The problem of the Green River Formation

[JackRT]

You fail. He said ONE verse.

I was worried that someone would pick up on that.

 

[juvenissun]

A seriously easy challenge. How about any verse that describes a miracle...

All descriptions of miracles are not physically and chemically correct. That is exactly what the Bible tries to say.

 

[juvenissun]

Genesis 30:37 Jacob, however, took fresh-cut branches from poplar, almond and plane trees and made white stripes on them by peeling the bark and exposing the white inner wood of the branches. 38 Then he placed the peeled branches in all the watering troughs, so that they would be directly in front of the flocks when they came to drink. When the flocks were in heat and came to drink, 39 they mated in front of the branches. And they bore young that were streaked or speckled or spotted. 40 Jacob set apart the young of the flock by themselves, but made the rest face the streaked and dark-colored animals that belonged to Laban. Thus he made separate flocks for himself and did not put them with Laban’s animals. 41 Whenever the stronger females were in heat, Jacob would place the branches in the troughs in front of the animals so they would mate near the branches, 42 but if the animals were weak, he would not place them there. So the weak animals went to Laban and the strong ones to Jacob. 43 In this way the man grew exceedingly prosperous and came to own large flocks, and female and male servants, and camels and donkeys.

I am not good in biology. Could you tell me what's wrong with these verses?

 

[JackRT]

I am not good in biology. Could you tell me what's wrong with these verses?

Inheritable characteristics are not determined by what you are looking at during the sex act. These verses represent folklore and legend.

 

[pitabread]

Evolution is a theoretical science. Unfortunately it is a low quality one.

I am not good in biology.

So... not good in biology, but still passing judgement on biological science.

How odd.

 

[juvenissun]

Inheritable characteristics are not determined by what you are looking at during the sex act. These verses represent folklore and legend.

No comment. Detail biological process is not my thing.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No comment. Detail biological process is not my thing.

So you ask him for clarification... then you just flat out ignore said clarification.
Wow.

ETA: And it wasn't even that detailed!

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Evolution is a theoretical science. Unfortunately it is a low quality one.

Really?

 

[juvenissun]

So... not good in biology, but still passing judgement on biological science.

How odd.

It depends. I do know pieces of biological common sense. Many issues go across disciplines so I don't have to know all sciences to make judgement.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It depends. I do know pieces of biological common sense. Many issues go across disciplines so I don't have to know all sciences to make judgement.

What is 'biological common sense'?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What is 'biological common sense'?

No such thing - unless you already have a good understanding of, and familiarity with, biological systems & processes.

 

[JackRT]

Evolution is a theoretical science.

In science theory is as good as it gets.

 

[GlabrousDory4]

Do you even know why do theoretical sciences exist and are extremely valuable?

Yes. Granted a lot of my career has been as a lab based science I fully understand the value of theoretical science.

Evolution is a theoretical science. Unfortunately it is a low quality one.

Not really.

 

[GlabrousDory4]

Show me ONE verse in the Bible which does not fit the current understanding of physics or chemistry.

This is a serious challenge to you. Otherwise, take your words back.

I believe that is what all the miracles in the Bible are. That's kind of the point. But I'm more interested in how a Genesis creation account requires violation of almost all known science...assuming one reads the account literally.

At which point you have a creation that took 6 days but we have radioisotope data that shows it took a lot longer. If the earth were really <10,000 years old the heat generated from the radioactive decay of the isotopes we use to date rocks would have baked the surface of the earth and there's the concept of radioactive decay rates. How would they have changed SO DRAMATICALLY?

The Genesis account also fails in the creation order. Seed bearing plants before the creation of the sun. Seed bearing plants before life in the oceans? Birds before land animals? We don't see any of that in the actual physical record.

There's no way (short of a miracle, ie a violation of standard physical laws) that I can see how an earth could be formed in 6 days that matches the earth we have here.

 

[juvenissun]

I believe that is what all the miracles in the Bible are. That's kind of the point. But I'm more interested in how a Genesis creation account requires violation of almost all known science...assuming one reads the account literally.

At which point you have a creation that took 6 days but we have radioisotope data that shows it took a lot longer. If the earth were really <10,000 years old the heat generated from the radioactive decay of the isotopes we use to date rocks would have baked the surface of the earth and there's the concept of radioactive decay rates. How would they have changed SO DRAMATICALLY?

The Genesis account also fails in the creation order. Seed bearing plants before the creation of the sun. Seed bearing plants before life in the oceans? Birds before land animals? We don't see any of that in the actual physical record.

There's no way (short of a miracle, ie a violation of standard physical laws) that I can see how an earth could be formed in 6 days that matches the earth we have here.

Creation can not be reasoned by any science.
The sequence of creation is absolutely correct. Plants appeared before suns is perfectly scientific.

 

[GlabrousDory4]

Creation can not be reasoned by any science.

So you make my point for me. Creation (as presented in literal Genesis) has nothing to do with science and science cannot be used to understand it.

The sequence of creation is absolutely correct. Plants appeared before suns is perfectly scientific.

OK. It's your faith I don't really want to debate your faith per se. I agree that Genesis says that God created light before plants but where was that light? It wasn't coming from the sun which was created after plants and since today (and in fact all throughout history) the light plants have always used is from the sun (the only major light source the earth has today...Genesis even got that one wrong calling the moon a "lesser light").

The other creation orders are still wrong (birds before land animals? Not in the record. Seed bearing plants before sea life? Again, not in the actual record).

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The sequence of creation is absolutely correct. Plants appeared before suns is perfectly scientific.

How?

 

[juvenissun]

OK. It's your faith I don't really want to debate your faith per se. I agree that Genesis says that God created light before plants but where was that light? It wasn't coming from the sun which was created after plants and since today (and in fact all throughout history) the light plants have always used is from the sun (the only major light source the earth has today...Genesis even got that one wrong calling the moon a "lesser light").

According to physics and astronomy, we have "ambient light" in the universe. Now it is in microwave range. But what light once was it?

 

[juvenissun]

birds before land animals

I can not argue much about this, I am not a dedicated paleontologist. However, birds showed up in Mesozoic. It is not that much later than most land animals. At least, the Bible does not say land animals (in Day 6) are created before marine animals (in Day 5).
I do wish I could understand more biology, so I can be more satisfied by the creation sequence described in Day 5 and Day 6.

 

[pitabread]

It depends. I do know pieces of biological common sense. Many issues go across disciplines so I don't have to know all sciences to make judgement.

You appear to be making stuff up.