Is Genesis consistent with mainstream scientific knowledge??

[Tabletform]

I agree. I bet it's tough to get a seat in his classes.

Perhaps, but I shouldn't think he mixes his religion with his work, his work is about facts and his religion is about belief,
he might believe that his God did it but he would never say that because he couldn't prove it.

 

[Beth-Zur]

So.. Now gen 1 is not about the actual order of creation, but the order of priority in what things to eat?
I guess that is how you could explain why the order is factually wrong, cause its meant as a menu not a history.(unless you really do want to argue there were birds and whales before mammals)

Don't missunderstand though, there are interpretations that do not conflict with science that I am aware of. Such as the ones held by a few of the people already mentioned in this thread.
It's just I never seen this particular view before.

Neither have I seen this view before. It is just my wondering aloud.

This thread topic is: "Is Genesis consistent with mainstream scientific knowledge?", which is why I bring it up.

Foremost, our bodies need water. We are told that a healthy diet consists of plenty of vegetative choices, clean protein ie chicken and fish, and smaller quantities of beef & such.

Like I said, I'm just wondering aloud. It's not an assertion, but rather a curiosity.

Genesis 1

[move]In the beginning [Time] God created the heavens [Space] and the earth [Matter]. Gen.1:1[/move]

 

[AV1611VET]

... he might believe that his God did it but he would never say that because he couldn't prove it.

That certainly doesn't stop me -- I'll say it anyway.

And if I can't prove it, that's just tough -- they can't prove it, either; nor should they have to.

They are the ones who set the standard of proof, and if it comes back on them and makes them wrong about something, it's their problem, not mine.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Hehe! It is not a logical fallacy to ask you to qualify yourself when you are criticizing a man who holds a professorship at MIT. A man who holds degrees in both Biology and Physics. A man who, though you didn't have the integrity to watch the video, but saw fit to whine and criticize him, reading off your atheist seminar handouts: "logical fallacies", "appeals to authority", "wah", "wah", "wah". You use those fallacies like a crutch.

My degree is in Science, and I have no difficulty reconciling that, and my belief in God (Yahweh) and His Son, Jesus (Yeshua). I am far from alone in this.

In closing, let me ask you this:

* What proof and evidence can you supply that proves that Atheism is accurate and correct? (Please be specific.)

You should look into logical fallacies. This may help you understand why no one thinks you have a strong argument other than yourself.

As for atheism, my reasons for not believing in god/s is the same ones you use for not believing in Santa Claus.

 

[Beth-Zur]

Here is an article that discusses some of the points of Dr. Schroeder:

Schroeder

More accurately:" Here is an article that discusses some of the points of Dr. Schroder, from a highly biased website."

"TalkReason provides a forum for the publication of papers with well-thought out arguments against creationism, intelligent design, and religious apologetics.
Papers whose goal is to promote creationism, Intelligent Design, irreducible complexity, the compatibility of the Bible with science, and religious apologetics, exegesis or papers arguing against established scientific theories such as the evolution theory will not be accepted."

Scientific theories must be falsifiable.

Automatic dismissal of information in a prejudicial manner goes against the scientific method.

Does true science not follow the evidence, wherever it might lead?? Of course, otherwise we have pseudo science.

Every day, legitimate science sets aside previously held beliefs in it's desire to get ever closer to the truth.

Just spend a little time reading some scientific abstracts. (One interesting site is: Science Daily)

 

[Beth-Zur]

You should look into logical fallacies. This may help you understand why no one thinks you have a strong argument other than yourself.

As for atheism, my reasons for not believing in god/s is the same ones you use for not believing in Santa Claus.

* What proof and evidence can you supply that proves that Atheism is accurate and correct? (Please be specific.)

Don't duck and run. Dawkins owns that. Just list your brilliant proof and evidence.

 

[Tiberius]

What proof or evidence do you have that there are no fairies? if you can answer that, I'll answer your question.

 

[Nostromo]

More accurately:" Here is an article that discusses some of the points of Dr. Schroder, from a highly biased website."

Strange, isn't it, that the biased people always happen to be those with whom you don't agree.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Don't duck and run. Dawkins ...

