Jump to content
IGNORED

Genesis: an exposition of the text


thilipsis

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Senior Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  12
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  711
  • Content Per Day:  0.28
  • Reputation:   266
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  04/12/2017
  • Status:  Offline

On 12/4/2016 at 9:08 AM, Bonky said:

This is to say, the Bible will be used to defend the claims in the Bible, correct?

I would agree that darwinian evolution is in conflict with Christian theology, but having said that we still somehow have people like Dr. Francis Collins.

The Bible claims only God can create life - so far science has no proof to the contrary - nothing in the lab can create a single celled life form like an amoeba (eukaryote) or even a bacteria (prokaryote) from  a rock, or dust, or gas (the basics of what we had to start with on planet Earth)

 

What is more... the claim that "a bacteria will turn into a rabbit over time" given a talented enough bacteria and a long and talented enough length of time filled with improbable just-so events .. has never been demonstrated in science.

Edited by BobRyan
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Nonbeliever
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  2
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  738
  • Content Per Day:  0.21
  • Reputation:   346
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  05/28/2014
  • Status:  Offline

5 hours ago, BobRyan said:

The Bible claims only God can create life - so far science has no proof to the contrary - nothing in the lab can create a single celled life form like an amoeba (eukaryote) or even a bacteria (prokaryote) from  a rock, or dust, or gas (the basics of what we had to start with on planet Earth)

It's not the job of scientists to show "proof to the contrary", it's the job of apologists to show evidence in support.

 

5 hours ago, BobRyan said:

What is more... the claim that "a bacteria will turn into a rabbit over time" given a talented enough bacteria and a long and talented enough length of time filled with improbable just-so events .. has never been demonstrated in science.

It hasn't been demonstrated because it's not a claim to begin with.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Senior Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  12
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  711
  • Content Per Day:  0.28
  • Reputation:   266
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  04/12/2017
  • Status:  Offline

1 hour ago, Bonky said:

It's not the job of scientists to show "proof to the contrary", it's the job of apologists to show evidence in support.

It hasn't been demonstrated because it's not a claim to begin with.  

Real science is all about showing proof in support of its thesis/claims/sweeping-statements.

If I say "only God can build a house" then it would not take much "science effort" to document the fact that people can build houses.

If I claim that a turtle descends from the heavens and makes a hurricane each time one is found to occur - it would not take science long to show the steering winds and conditions that generated that storm. You are free to argue that they are not "showing proof to the contrary" of my claims about a turtle - but in those cases they are showing proof in support of a competing/opposing explanation for the same event. 

Edited by BobRyan
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Senior Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  12
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  711
  • Content Per Day:  0.28
  • Reputation:   266
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  04/12/2017
  • Status:  Offline

Only God can create life. In Matthew 4 when Satan tempts Christ - his first temptation relies on the fact that "only God can create life" - he challenges Christ to turn stone into bread "if thou be the Son of God"

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Senior Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  12
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  711
  • Content Per Day:  0.28
  • Reputation:   266
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  04/12/2017
  • Status:  Offline

The text of Genesis is written as historic account. That is the "type of literature that it is".

This is so clear that Darwin could not avoid it. And the same is true of Dawkins, Provine, P.Z. Meyers etc. 

In fact according to James Barr --

 

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Nonbeliever
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  2
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  738
  • Content Per Day:  0.21
  • Reputation:   346
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  05/28/2014
  • Status:  Offline

16 hours ago, BobRyan said:

Real science is all about showing proof in support of its thesis/claims/sweeping-statements.

If I say "only God can build a house" then it would not take much "science effort" to document the fact that people can build houses.

If I claim that a turtle descends from the heavens and makes a hurricane each time one is found to occur - it would not take science long to show the steering winds and conditions that generated that storm. You are free to argue that they are not "showing proof to the contrary" of my claims about a turtle - but in those cases they are showing proof in support of a competing/opposing explanation for the same event. 

And in my experience when dealing with religious claims I can try to show you the hurricane is naturally occurring you could simply retort "It just looks that way, the turtle is invisible and he's causing the winds and conditions".  

Regarding your first statement about God building houses, we know a lot more about how houses are built than about the nature of the existence of a Universe and the nature/existence of organic life.  I don't object to those who believe God created life, I only object to those who say "The only explanation is that God created life".   

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Senior Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  12
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  711
  • Content Per Day:  0.28
  • Reputation:   266
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  04/12/2017
  • Status:  Offline

9 minutes ago, Bonky said:

And in my experience when dealing with religious claims I can try to show you the hurricane is naturally occurring you could simply retort "It just looks that way, the turtle is invisible and he's causing the winds and conditions".  

True - the question is not whether one of the zillions of religions on the planet can "make something up" the question is about the way that science actually works - the difference between smoke and mirrors - vs observable fact - reproducible experiment etc and the fact that experiments can be done to rule out things like a flat earth (for example) or turtles holding up the earth etc.

