Is Genesis consistent with mainstream scientific knowledge??

[nebulaJP]

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

Was there anything in Mark's retort that was automatic dismissal of Gerald's ideas? I think they both do a good job.

 

[Beth-Zur]

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.

Be careful what you ask for, lol

The font size is such because I'm about 3 yrs late to the eye doctor, so WYSIWYG for the time being. (I only use it on the worst days.)

* I see you joined the forums this month. Are you a practicing Christian?

 

[Tabletform]

Be careful what you ask for, lol

The font size is such because I'm about 3 yrs late to the eye doctor, so WYSIWYG for the time being. (I only use it on the worst days.)

* I see you joined the forums this month. Are you a practicing Christian?

I am what is called a lapsed Catholic but I was indoctrinated so if I want to stop believing it will take a bit of shifting.
There is a bit of a huha about Catholicism here at the moment because of the church covering up priests sexual exploits.

 

[Beth-Zur]

Was there anything in Mark's retort that was automatic dismissal of Gerald's ideas? I think they both do a good job.

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)

I don't know who Mark is. The automatic dismissal comment was directed toward the publication: "TalkReason", specifically, the highlighted portion.

 

[nebulaJP]

I don't know who Mark is. The automatic dismissal comment was directed toward the publication: "TalkReason", specifically, the highlighted portion.

Did you not read the article/retort: NOT A VERY BIG BANG ABOUT GENESIS By Mark Perakh just because you don't like the fact that Talk Reason doesn't publish papers in favor of Intelligent Design? Usually websites like this will take a position on one side of an issue and only publish or link to articles from that side. Here's an example from the website Intelligent Design (.org):

Intelligent Design Articles

Refusing to publish articles and automatically dismissing information in a prejudicial manner aren't the same thing.

 

[Beth-Zur]

I am what is called a lapsed Catholic but I was indoctrinated so if I want to stop believing it will take a bit of shifting.
There is a bit of a huha about Catholicism here at the moment because of the church covering up priests sexual exploits.

I grew up in a predominantly Catholic community, although I was not Catholic (my husband is a former Catholic). It is a big, sad mess, regarding the sexual troubles, with no quick fix.

 

[Tiberius]

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.

Actually, I remember reading that the net energy of the universe is zero.

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.

And this, Beth-Zur, is the point I was trying to make. Perhaps you would have realised it if you actually thought about what I said.

Scientifically speaking, God is the only option to explain Creation.

except you are assuming that the universe was created in order to show there was a creator. Circular logic!

Otherwise life would spring up all over on it own.

Actually, isn't this what science claims happened?

And aren't you claiming that God sprang up all on his own?

Plus stuff, matter would just spring up out of nowhere on a regular basis.

Doesn't this happen near black holes? Particle/anti-particle pairs are constantly appearing out of nothing and then annihilating each other to maintain the conservation of energy thing, but near a black hole, one particle can be sucked into the black hole while the other isn't. This means that the pair can't annihilate.

 

[nebulaJP]

Here is a link to the article on Mark Perakh's website:

NOT A VERY BIG BANG ABOUT GENESIS

 

[James Wilson]

Let's look at Genesis and see if it tells us anything scientific we wouldn't otherwise know:
1. Before Moses the Jews not only ignored common wisdom about avoiding incest, they actively sought marriage partners amongst their own family (to avoid gentile genes). Now, if they did this in ignorance, why do we find that the 'race' of Jews, in spite of this ignorance, has the highest per capita IQ on Earth? Strange, that. If they did this with the permission of God (and seeing the hundreds of words God had spoken to Abraham, the least God could have done was warn him, "By the way, don't marry cousins, nieces and sisters." Yet Abraham married his half-sister and others in his line did likewise repeatedly). It would seem that the human gene pool of that day was STRONG enough that incest was not a problem. If Noah and his 3 sons and wives were the only survivors of the Flood, then all of their immediate children married cousins... without negative effects!
2. By the time of Moses, the human gene pool had degraded enough (perhaps due to cosmic radiation, evil practices, poison in the environment) that incest had to be prohibited. The great Darwin didn't think he needed to listen to the Bible and his family was devasted with many childhood deaths before the age of two and handicapped children. Pretty smart man, eh?
3. So this much maligned document, Genesis, is the most ancient documentation on Earth of the strength of the human gene pool and when that strength broke down.
4. This same Genesis reveals the lie of evolution: we are not evolving, but devolving.
5. Does Genesis provide evidence of this devolution? We talk about Methselah being the longest living man in the Bible, but from Adam to Noah, all patriarchs lived to be more than 895 years, except for Enoch who was translated to heaven because of his righteousness and Lamech, killed by the Flood. At least 10 other nations of the world record 'their patriarchs' as having lived a thousand years. The Flood ended these long lifetimes gradually, with one of Abraham's "father's" living longer than 600 years, 4 more than 400 years, and all but one living longer than 200 years. Then about a thousand more years pass and King David said, "How long does a man live? 60 years, or by reason of strength, 70." In the medieval years, 30 was the lifetime of many. Now with modern medicine and nutrition we ecked it back up to 60-70 year lifetimes. If not for such modern helps, we'd be obviously devolving more.
6. In conclusion: Yes, Genesis does provide scientific information, validated by histories recorded by other nations.