Shouldn't that be Professor Dawkins? I mean, if you insist on Dr. Schroeder ... Huh?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Genesis 1

[move]In the beginning [Time] God created the heavens [Space] and the earth [Matter]. Gen.1:1[/move

The stuff that you put into the square brackets is not in the text. [/Captn Obvious]


(And moving text?

[move]Cute[/move])

 

[Beth-Zur]

What proof or evidence do you have that there are no fairies? if you can answer that, I'll answer your question.

Hehe! The classic duck and run...

Is this the response of a man who is unable to offer a statement supporting his own core beliefs??

 

[Tabletform]

* What proof and evidence can you supply that proves that Atheism is accurate and correct? (Please be specific.)

Don't duck and run. Dawkins owns that. Just list your brilliant proof and evidence.

May I ask a favour Beth-Zur? could you please increase your font size by at least a factor of one, I can hardly read your posts, thank you.

 

[Tabletform]

* What proof and evidence can you supply that proves that Atheism is accurate and correct? (Please be specific.)

Don't duck and run. Dawkins owns that. Just list your brilliant proof and evidence.

Who ever said that Atheism was accurate or correct? Atheism is just a word that describes people who do not believe in Gods, how can that be accurate or correct? do you want them to prove that there are Gods but they don't believe in them?
If you could prove to them that there ARE Gods then you might have something.

 

[Greg1234]

Who ever said that Atheism was accurate or correct? Atheism is just a word that describes people who do not believe in Gods, how can that be accurate or correct? do you want them to prove that there are Gods but they don't believe in them?
If you could prove to them that there ARE Gods then you might have something.

MonaLisapainter believers.

People who lack a belief in a Monalisapainter.

 

[SkyWriting]

Who ever said that Atheism was accurate or correct? Atheism is just a word that describes people who do not believe in Gods, how can that be accurate or correct? do you want them to prove that there are Gods but they don't believe in them?
If you could prove to them that there ARE Gods then you might have something.

The "Proof" of God is that Matter does not spring from nothing.
Same with information, intelligence, thought.

According to Science & Math, the source must at least be equal to the result.
So that at least Scientifically & Mathematically describes God.
It's a good mathematical proof.
Infinite = Infinite

An atheist says
Infinite (near as we can tell anyway) is = to 0.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

* What proof and evidence can you supply that proves that Atheism is accurate and correct? (Please be specific.)

Don't duck and run. Dawkins owns that. Just list your brilliant proof and evidence.

There is insufficient evidence to support a belief in a god/s, much less to support the god as described in the Bible.

My evidence is the fact that there is none to support your claim that one exists. It really is that easy. I do not believe in a god/s for the same reasons you don't believe in Santa Claus.

Hope this help clears things up for you.

 

[SkyWriting]

You should look into logical fallacies. This may help you understand why no one thinks you have a strong argument other than yourself.

As for atheism, my reasons for not believing in god/s is the same ones you use for not believing in Santa Claus.

Becasue his best Christmas present ever Fido died and the world is unfair & mean?

 

[SkyWriting]

There is insufficient evidence to support a belief in a god/s, much less to support the god as described in the Bible.
My evidence is the fact that there is none to support your claim that one exists.
.

Scientifically speaking, God is the only option to explain Creation.
Otherwise life would spring up all over on it own.
Plus stuff, matter would just spring up out of nowhere on a regular basis.

 

[Tabletform]

The "Proof" of God is that Matter does not spring from nothing.
Same with information, intelligence, thought.

But that could just as easily be "Proof" of aliens or anything you wish to think of, it "Proves" NOTHING.

I like the way you say "The "Proof" of God is that Matter does not spring from nothing." when you really mean
"God springs from nothing and only God can cause things to spring from nothing".
All you have done is add another question to the already unanswered question of "where did we come from?"
now we must answer the question "Where did God come from"?

 

[SkyWriting]

You don't know what appeal to authority is do you?
The Argument from Authority is when you point to someone with authority in on subject matter and claim that that particular figure's opinion has a greater truth value than your opponent's because of their qualifications.

Isn't that called Science?