Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
I am just looking for comparisons on the Genesis account versus what the scientific theories are.
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
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.
It does not, the only thing they reject is their own strawman account of creationism.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
...
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?