Question...

Status
Not open for further replies.

random_guy

Senior Veteran
Jan 30, 2005
2,528
148
✟3,457.00
Faith
Christian
Does anybody know about any good literature comparing the literal Genesis account with the scientific theories. I am trying to study more on this and since I truly believe in the Bible as truth, I want to see how this relates to current scientific studies.

You probably won't find any main stream scientific literature that supports a literal Genesis, as science rejects the literal account. If you want apologetics. For that, there's
[SIZE=-1]www.answersingenesis.org/ [/SIZE]
www.icr.org

and if those are not literal enough, there's
www.drdino.com

Again, none of these are supported by science, however, all these sites to believe in a literal Genesis and provide resources to help defend their beliefs.
 
Upvote 0

rmwilliamsll

avid reader
Mar 19, 2004
6,006
334
✟7,946.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Green
You probably won't find any main stream scientific literature that supports a literal Genesis, as science rejects the literal account. If you want apologetics. For that, there's
[SIZE=-1]www.answersingenesis.org/ [/SIZE]
www.icr.org

and if those are not literal enough, there's
www.drdino.com

Again, none of these are supported by science, however, all these sites to believe in a literal Genesis and provide resources to help defend their beliefs.

to round out this links list to the left of YECism is Hugh Ross's Reasons to Believe at:
http://www.reasons.org/

in many ways he is just as literal as YECists, however he is labelled OEC and is much more concillatory towards scientific knowledge.

if you really want to understand the issues, skip these guys and look at ASA at:
http://www.asa3.org/asa/topics/Evolution/index.html

most of them are TE.
 
Upvote 0

Late_Cretaceous

<font color="#880000" ></font&g
Apr 4, 2002
1,965
118
Visit site
✟18,025.00
Faith
Catholic
"Truth" does not necessarily mean "factually correct".

Science deals with facts (i.e. observations and measurements), and explanations of those facts (i.e. theories).
Truth is an entirely different concept, afterall how do you measure truth?

Have you ever considered that a story can be non factual but still true? I condend that a non factual story can convey a deeper truth then a simple recalling of events. The characters used in fables and myths are symbolic - as opposed to actual individuals - and therefore intended to convey a message. It is the message that is true, not the series of events.
 
Upvote 0

bella_song

Well-Known Member
May 7, 2006
6,233
191
36
Visit site
✟14,816.00
I take the Bible as the literal truth, and I am not asking for debate in this thread, I am just looking for comparisons on the Genesis account versus what the scientific theories are.

I am not even going to argue on the differnece between truth and facts because I think you are mistaken, but I do not want to argue on that here, I just would like some resources so that I can study it more.
 
Upvote 0

Late_Cretaceous

<font color="#880000" ></font&g
Apr 4, 2002
1,965
118
Visit site
✟18,025.00
Faith
Catholic
A pure literal interpretation of the bible leads to a view of the physical world / universe as such (and there are those who, to this day, subsribe to such a view) :


world2.jpg
 
Upvote 0

Late_Cretaceous

<font color="#880000" ></font&g
Apr 4, 2002
1,965
118
Visit site
✟18,025.00
Faith
Catholic
I am just looking for comparisons on the Genesis account versus what the scientific theories are.

Here are a few quick references for relevant scientific thories to what you might be looking for. I take that to be a factual account of the creation of the universe and mankind (personally I don't think they are relavent since Genesis is not intended as a scientific textbook, but rather a statement of mankind's fall from grace).
+
Links are provided in the titles of each quote

Modern Evolutionary Theory

Evolutionary theory has undergone modification in the light of later scientific developments. As more and more information has accumulated, the facts from a number of fields of investigation have provided corroboration and mutual support. Evidence that evolution has occurred still rests substantially on the same grounds that Darwin emphasized; comparative anatomy, embryology, geographical distribution, and paleontology. But additional recent evidence has come from biochemistry biochemistry, science concerned chiefly with the chemistry of biological processes; it attempts to utilize the tools and concepts of chemistry, particularly organic and physical chemistry, for elucidation of the living system. The science has been variously referred to as physiological chemistry and as biological chemistry.
..... Click the link for more information. and molecular biology, which reveals fundamental similarities and relations in metabolism and hereditary mechanisms among disparate types of organisms. In general, both at the visible level and at the biochemical, one can detect the kinds of gradations of relatedness among organisms expected from evolution.

