The Genesis Account and Science

[Saquist]

Truly you aren't a stupid person, so I'm assuming then that you refuse to think the issue through critically because you have a conclusion to which you seek only those "facts" which support it whilst ignoring any that do not.

I'm hurt. You don't think I've thought the matter through?
But I know this to wrong. I've considered the facts...all of them and have asked for clarification from you on this forum, who proclaim to be experts.

If biblical mythology has origins in other texts, texts which include a pantheon of gods which partake in a host of magical, superstitious, and completely paranormal activities that range from creating people from mudbricks, splitting each other in half (Tiamat) to create the sky and the earth, and so on, then we are left to conclude: 1) biblical accounts are written after earlier texts; 2) earlier texts are considered by all to be myth; 3) biblical accounts include clear and obvious portions of these earlier texts; 4) biblical accounts are based on myth; 5) biblical accounts are myth.

All that from the word before but no substanital evidnce drawing direct links...I'm sorry I can't except before as a rational reason for such a conclusive peace of poetry.

This often occurs when woo-woo's, cranks, and proponents of pseudoscientific notions decide to post their wacky claims in science boards. Sorry. If you can't deal with the ridicule, stick to actual science instead of pseudoscience or don't post wacky claims.

I understand...I shall fortify myself further before your onslaught.

Not in any way you've demonstrated. There are a hundreds if not thousands of theologians, historians, and epigraphers that have made a very good case for it. Among the best works that make the point in a very salient and yet to be successfully refuted manner are The Hidden Book in the Bible, by Richard Friedman and The Book of J, by Harold Bloom. And it isn't that I've "done my homework" so much as I've participated in higher education.

I congrulate you on your higher education.

Your insistence that the notion "is completely incredulous" is hardly a refutation of their scholarship. Nor is it convincing in any way to anyone that didn't begin reading Genesis already with a conclusion/delusion that it was literal truth. Such a critical mind is able to see the literary devices used in Genesis and other books and pick out where the "J" the "P" and the "E" sources pick up and leave off with relative ease once one knows what to look for. The ignorant and the undereducated of course may have some difficulty with it.

It's your job to offer analysis of what is shown on this thread. I can't "imagine" what you might be objecting too nor can I read your mind. GIve me facts, I'll address them...I've give you facts and observation...none of which contradict science. That which doesn't contradict science is therefore scientific...

It might not follow if that were the only motif present. It isn't. The actual literary style changes as well as the details which present inconsistencies. The order of creation from the "E" to the "J" sources, for instance. There are many reasons why it completely follows that there are different authors of Genesis and other books, consistently and predictably "J," "E," and "P." Your insistence that it is a non sequitur doesn't make it so. Misspelling the fallacy doesn't help either.

But know of that matters...the reasons for there statements of differing authors are all and insignificant...ALL of them and to make a conclusion on origins is akin to offering indictment and conviction on handwriting...It's not done and it's not conclussive. These kind of accusastion have been spun endlessly from all 66 books... But all they have is the hand writing and it other cases there conclusions seem pickish...none of it conclussive...

They're not even true anomallies to a persons writing characteristics only variation.

You have nothing here...but I know my words are forefeit...(did I spell it right?) I will gather others...

Wonderful. Finally you'll show us evidence. Until now its been naught but pseudoscience: your claiming that things in Genesis are "scientifically sound" just because you can make some vague and non-specific correlations

.

Sounds like evolution...

My goal is to debunk bullshit. Which *I* have done. The point of this thread was clearly for you to justify your pseudoscientific opinions and deluded beliefs of Christian fundamentalism. In your mind, you've shown us all the "scientific relevancy" to your delusions, but not a single salient point was made with regard to Genesis and science on your part. Perhaps I overlooked it, however, so I'm more than willing to be rebuffed if you'd be so kind as to summarize your "scientifically relevant" points in one post. Obviously, after reading my reply below, the following bits are excluded.

It was moved to the religous forum becase it so...lit you guys up...

I'm sorry. Where did you demonstrate this? Not a single post you've made has shown this to be true.

IF I say I did then I did so...maybe not to your satisfaction but it did occur.

Really? Have you read them all? How many creation stories will I need list that show the creation of the universe then the earth, in that order, before you recant or revise your wild claim? Please answer this one even if you ignore the rest of my post.

No I haven't read them all.

You're kidding, right? Because the authors of Genesis figured out that the universe must have existed first then the earth, this adds something "scientific" to your claims? This is a clear example of pseudoscience where one uses "science" and "scientific notions" to support complete and utter nonsense. Moreover, the Genesis account clearly creates the universe after the Earth. The stars and the sun follow the creation of the Earth and all the plants. The authors of Genesis are easily forgiven in their ignorance since science was still very much a process in its infancy.

