• 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.

The Literal Creation Account and the Actual Roots of Science. Read on …

Edmond

Well-Known Member
May 13, 2005
1,787
29
USA
✟2,109.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Loudmouth said:
The dating of meteorites puts the age of the Earth at 4.45 to 4.55 billion years old.
Its interesting to note that this portion of Genesis don't address the actual total age of the earth in any way. It presents events as having happened in the past in the period of time presented.

Actually only the events in Genesis 1:1 through 2:4 are given a duration of time. We are not told now much time passed between the end of 2:4 and the beginning of 2:5. After that no time durations are given either.
Loudmouth said:
Amazing how the geologic record falsifies the OT literal chronology.
Amazing how the geologic record, included in the 'geologic colunm' is all based on a theory of science. Even the actual 'geologic column' that is supposed to represent that record exists no where physically in the world. It is an assemblage of data taken from all around the world and assumed how it may fit together.
So, the conclusions and theory presented by the 'geologic record' ...does not falsify the first two chapters of Genesis in any way. If that is the only objection with the information presented in the OP, I'm pleased. Thanks ... ..

----------------
 
Upvote 0

Edmond

Well-Known Member
May 13, 2005
1,787
29
USA
✟2,109.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
TheInstant said:
[/color][/font][/color]
Maybe you should make up your mind on this?
Thanks, I'll change that in the summary from.. "Genesis introduces plant life as a separate form of life from that of creatures;" ...to ...."Genesis introduces plant life as a separate grouping of life from that of creatures;" ...

--------------------------------------
 
Upvote 0

variant

Happy Cat
Jun 14, 2005
23,790
6,591
✟315,332.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Edmond said:
The purpose of that statement is to allow the text of Genesis to be examined on its own, apart from formal 'Christianity', the church or other doctrines may attempt to place on it.





My point is that a literal interpretation of the text would be a doctrine in and of itself. Similarly, a literal interpretation of the work “Beowulf” interpreted literally would require a sort of interpretive doctrine. Or, a literal interpretation of the “Epic of Gilgamesh” would be a sort of interpretive doctrine.



The problem is that no one interprets these works that way, and the reason Genesis is ever taken literally, because it is placed within the scope of a certain Christian doctrines. Taken by itself, apart from a certian Christianity, Genesis wouldn’t necessarily be interpreted literally, and probably would not be interpreted literally, as we find with other texts.



It is objectively open to the examination as described above. …. I'm please if that is the only objection you have to the content presented. Thanks ...



-----------------




No, it wouldn’t be my only, objection, just the first that came to mind, I'll look through it later and see whether it warrants further comment.
 
Upvote 0

platzapS

Expanding Mind
Nov 12, 2002
3,574
300
35
Sunshine State
Visit site
✟5,263.00
Faith
Humanist
Thanks, I'll change that in the summary from.. "Genesis introduces plant life as a separate form of life from that of creatures;" ...to ...."Genesis introduces plant life as a separate grouping of life from that of creatures;" ...


Even disregarding these semantics, what's the point? Don't almost all creation stories either explain or imply that animals are a different kind of life than plants?
 
Upvote 0

Valkhorn

the Antifloccinaucinihilipili ficationist
Jun 15, 2004
3,009
198
44
Knoxville, TN
Visit site
✟26,624.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Amazing how the geologic record, included in the 'geologic colunm' is all based on a theory of science.

Your point? The Bible was written by man, too.

Even the actual 'geologic column' that is supposed to represent that record exists no where physically in the world.

I know North Dakota is in the middle of nowhere but it's still there:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/

The Geologic Column Exists in its entirety in North Dakota.

Will you stop stonewalling now?
 
Upvote 0

Edmond

Well-Known Member
May 13, 2005
1,787
29
USA
✟2,109.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
TheInstant said:
Yes, and these theories are based on evidence.

Anyway, even if we were to study Genesis scientifically, how would you suggest that we go about doing it? How do you test for a literal Genesis?
Well, since evolution is a theory and there is information that can be used to try to support that theory.
The creation account should also be considered as a theory since ..... Gen. 1&2 successfully presents evidence that it has introduced the living elements that are included in the studies of botany and biology and that Genesis has presented documentation that disclose the unfolding of the environment needed to support such living elements.