The chief weakness of Darwinian evolution lay in gaps in its explanations of the mechanism of evolution and of the origin of species. The Darwinian concept of natural selection selection. In Darwinism , the mechanism of natural selection is considered of major importance in the process of evolution . Popular formulations sometimes envisage a struggle for existence in which direct competition for mates or for various factors in the environment (e.g., food, water, and suitable space) counteracts the tendency toward overproduction of plants and animals resulting from the process of reproduction.
..... Click the link for more information. is that inheritable variations among the individuals of given types of organisms continually arise in nature and that some variations prove advantageous under prevailing conditions in that they enable the organism to leave relatively more surviving offspring. But how these variations initially arise or are transmitted to offspring, and hence to subsequent generations, was not understood by Darwin. The science of genetics genome, or characteristic set of genes, that contains the total genetic information for an individual organism. In many familiar organisms two genes for each trait are present in each individual, and these paired genes, both governing the same trait, are called

alleles. The two allelic genes in any one individual may be alike (homozygous) or different (heterozygous).
..... Click the link for more information. , originating at the beginning of the 20th cent. with the recognition of the importance of the earlier work of Mendel Mendel, Gregor Johann (grā`gôr yō`hän mĕn`dəl), 1822–84, Austrian monk noted for his experimental work on heredity .
..... Click the link for more information. , provided a satisfactory explanation for the origin and transmission of variation. In 1901, de Vries presented his theory that mutation mutation, in biology, a sudden, random change in a gene , or unit of hereditary material, that can alter an inheritable characteristic. Most mutations are not beneficial, since any change in the delicate balance of an organism having a high level of adaptation to its environment tends to be disruptive.
..... Click the link for more information. , or suddenly appearing and well-defined inheritable variation (as opposed to the slight, cumulative changes stressed by Darwin), is a force in the origin and evolution of species. Mutation in genes is now accepted by most biologists as a fundamental concept in evolutionary theory. The gene gene, the structural unit of inheritance in living organisms. A gene is, in essence, a segment of DNA that has a particular purpose, i.e., that codes for (contains the chemical information necessary for the creation of) a specific enzyme or other protein. The strands of DNA on which the genes occur are organized into chromosomes .
..... Click the link for more information. is the carrier of heredity and determines the attributes of the individual; thus changes in the genes can be transmitted to the offspring and produce new or altered attributes in the new individual.

Still prevalent misunderstandings of evolution are the beliefs that an animal or plant changes in order to better adapt to its environment—for example, that it develops an eye for the purpose of seeing—and that actual physical competition among individuals is required. Since mutation is a random process, changes can be either useful, unfavorable, or neutral to the individual's or species' survival. However, a new characteristic that is not detrimental may sometimes better enable the organism to survive or leave offspring in its environment, especially if that environment is changing, or to penetrate a new environment—such as the development of a lunglike structure that enables an aquatic animal to survive on land (see lungfish lungfish, common name for any of a group of fish belonging to the families Ceratodontidae and Lepidosirenidae, found in the rivers of South America, Africa, and Australia. Like the lobefins, the lungfishes are ancestrally related to the four-footed land animals. Fossil lungfish have been found in the United States, Europe, and India.
..... Click the link for more information. ), where there may be more food and fewer predators.

Abiogenesis (Greek a-bio-genesis, "non biological origins") is, in its most general sense, the generation of life from non-living matter. Today the term is primarily used to refer to theories about the chemical origin of life, such as from a primordial sea, and most probably through a number of intermediate steps, such as non-living but self-replicating molecules (biopoiesis).
The Big Bang Theory

BANG.GIF
Representation of the universe according to inflationary cosmology.

The Big Bang Theory is the dominant scientific theory about the origin of the universe. According to the big bang, the universe was created sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from a cosmic explosion that hurled matter and in all directions. In 1927, the Belgian priest Georges Lemaître was the first to propose that the universe began with the explosion of a primeval atom. His proposal came after observing the red shift in distant nebulas by astronomers to a model of the universe based on relativity. Years later, Edwin Hubble found experimental evidence to help justify Lemaître's theory. He found that distant galaxies in every direction are going away from us with speeds proportional to their distance.
The big bang was initially suggested because it explains why distant galaxies are traveling away from us at great speeds. The theory also predicts the existence of cosmic background radiation (the glow left over from the explosion itself). The Big Bang Theory received its strongest confirmation when this radiation was discovered in 1964 by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, who later won the Nobel Prize for this discovery.
Although the Big Bang Theory is widely accepted, it probably will never be proved; consequentially, leaving a number of tough, unanswered questions.
 
Upvote 0

JohnR7

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2002
25,258
209
Ohio
✟29,532.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
You probably won't find any main stream scientific literature that supports a literal Genesis, as science rejects the literal account.
It does not, the only thing they reject is their own strawman account of creationism.

Perhaps what you mean is that there is a problem with the idea of a 6,000 year old earth and Science. What people do not realize is that the Bible is mostly a historical record of the last 6,000 years and it not intended so much to be a history of the last 14 billion years.
 