The creation of light first. And an expanse of time (undefined) that the Earth existed before it came to first day to be molded by God's purposes...possibily billions of years

So you're saying its "scientifically sound" for light to exist prior to stars? As I said, we can easily forgive the authors of Genesis. You, however, remain completely unforgiven in your ignorance and misapplied education.

You're ignoring post...When you acknowledge that post you can claim that I have not observed scientificly of the bible.



If you're calling this science, I'm calling you pseudoscientific. You pretend to be science, and your facade is a weak one.

Oh, trust me. I'm leaving this one open. You deserve every bit of ridicule, sarcasm, and criticism you get. I'll delete or give infraction to anyone that goes so far as to use insults that cannot be qualified or which are profane, but if you get called "deluded" or "ignorant" (which I have done), then you've earned it. These are qualifiable and quantifiable descriptions that, while may seem offensive to you, are accurate.

batter up...

 

[Saquist]

You can't help because there are no scientific facts presented in any of your posts.

Your failure to list them demonstrates this.

Now, lets move on and hope that Saquist will, at some point, adhere to his promise in the OP and show us some. Which he admits through omission of answering requests that he has not done to date.

Glad to have cleared that up.

Moderator's Note: For those just joining the thread, Saquist has yet to produce any scientifically facts in support of his claim that Genesis has "scientific relevance." We are hopeful that he will. In the mean time, please review one of my earlier posts in this thread for genuine scientific relevance, which can only truly come in the form of anthropological, psychological, and sociological contexts, including epigraphical.

The moderator is wrong and obviously biased as to use his moderating abilities to sway public opinion.

 

[SkinWalker]

The pseudoscience proponent is left with the burden of proof. Please show the evidence the moderator is wrong and the moderator will cheerfully revise his position.

 

[NDS]

Saquist, how do dinosaurs and cavemen fit into the Genesis account?
Also, are you a "young earth" or "old earth" creationist?

Sorry if you have already answered these in earlier posts.

 

[Saquist]

They don't the bible doesn't mention them...It doesn't mean it didn't happen it just means it didn't mention it.

NDS...I'm not a creationist...I don't believe in young earth theories or that the dinosaurs were on the Ark...

All evidence points to these animalls being ancient in origin. Young earth's propposition that that they were on the Ark isn't fully thoughtout that is the difference.

Skinwalker...I will do my very best to meet your challenge. I have no animosity toward you but you're obviously biased here...I'll be prepared to fully address you in some aspects..the ones I've researched.

However if you put up a reason wall you might as well close the thread now...
There is enough on the thread currently for individuals to make a propper conclusion about the bible, YET there is so much more...

 

[SnakeLord]

I can't help you if you don't show some cooperation.

I'm more than willing to cooperate, but if you think I'll sit idly by and just nod whenever you claim you're using "science" think again. Now, kindly answer the questions I have posed over the last few posts.

If you can, kindly point out where there is science in your posts and I shall take a further look at them. Many thanks.

 

[Saquist]

But you're not cooperating. you're answering question with question and I can't glean any understanding of what you want as long as you keep presenting a "reason wall" as your arguement.

You need to tell me what you're looking for so that I can spell it out in the language you require.

There is a schism and you're not helping to bridge it. communicate in detail what you expect me to answer and why my explanation have been lacking...

You know how to do this...proceede.

 

[SnakeLord]

you're answering question with question and I can't glean any understanding of what you want as long as you keep presenting a "reason wall" as your arguement.

You're being dishonest. You know full well that what I "want" is for you to show where in any of your posts there is "science". You continually blame everyone around you for your own failures, but rest assured the failures are all yours. Now, here is what I want in plain English:

I.. want.. you.. to.. show.. me.. where.. there.. is.. science.. in.. your.. posts.

You need to tell me what you're looking for so that I can spell it out in the language you require.

Looking for: Science in your posts.

Language required: English.

communicate in detail what you expect me to answer and why my explanation have been lacking...

Are we talking different languages here? I haven't presented any "reason walls" and I haven't asked for a great deal from you. Once again: Show me where in your posts there is any science. Thank you.

Stop running away from something as simple as I have asked of you. The only reason you would continue to do so is because you know you cannot successfully answer.

 

[Saquist]

I..don't...know.. what ...you ...want...to show...you...that...I haven't...already said...

LOL

 

[SnakeLord]

Once again: I understand that English is not your first language, and it is clear that there is some difficulty crossing that language barrier - but what I have asked for isn't something I would personally consider as ultimately challenging.