Edited by BobRyan
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Senior Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  12
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  711
  • Content Per Day:  0.28
  • Reputation:   266
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  04/12/2017
  • Status:  Offline

10 minutes ago, Bonky said:

Regarding your first statement about God building houses, we know a lot more about how houses are built than about the nature of the existence of a Universe and the nature/existence of organic life.  I don't object to those who believe God created life, I only object to those who say "The only explanation is that God created life".   

True that we can "observe" claims proven true or false about building houses -- but the door is wide open to wild guesswork when it comes to things that science can neither reproduce nor observe (such as the creation of life... the creation of a planet, or solar system). Lots of wild stories for example about the interior of Jupiter changed significantly after the Shoemaker Levi impacts. Science goes from wild-story to increasingly less wild as more actual facts surface 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Nonbeliever
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  2
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  738
  • Content Per Day:  0.21
  • Reputation:   346
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  05/28/2014
  • Status:  Offline

19 minutes ago, BobRyan said:

True that we can "observe" claims proven true or false about building houses -- but the door is wide open to wild guesswork when it comes to things that science can neither reproduce nor observe (such as the creation of life... the creation of a planet, or solar system). Lots of wild stories for example about the interior of Jupiter changed significantly after the Shoemaker Levi impacts. Science goes from wild-story to increasingly less wild as more actual facts surface 

Therein lies my comfort with science more so than religion.  Science can often [not always] get closer to what isn't true leaving us a better picture of what might be true.  Religion has no interest in uncertainty, it declares what is true and any questioning coming from outside that worldview is often met with ad hominem comments.   I'm not necessarily referring to anyone here, I mean in my experience in general.

Edited by Bonky
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  11
  • Topic Count:  19
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,396
  • Content Per Day:  0.91
  • Reputation:   730
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  12/21/2013
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/26/1963

1 hour ago, Bonky said:

Therein lies my comfort with science more so than religion.  

1.  Christianity isn't a 'religion'.

2. And it is You who adhere to 'religion'.  In fact, it's Blind/Deaf/Dumb and "Scientifically Falsified" 'Religion: (Philosophical Naturalism/ Realism, aka Atheism).

"The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness [mind independent reality-- Philosophical Naturalism/ Realism, aka: atheism] turns out to be IN CONFLICT with QUANTUM MECHANICS and with facts established *BY EXPERIMENT*."--- 
Bernard d'Espagnat (Particle Physicist): The Quantum Theory and Reality; Scientific American, 1979, p. 151.

 

Every double-slit experiment, 2) Every delayed choice experiment, 3) Every quantum eraser experiment, 4) Every experiment that combines any of 1,2,3 show exactly the same results - if the *'which-path' Information* is known or can be known - No Interference (Matter Existing); Conversely, if the *'which-path' Information* is NOT known and can't ever be known, there is Interference (No Matter).

That is: 

"Matter" (Our Reality) doesn't exist without, FIRST:
 
A "Knower"/Existence of the "Which-Path" Information.

Experiments: Which one of the Thousands (Without Exception !!) would you like??

Let's make it quick...

To overturn the Scientific Falsification of "Locality" and by direct proxy ---- Materialism/Realism (Atheism); whereby invalidating Idealism "Christianity" (which is not a "religion", btw) and as an ancillary benefit collect yourself a 'Feather in your Cap' Nobel Prize... Please take up the *Quantum Randi Challenge* (arXiv:1207.5294, 23 July 2012)

https://arxiv.org/abs/1207.5294

http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/official_quantum_randi_challenge-80168 ....

"The Quantum Randi Challenge, hence forth QRC, challenges any pseudo-scientist *[ YOU, as it were ]* who claims that quantum physics is not true and that quantum entanglement experiments can be explained by a classically realistic and locally causal model." https://arxiv.org/vc/arxiv/papers/1207/1207.5294v1.pdf

A Nobel Prize AND $1,000,000(USD) is being offered: All you have to do is...

Prove Naive Realism or Local Realism is True and not Observation Dependent.

4 Years + and still no takers, I wonder why?

Phlogiston theory has more veracity and is more tenable than your position.

 

Werner Heisenberg Pioneer of Quantum Mechanics, (Nobel Prize, Physics)...
 
"The first gulp from the glass of natural science will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you." 
[“Der erste Trunk aus dem Becher der Naturwissenschaft macht atheistisch, aber auf dem Grund des Bechers wartet Gott.”] (Heisenberg, as cited in Hildebrand 1988, p. 10)

Appears some have yet to acquire the Glass.

 

Quote

Religion has no interest in uncertainty, it declares what is true and any questioning coming from outside that worldview is often met with ad hominem comments.

Yep, a Perfect Self-Assessment; Please Cease and Desist.

 

regards 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...