrary, I am offering to share what I "know."

 

[Loudmouth]

So...you are saying that the Wright brothers were the least likely to fly, Columbus the least likely to find a route to the east from the west. Right.

I am saying that creationists are the least like to be right.

You have the evidence you now hold to convince you of what you now believe is true. But that does not mean that it is...in fact history has proven otherwise.

Are you saying that Galileo is wrong? Are you saying that an heavier than air flying craft can not be made? Now you are taking the role of the skeptic who ignores all of the evidence.

Science deserves NO credit for waiting for someone else to take the next uncharted step, before affirming it. Demanding proof, you act as if science never takes a chance, or makes a test, but waits upon the facts. Right.

Science deserves credit for following the evidence.

With regard to religion or science: I am not claiming to "believe" anything. I will leave that to them, and to you. On the contrary, I am offering to share what I "know."

So you quoted a creationist webpage . . . because why?

 

[ScottA]

So where can the evidence be found that a book has it correct? We know a muffin exists and a Culinary Institute. It's like proving Harry Potter Exists by using Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone as evidence.

I am glad you said that. That is exactly the problem. But I am not the one doing it. It is you and the general scientific community who are expecting to find proof like Harry Potter in the same book: It is you who are looking within the realm of science for scientific proof of something that is NOT in the realm of science.

Wow, I can't believe that you are just understanding this. Well, maybe you don't...'cause you were blaming me for being the one to not look outside.

Maybe now you will take your own advice and not bury your head in the science.

 

[ScottA]

So you quoted a creationist webpage . . . because why?

I didn't quote a creationist...that I know of. That was me talking.

 

[paulm50]

So...you are saying that the Wright brothers were the least likely to fly, Columbus the least likely to find a route to the east from the west. Right.

What is that about?

You have the evidence you now hold to convince you of what you now believe is true. But that does not mean that it is...in fact history has proven otherwise. Science deserves NO credit for waiting for someone else to take the next uncharted step, before affirming it. Demanding proof, you act as if science never takes a chance, or makes a test, but waits upon the facts. Right.

What is that about?

With regard to religion or science: I am not claiming to "believe" anything. I will leave that to them, and to you. On the contrary, I am offering to share what I "know."

We're not sharing what we know, we're sharing what billions have learned.

I am glad you said that. That is exactly the problem. But I am not the one doing it. It is you and the general scientific community who are expecting to find proof like Harry Potter in the same book: It is you who are looking within the realm of science for scientific proof of something that is NOT in the realm of science.

Show us the one book we keep quoting from to prove that book is right. I can use the bible to show where it contradicts itself.

Are you saying the truth isn't in science and all the evidence that exists, doesn't exist?

Wow, I can't believe that you are just understanding this. Well, maybe you don't...'cause you were blaming me for being the one to not look outside.

Yes I'm saying you are burying your head in a book that's proven wrong, even by using the book. And so far you're unable to offer a shred of evidence you're right. So resorting to pointless posting.

You're the one that said the layers of rock were layers per year. Science is finite, because it is "within" the greater realm of existence. So infinite is in the smaller realm of non existence. Scientific dating is a huge failure. History has proven you wrong. And so on.

Show us one piece of evidence, that's all we ask for. Show us where History has proven us wrong. Then we can have a debate. Or just keep posting we don't understand you.

 

[Loudmouth]

I didn't quote a creationist...that I know of. That was me talking.

You copied an argument found on a creationist website. Why would you do that? Why would you go to the least trustworthy source possible, present it, and then pretend as if you aren't leaning one way or the other?

 

[paulm50]

That part is true. Of course, they would be killed. Discovering the Lord was such a threat that the false prophet commanded that anyone who converts be killed. If they do not convert, however, they are lost because nobody comes to the Father but through the Son.

Deuteronomy Chapter 13 may help you.

Heresy was also punishable by death, as was translating the bible away from Latin. In case people read the truth. Excommunication was anther punishment for not doing as the priests told you, and that allows

 

[Doveaman]

No, it is at odds with the evidence.

What if the evidence could be interpreted to fit a literal Genesis 1, would you accept it as literal?

What if some of us can interpret the evidence to fit a literal Genesis 1, would it be okay with you if we accept it as literal?

That is why well over 90% of all scientists accept evolution.

Truth is often held by the minority.

When it comes to people that understand that topic the best it is over 99% and approaching or even passing 99.9%.

A good understand of Harry Potter is a good understanding of Harry Potter, but who cares?.

To reject the theory of evolution one must eventually rejects all science.

That's one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever heard.

I hope you are not speaking on the behalf of that 99%

 

[SkyWriting]

Well, the devil is in the details, as they say.

Scientists don't mention Satan all that often. So I'm not sure where you picked that up.

 

[Loudmouth]

What if some of us can interpret the evidence to fit a literal Genesis 1, would it be okay with you if we accept it as literal?

If you can't show how this interpretation is consistent with the evidence, would it be okay if we don't believe you?