----------
 
Upvote 0

TheInstant

Hooraytheist
Oct 24, 2005
970
20
42
✟16,238.00
Faith
Atheist

Just because a story contains some information that does not conflict with reality does not make the entire story valid, and it certainly does not make it a scientific theory.

The Theory of Evolution is not a theory because "there is information that can be used to try to support" it. It is a scientific theory because all of the available evidence supports it and none contradicts it. It also makes predictions and can be tested. Can the "theory" of creation do any of this? As I asked before, how do you test for a literal Genesis?
 
Upvote 0

Edmond

Well-Known Member
May 13, 2005
1,787
29
USA
✟2,109.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Valkhorn said:

Your point? The Bible was written by man, too.
My point is that the entire geologic 'time table' and 'record' are based on assumption. The assumed dates and order of the fossil are used as the basis of dating the assumed age of the geologic strata. Conversely, the assumed dates of the strata is used to date the fossil. Both are based on assumption.

 
Upvote 0

Edmond

Well-Known Member
May 13, 2005
1,787
29
USA
✟2,109.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Please present the evidence to confirm that claim.
TheInstant said:
Can the "theory" of creation do any of this? As I asked before, how do you test for a literal Genesis?
Well, the testing of anything takes place in steps. Step one, we have already tested and authenticated that...
"the literal reading of Gen. 1&2 has introduced the living elements that are included in the studies of botany and biology. In addition, it has presented documentation that disclose the unfolding of the environment needed to support such living elements.
“Botany is the scientific study of plant life. As a branch of biology, it is also sometimes referred to as plant science(s) or plant biology. Botany covers a wide range of scientific disciplines that study the growth, reproduction, metabolism, development, disease, ecology, and evolution of plants.” (ref 5)
Genesis introduces plant life as a separate grouping of life from that of creatures; it introduces the elements necessary for the growth of that plant life; it introduces the specific subject of the reproduction of that plant life (the presence of seeds); it presents the conditions needed for the metabolizing processes within plant life. (Gen. 1:9, 11a, 16a, 17, 18); Genesis 1&2 therefore introduces and addresses specific elements and characteristics found to be a direct part of the study of botany today.
“ Biology is the study, or science, of life. It is concerned with the characteristics and behaviors of organisms, how species and individuals come into existence, and the interactions they have with each other and with the environment. Biology encompasses a broad spectrum of academic fields that are often viewed as independent disciplines. However, together they address phenomena related to living organisms (biological phenomena) over a wide range of scales.” (ref 6)
Genesis introduces and presents biological life; it introduces distinct characteristics of that life and their behavior… that is large sea creature and swarming sea creatures; birds and winged creatures; cattle; creeping things; beasts of the earth…..how these creatures came into existence. In so doing, Genesis introduces and addresses specific elements and characteristics found to be a direct part of the study of biology today.

Therefore it can be said of Genesis 1&2, that its content introduces, include and address the specifics elements and their characteristics that exist as part of the study of biology and botany as a science of today.

That is a sizable step forward. We could now move to Genesis 6 through 8 and begin a re-evaluation the evidence of paleontolgy and geology based on the information presented there rather than through the lens of Lyell's uniformatarian theory of geology only. ...

---------------------------
 
Upvote 0

TheInstant

Hooraytheist
Oct 24, 2005
970
20
42
✟16,238.00
Faith
Atheist
Edmond said:
Please present the evidence to confirm that claim.

Are you asking for ALL of the evidence that supports evolution? I don't have enough time to do that. Maybe you should check out the Quiet Thread, there seems to be a lot in there.

As for evidence confirming that there is none against it, suffice it to say that if there were such evidence the theory would be revised or abandoned. That's how science works.


Edmond said:
Well, the testing of anything takes place in steps. Step one, we have already tested and authenticated that...

So you have established that Genesis says a few things that are correct about the life we observe. Many creation stories do this as well, as it's really not that surprising that the authors of these stories were able to recognize that plants are different from animals. But what about the parts of Genesis that are not supported by any evidence? Are we ignoring those parts?
 