Upvote 0

JohnR7

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2002
25,258
209
Ohio
✟29,532.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
I just would like some resources so that I can study it more.
Here are a few people you can look into: Kurt Wise, Francis Collins, Hugh Ross, Gerald Schroeder.
I am sure there ara others out there also depending on what your looking for.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

random_guy

Senior Veteran
Jan 30, 2005
2,528
148
✟3,457.00
Faith
Christian
It does not, the only thing they reject is their own strawman account of creationism.

Perhaps what you mean is that there is a problem with the idea of a 6,000 year old earth and Science. What people do not realize is that the Bible is mostly a historical record of the last 6,000 years and it not intended so much to be a history of the last 14 billion years.

Seeing how most of the Creationists on this board believes in a Global Flood, I would think it would be safe to say that science does reject a literal interpretation of the Bible. There is no evidence of a Global Flood, and science has falsified that idea a long time ago. Once an idea has been falsified, it takes an extraordinary about of evidence to change this. There's no strawman about this. If you believe in a Global Flood, you are believing in ideas rejected by mainstream science.
 
Upvote 0

laptoppop

Servant of the living God
May 19, 2006
2,219
189
Southern California
✟23,920.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I would agree that "mainstream science" does not accept a YEC interpretation, including a global flood.

Saying there is "no evidence" is a false meme. There is a ton of evidence for either side - it is a matter of interpretation and interpretational frameworks. It is more accurate to say that there are competing models of interpretation, and different people believe one is superior over the other. Certainly mainstream science has coalesced behind one model, but that does not mean alternative models, such as YEC do not exist.
 
Upvote 0

rmwilliamsll

avid reader
Mar 19, 2004
6,006
334
✟7,946.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Green
I would agree that "mainstream science" does not accept a YEC interpretation, including a global flood.

Saying there is "no evidence" is a false meme. There is a ton of evidence for either side - it is a matter of interpretation and interpretational frameworks. It is more accurate to say that there are competing models of interpretation, and different people believe one is superior over the other. Certainly mainstream science has coalesced behind one model, but that does not mean alternative models, such as YEC do not exist.

The raelian and scientology models for panspermogenesis exist, but that doesn't mean that there is any evidence for these models in the universe. Lots of alternative models exist for all kinds of scientific issues. But the amount of evidence for these two panspermogenesis models of how life got to earth have more evidence than does the YECist model of the flood. For there is no way to falsify or disprove these ideas when the global Noahic flood was throughly falsified 200 years ago. Not only is there no evidence for it, there is lots of good evidence that says it never happened.

Now the claim of "underdetermination of theory by the facts" and therefore it is all simply a matter of alternative frameworks is a nice sounding, even mildly democratic and equalitarian thought. But applying it to Noah's flood is simply to ignore the physical and geological evidence and to claim simply that facts are nothing more than a wax nose to be shaped into whatever form you desire.

Fortunately for reality, and unfairly to those who would design and inhabit their own competing interpretative worlds, reality and the facts are not quite that plastic and malleable. That is precisely why the chorus of "what is the evidence for the flood" or "show your work" greets every demand, like this one, to be cognizate of the various legitimate alternative interpretative frameworks.

there is no evidence for a global Noahic flood. not 6kya, not 10kya, nowhere. it is not a false meme, it is a false statement, falsified by Christian geologists 200 years ago searching for evidence for the flood itself.

but yes, the models exist. YECist Noahic flood has less chance of being correct than does raelian or scientologists panspermogenesis, and ought to be consigned to the same bin in our minds as are they.
 
Upvote 0

Late_Cretaceous

<font color="#880000" ></font&g
Apr 4, 2002
1,965
118
Visit site
✟18,025.00
Faith
Catholic
I would agree that "mainstream science" does not accept a YEC interpretation, including a global flood.

Saying there is "no evidence" is a false meme. There is a ton of evidence for either side - it is a matter of interpretation and interpretational frameworks. It is more accurate to say that there are competing models of interpretation, and different people believe one is superior over the other. Certainly mainstream science has coalesced behind one model, but that does not mean alternative models, such as YEC do not exist.


Quite the opposite is true actually. In the 19th century when early geologists began studying the earth, they set out to find evidence of the flood - believing it to have been a literal event. Devout christian men like Charles Lyell, William Buckland and James Hutton. They interpreted the evidence they found in light of their beliefs and most found that they had to adjust thier world view - because they acknowledged that there was not evidence for a worldwide deluge.

Nobody denies that an alternative model - namely the YEC model - exists. It has been shown, however that the YEC model lacks merit and evidence.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

rmwilliamsll

avid reader
Mar 19, 2004
6,006
334
✟7,946.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Green
Ummmm, no. The folks you mentioned were among the first to *abandon* the catastrophic model. They didn't try to prove it, they were the first proponents of uniformitarianism.