 

[Tiberius]

Let's look at Genesis and see if it tells us anything scientific we wouldn't otherwise know:

Yes, let's.

1. Before Moses the Jews not only ignored common wisdom about avoiding incest, they actively sought marriage partners amongst their own family (to avoid gentile genes). Now, if they did this in ignorance, why do we find that the 'race' of Jews, in spite of this ignorance, has the highest per capita IQ on Earth? Strange, that. If they did this with the permission of God (and seeing the hundreds of words God had spoken to Abraham, the least God could have done was warn him, "By the way, don't marry cousins, nieces and sisters." Yet Abraham married his half-sister and others in his line did likewise repeatedly). It would seem that the human gene pool of that day was STRONG enough that incest was not a problem. If Noah and his 3 sons and wives were the only survivors of the Flood, then all of their immediate children married cousins... without negative effects!

So you are just assuming that God made it okay for this point in time, but made it not okay for other times. So why didn't he leave it as being okay all the time, given that he surely knew what the Royal families of Europe would later get up to?

BTW, incest only produces genetic abberations and harmful effects after inbreeding for a few generations.

2. By the time of Moses, the human gene pool had degraded enough (perhaps due to cosmic radiation, evil practices, poison in the environment) that incest had to be prohibited. The great Darwin didn't think he needed to listen to the Bible and his family was devasted with many childhood deaths before the age of two and handicapped children. Pretty smart man, eh?

You got any evidence for this increased cosmic radiation, or poison, or that evil practices can influence a person's genome? Or are you just guessing? Surely you wouldn't put forth your subjective opinion when you claim to have scientific fact...

And with what you put about Darwin, are you really saying that a person's fortunes are directly tied in with the strength of their religious convictions? So as a believer, you tend to be luckier than me?

3. So this much maligned document, Genesis, is the most ancient documentation on Earth of the strength of the human gene pool and when that strength broke down.

I fail to see how that is scientific in any way.

4. This same Genesis reveals the lie of evolution: we are not evolving, but devolving.

Again, this conclusion can only be reached after guesswork. Where is the science of which you spoke?

5. Does Genesis provide evidence of this devolution? We talk about Methselah being the longest living man in the Bible, but from Adam to Noah, all patriarchs lived to be more than 895 years, except for Enoch who was translated to heaven because of his righteousness and Lamech, killed by the Flood. At least 10 other nations of the world record 'their patriarchs' as having lived a thousand years. The Flood ended these long lifetimes gradually, with one of Abraham's "father's" living longer than 600 years, 4 more than 400 years, and all but one living longer than 200 years. Then about a thousand more years pass and King David said, "How long does a man live? 60 years, or by reason of strength, 70." In the medieval years, 30 was the lifetime of many. Now with modern medicine and nutrition we ecked it back up to 60-70 year lifetimes. If not for such modern helps, we'd be obviously devolving more.

So how did the flood alter the lifespan of humans?

6. In conclusion: Yes, Genesis does provide scientific information, validated by histories recorded by other nations.

If so, you've yet to show any.

 

[Jazer]

If Noah and his 3 sons and wives were the only survivors of the Flood, then all of their immediate children married cousins... without negative effects!