Upvote 0

HairlessSimian

Well-Known Member
Oct 1, 2005
602
28
68
in the 21st century CE
✟875.00
Faith
Atheist

The Genesis account is horribly incomplete as "documentation that disclose the unfolding of the environment needed to support such living elements", since it does not talk about certain other essentials for plant life, like minerals (P, K, trace elements), nitrifying microbes, denitrifying microbes, carbon dioxide, oxygen, etc. If you tried to engineer life on Mars, you would not be successful if you followed the Genesis recipe.

Does Genesis ever mention air? In fact, the concept of life-giving air was not really understood before Lavoisier and Dalton and others only a couple of centuries ago.

Genesis is also ignorant of algae, fungi, lichen, diatoms, krill, plankton and coral, not to mention
blue-green algae or archaebacteria. The thermophiles and chemotrophs do not need the light and rain and seeds and stuff that Genesis provides, but rather need geothermal/volcanic heat or sulfurous emanations which Genesis does not provide.

None of these lifeforms (
algae, fungi, lichen, and the rest and more besides) fit the 'kinds' that Genesis describes.

Another, more minor objection: visible light (the only kind ever known by any human before recent times and what most people refer to simply as 'light') does NOT provide heat. From the OP: "
The presence of a gathered source of light in [Gen.] 1:4 would have been sufficient to generate a source of heat energy." Absolutely false. Infrared light is what is sensed as heat and is not visible. The earth, as presented by Genesis, would have started out at absolute zero (0 deg. K) and stayed that way until the sun had a chance to do something about it, but it would have taken more than a few days to thaw the earth and the 'lights' of the firmament, as understood by Genesis, would have done very little to warm the earth.

Finally: the moon is presented as a 'light' of the night-time firmament to differentiate it from the day. This is also false. The moon has no light of its own and merely reflects sunlight and only part of the month. The other part, the moon is out at the same time as the sun, so out the window goes the idea of using the moon for the stated purposes.

The Genesis account can never be considered a scientific account of the origin of the earth, the universe and life, if only because it is terribly incomplete and simplistic. It can never be considered a scientific hypothesis (let alone a theory). Most serious people only view it as a story.
On technical and scientific matters, it is merely a reflection of the state of knowledge of the ancient humans who devised and wrote the tale, plausibly to answer the basic Large Questions every human asks at one time or another in their lives.

At best, this thread argues that students of the history of knowledge might look to the Genesis account for information on what the ancients knew.

At worst, this thread attempts to argue that botany and biology students should be made to study the Genesis account. That would be stultifyingly stupid and an enormous waste of time and money. Time and money are better spent educating non-botanists/non-biologists who get their botany and biology from the bible, at least those that can be educated.
 
Upvote 0

Edmond

Well-Known Member
May 13, 2005
1,787
29
USA
✟2,109.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
HairlessSimian said:
<snip>
Finally: the moon is presented as a 'light' of the night-time firmament to differentiate it from the day. This is also false. The moon has no light of its own and merely reflects sunlight and only part of the month.<snip>

This offers just one example of the fallacies found in this posted quote mine. Genesis does not says or implies that the moon has light of its own. Genesis says ..."And the God made two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night." (1:16)
Amazing how people can find ways to even twist literal statements to say what they want them to say in order to 'falsify' them. ...

---------------------------------------
 
Upvote 0

Edmond

Well-Known Member
May 13, 2005
1,787
29
USA
✟2,109.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
variant said:
My point is that a literal interpretation of the text would be a doctrine in and of itself.

In the narrowest use of the word, a doctrine can be defined as your person beliefs about what I said in the posted you quoted from me. In that narrow sense, it can be anything that is held to be true by any person.
variant said:
Similarly, a literal interpretation of the work “Beowulf” interpreted literally would require a sort of interpretive doctrine. Or, a literal interpretation of the “Epic of Gilgamesh” would be a sort of interpretive doctrine.
The Gilgamesh epic is about a person and a wild companion. Gilgamesh was a king of Uruk, a hero who was supposed to have all knowledge and who built a great city. It is a writing about a person and his adventures, journeys and battles. It is a compiled biography.
variant said:
The problem is that no one interprets these works that way, and the reason Genesis is ever taken literally,

Yes people do read literally and believe Genesis to be a literal account as it presents itself.
variant said:
because it is placed within the scope of a certain Christian doctrines.
There are many “Christian doctrines” today that present the creation account as non-literal. There are Christian Doctrines that also present it as literal.
variant said:
Taken by itself, apart from a certian Christianity, Genesis wouldn’t necessarily be interpreted literally, and probably would not be interpreted literally, as we find with other texts.
It writings stood alone, apart of "Christianity" for centuries before Christianity was ever a thought in the minds of mankind. It certainly has the merit to continue to do so today. It has only been a mere 150 years since its authenticity to be read literally even begun to be questioned. There is no reason given in the account or by the author that would suggest it should not be understood literally.