One of the take home messages from studying history is how much the current battles of the day color and shape what we think about history. One effect of this is a constantly changing array of words.

read http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p82.htm
The Collapse of Diluvial Cosmogonies
...
Although neptunism largely replaced diluvialism as an explanation for the formation of layered rocks, interest in the Noachian flood was hardly dead. Diluvialism may have been dying out, but many scholars continued to believe that there was scientific evidence for the flood.
...
Nineteenth-Century Developments, the Rise of Diluvial Catastrophism
...
The Collapse of Diluvial Catastrophism
...
Summary of Early Nineteenth-Century on the Flood
Naturalists of the early nineteenth century accumulated a great deal of information that led to changes in their view of earth's history and the role of the Noachic deluge in it. They all paid scrupulous attention to the full spectrum of available geological information and adjusted their ideas in response to that information. Many of them were orthodox Christians, and yet they felt no need to distort the evidence they encountered in order to sustain their belief in the biblical deluge. One finds no appeal to miracle on the part of even the most ardent advocate of the deluge, William Buckland. The premier geologists were persuaded that existing geological evidence supported the notion of a global or at least continental deluge. Every one of them rejected the old diluvialism which attributed the deposition of fossiliferous secondary and tertiary strata to the flood, however. They identified only surface deposits as the effects of the deluge.
Even that view collapsed, however, because of the importance that these men placed on extrabiblical evidence. Buckland, Sedgwick, and others ultimately abandoned nineteenth-century diluvialism when it became clear that gravels, valleys, polished rocks, cave deposits, and the like could no longer be satisfactorily understood as the result of a giant deluge. Because the Christian naturalists of the era were unafraid of God-given evidence, they recognized that extrabiblical information provided a splendid opportunity for closer investigation of the biblical text in order to clear up earlier mistakes in interpretation. Biblical expositors of the period were more reluctant to grapple with extrabiblical data in so forthright a manner, as we will see.
...
The Coming of the Ice Age -- the Frozen Flood
...
Development of the Geological Time Scale
...
In a clear appeal to extrabiblical data, Miller asserted that with respect to the flood as with respect to other biblical references to matters of physical science, "the limiting, modifying, explaining facts and circumstances must be sought for in that outside region of secular research, historic and scientific." He believed it essential that the church stay as well acquainted with such research as the enemies of the faith did. From research "much valuable biblical illustration" had been derived. He warned against ignorance of extrabiblical data, chided those who were content to solve scientific problems with the Bible alone, and showed that extrabiblical data had frequently corrected erroneous interpretations of the Bible.

"Plain men who set themselves to deduce from Scripture the figure of the planet" had little doubt that the earth was flat "until corrected by the geographer"; "plain men who set themselves to acquire from Scripture some notion of the planetary motions" thought that the sun moved around an earth at rest "until corrected by the astronomer"; "plain men who have sought to determine from Scripture the age of the earth" were confident that the earth was about six thousand years old "until corrected by the geologist."

In sum, plain men quite properly learned the way of salvation from the Bible, but every time they "sought to deduce from it what it was not intended to teach -- the truths of physical science -- they have fallen into extravagant error." [106] And if such error is casually or, worse, boldly or even belligerently endorsed, it must necessarily mar the overall credibility of the church.
...

History is a lot more complex than this simple division into catastrophics and uniformatarians, in fact, in the rise of modern geology is a lot like a dance where the partners change positions, big ideas switch from being the new person on the block to being the old discarded one. This idea of separating the two sides from the beginning into two camps really doesn't do justice to the complex history of the topic. Even a few hours with a good book like Davis Edward's will show that reality is not only bigger and more complex than we often imagine it, it is more interesting as well.

catastrophe and gradualism
uniformity and outright miracle
deluge and volcanism
one deluge and many deluges

they are the partners in this dance, several times they switch partners, big changes occur in how the majority view the past, then a period of more discovery and another partner switch. it is far more interesting then this simple us vs them, black spy vs white spy mentality.
 
Upvote 0

rmwilliamsll

avid reader
Mar 19, 2004
6,006
334
✟7,946.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Green
Please people, this thread was not meant for debate, just a place to kist resources for study. That is all I am asking. If this thread continues in arguing and debating, I will request to have it closed.

Thank you.

i'll be glad to offer a short list of resources:
i think that the best single essay on the topic is at:
http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/3EvoCr.htm
it is a Biblical and theological defense of evolutionary creationism.

i think the best resource for learning online is a class at:
http://www.calvin.edu/~lhaarsma/week6.html
this is a link into their division of the positions in the creation evolution debate. all of their outlines for this class
Science and Spirituality: Is Harmony Possible? are online and they will email you their actual notes for the lecture if you ask. i've seen nothing better online from a single perspective (wife and husband team). Only a handful of books have impressed me more than these notes, i really hope they will publish them.

as far as books are concerned, there are literally hundreds of must read today in the field (ha!) it really depends on narrowing down your interest.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Status
Not open for further replies.