So a family reunion for them would be a great place to find a husband or a wife?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Let's look at Genesis and see if it tells us anything scientific we wouldn't otherwise know:
1. Before Moses the Jews not only ignored common wisdom about avoiding incest, they actively sought marriage partners amongst their own family (to avoid gentile genes). Now, if they did this in ignorance, why do we find that the 'race' of Jews, in spite of this ignorance, has the highest per capita IQ on Earth? Strange, that.

Strange indeed -- how did they measure IQs back in Moses' time?

I2. By the time of Moses, the human gene pool had degraded enough (perhaps due to cosmic radiation, evil practices, poison in the environment) that incest had to be prohibited.

Don't rule out pixies -- crafty little things, they are.

3. So this much maligned document, Genesis, is the most ancient documentation on Earth of the strength of the human gene pool and when that strength broke down.

Wunderbar. Does it mention when and how this happened, or are you forced to make that part up?

Ask the pixies.

4. This same Genesis reveals the lie of evolution: we are not evolving, but devolving.

I'll take this with a grain of salt until you demonstrate some knowledge of evolution.

5. Does Genesis provide evidence of this devolution? We talk about Methselah being the longest living man in the Bible, but from Adam to Noah, all patriarchs lived to be more than 895 years, except for Enoch who was translated to heaven because of his righteousness and Lamech, killed by the Flood. At least 10 other nations of the world record 'their patriarchs' as having lived a thousand years. The Flood ended these long lifetimes gradually, with one of Abraham's "father's" living longer than 600 years, 4 more than 400 years, and all but one living longer than 200 years. Then about a thousand more years pass and King David said, "How long does a man live? 60 years, or by reason of strength, 70." In the medieval years, 30 was the lifetime of many. Now with modern medicine and nutrition we ecked it back up to 60-70 year lifetimes. If not for such modern helps, we'd be obviously devolving more.

Unless superlong lifespans were a common mythological theme -- especially for cultures who did not believe in a utopian afterlife (such as, for example, the Jews) and equated long lives with divine blessing.

Just a thought.

6. In conclusion: Yes, Genesis does provide scientific information, validated by histories recorded by other nations.

A pity it's mythology, not history, and certainly not science.

Don't feel glum -- wiser men than you have missed it.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

So a family reunion for them would be a great place to find a husband or a wife?

You've seen Jeff Dunham do that bit with Bubba J too haven't you?

Jeff Dunham and Bubba J - YouTube

4:25

 

[theFijian]

I am what is called a lapsed Catholic but I was indoctrinated so if I want to stop believing it will take a bit of shifting.

I'm staggered that you expect us to believe anything you say consol

 

[Tabletform]

I'm staggered that you expect us to believe anything you say consol

You come over as a sad little person, I may well be wrong but that's how it looks.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm staggered that you expect us to believe anything you say consol

You come over as a sad little person, I may well be wrong but that's how it looks.

So to come over as a happy person, he has to expect to believe anything you say?

 

[theFijian]

You come over as a sad little person, I may well be wrong but that's how it looks.

Away and think up your next sockpuppet name

 

[sandwiches]

Simple question. Do you believe that Genesis, however you interpret it or however you think it should be interpreted, is compatible with what we know about the universe today?

Sure. If it's "however you interpret it," I can make it fit anything I want.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

If I give you a positive example, would you seriously consider it, does not run away from the issue, and does not start to insult me?

Yes.

(frankly, even you say yes, I won't believe you. But I might give you another chance.)

Another chance? I wasn't aware that I'd already used up my first

According to what we know now (a big restriction), whatever says in the Genesis is at least 50% scientific. Many of them are 80% or more scientific. Some of them are 100% scientific.

I don't understand. Are you saying that, according to modern science, about half of what is asserted in Genesis is correct?

 

[juvenissun]

Yes.


Another chance? I wasn't aware that I'd already used up my first


I don't understand. Are you saying that, according to modern science, about half of what is asserted in Genesis is correct?

More than half. Now let's start with one:

If you were God and started the creation, what would be the first thing you create? Since you are a scientist, and in order to fit the discussion to the OP, try to give a scientific choice. (and also consider that the Genesis is written a few thousands years ago)