---------------------



 
Upvote 0

Deamiter

I just follow Christ.
Nov 10, 2003
5,226
347
Visit site
✟32,525.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Actually it's been around 500 years (since the end of the dark ages) that people have challenged how the church traditionally interpreted the Bible. It was about 100 years before darwin (or 250 years ago) that geology started to erode the concept of a global flood and significantly change the timeline of prehistory.

Anyway, since you're apparently unwilling to read the whole article (though it's VERY good, and much MUCH more readable than any scientific paper since it purposefully avoids jargon common to geology) here's the significant portions outlining the geological column in North Dakota. Note that a short discussion of why this represents the entire column is presented at the beginning of the paper. I'm not sure precisely how you expect somebody to outline the entire geological column in one paragraph to support the claim that the whole geological column exists in North Dakota. Still, if you like you could read just the conclusions (they're placed at the end).

Edited to add: the main point of this discussion is to show that nowhere in the entire geological column -- down to the precambrium strata -- could the flood have occured. It's in response to a particular claim that if one of the layers could NOT have been created by the flood, then that layer is either above or below the REAL flood layer.

 
Upvote 0

Oliver

Senior Member
Apr 5, 2002
639
23
52
Visit site
✟23,492.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married

Precisely: Genesis does not say or imply anything specific about the moon, which makes it useless as a tool to understand what the moon really is or where does this light come from.

And the same is true of most of the other points made in Genesis. What does it tell us about botanics, appart from "plants exist and are different from animals"? Nothing much actually. Nothing about photosynthesis, the structure of plants, their use of CO2, etc (all really basic stuff).

Amazing how people can find ways to even twist literal statements to say what they want them to say in order to 'falsify' them. ...

---------------------------------------

Actually, to suggest that the Bible teaches that the moon doesn't have "light of its own" is just as much a twisting of this verse. After all, what we get from a "plain reading" of this verse is that the moon IS a "great light".

So for it not to contradict what we know about the moon, you need to really not read much into it, which makes it quite useless as a description of the moon.
 
Upvote 0

Oliver

Senior Member
Apr 5, 2002
639
23
52
Visit site
✟23,492.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Edmond said:
[/font][/color]

It certainly has the merit to continue to do so today. It has only been a mere 150 years since its authenticity to be read literally even begun to be questioned.

Actually, it's been much more than that: st Augustine wrote quite a lot about this very subject, some 1600 years ago, and AFAIK, it's not sure that an absolute literal reading was the rule before that time.
 
Upvote 0

Joman

Active Member
Sep 9, 2005
337
1
70
✟15,482.00
Faith
Christian
Does Genesis ever mention air? In fact, the concept of life-giving air was not really understood before Lavoisier and Dalton and others only a couple of centuries ago.

Genesis 2:7: And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Joman.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,142
Visit site
✟98,015.00
Faith
Agnostic
Edmond said:
My point is that the entire geologic 'time table' and 'record' are based on assumption.


What assumptions?

The assumed dates and order of the fossil are used as the basis of dating the assumed age of the geologic strata. Conversely, the assumed dates of the strata is used to date the fossil. Both are based on assumption.

Bullpucky. The geologic strata are dated by the ratio of isotopes in the igneous rocks above and below the strata.


Are you really saying that the geologic record, in it's entirety, does not exist anywhere in the world? It exists in at least 25 places, one of which is in North Dakota. If you need a quote, try the very first paragraph from the site that Valkhorn cites: "This article is a detailed examination of the young earth creationist claim that the geologic column does not exist. It is shown that the entire geologic column exists in North Dakota. I do this not to disprove the Bible but to encourage Christians who are in the area of apologetics to do a better job of getting the facts straight."

IOW, the author of the article is trying to keep you from spreading lies penned by your creationist heroes.
 
Upvote 0