I can't personally see anything of science in your posts thus far. I would be grateful if you could point to a specific paragraph/statement that is scientific and supports your claims concerning Genesis.

If this fails to worm it's way into your noodle I'm going to have to resort to drawing pictures. Please do not let it go that far, my drawing ability sucks ass.

I am also somewhat dismayed at your lack of acknowledging rebuttals as evidenced time and time again in this thread. For instance on page 1 where you make your "formless, watery, rocky" claim which is then argued by Ophi who says from a scientific standpoint the earth was not watery etc. What did you have to say in rebuttal to this?

"Excellent...to continue."

Is that a debate to anything? Do you disagree or agree with what has been said? Were you even interested in what he had to say on the matter or are you more interested in the sound of your own voice? That is how it appears, and I find it sickening and yet amusing at the same time.

You then go on to say that a "day" isn't necessarily a 'day' as we know it and thus when the bible says 6 days it actually agrees with science by actually meaning billions of years.

That argument is so f***ing daft I almost pissed my pants. If you can't see the inherent idiocy in it then I doubt anyone here can help.

If you feel there is something you have said that is scientific, please point it out. Use ctrl+c to copy and ctrl+v to paste. I'm really not asking too much from you.

 

[NDS]

Gen 6:4

There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

Saquist, Genesis also claims that angels came down and bonked women on the earth, producing supermen.

Are you willing to back this claim up as well?

 

[Saquist]

Nephillium: Fellers of men:

what do you mean...back up...

I must be honest that I've not consider or investigated this scripture.

 

[NDS]

By back up, I mean "rationalize it around science" like you have attempted to do with the creation story.

 

[Saquist]

I looked up this term...
pseudo science:

pseu·do·sci·ence /ˌsudoʊˈsaɪəns/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[soo-doh-sahy-uhns] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun any of various methods, theories, or systems, as astrology, psychokinesis, or clairvoyance, considered as having no scientific basis

Further...

Pseudoscience is any body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that claims to be scientific but does not follow the scientific method.[1] Pseudosciences may appear scientific, but they do not adhere to the testability requirement of the scientific method[2] and are often in conflict with current scientific consensus.

The term pseudoscience appears to have been first used in 1843[3] as a combination of the Greek root pseudo, meaning false, and the Latin scientia, meaning knowledge or a field of knowledge. The term has negative connotations, because it is used to indicate that subjects so labeled are inaccurately or deceptively portrayed as science.[4] Accordingly, those labeled as practicing or advocating a "pseudoscience" normally reject this classification.

As it is taught in certain introductory science classes, pseudoscience is any subject that appears superficially to be scientific or whose proponents state is scientific but nevertheless contravenes the testability requirement of the scientific method.[5] Professor Paul DeHart Hurd[6] argued that a large part of gaining scientific literacy is being able to distinguish science from pseudo-science such as astrology, quackery, the occult, and superstition.[7] Certain introductory survey classes in science take careful pains to delineate the objections scientists and skeptics have to practices that make direct claims contradicted by the scientific discipline in question.[8]

Beyond the initial introductory analyses offered in science classes, there is some epistemological disagreement about whether it is possible to distinguish "science" from "pseudoscience" in a reliable and objective way.[9]

so does this mean that since a theory can't be proven like chaos theory or String Theory or Evolution that they are considered pseudo science?

 

[NDS]

I must be honest that I've not consider or investigated this scripture.

You haven't considered or investigated much, have you?

 

[Saquist]

By back up, I mean "rationalize it around science" like you have attempted to do with the creation story.

I have a lack of knowledge in the area. I'd have to break it down and do the investigating. Not something on the agenda right now. I'll of course studing up on it later.

 

[NDS]

Earlier you claimed not to be a creationist. Why the argument for scientific soundness of the Genesis account then? Just curious.

 

[SnakeLord]

Second stage: When someone asks you to support your claims but you can't, ignore them and hope they forget that they asked.

 

[Saquist]

Earlier you claimed not to be a creationist. Why the argument for scientific soundness of the Genesis account then? Just curious.

I'm a realalist NDS, it's not just about finding where the bible is correct.
Now as a Christian I've been through the bible...as young as I am twice. There is a considerable amount of continuity between those 40 authors and 66 books.

I'm an amaetur astronomer and space has always held a certain allure to me. I was raised to be investigative, I'm an artist aswell and I appreciate the beauty in what I illistrate mechanicaly and naturaly.


Basicly my argument is simple, if the bible got it right then it got it right.
I'm not intrested in the implications that snakelord and Skinwalker are trying to avoid. That there is an intelligent force behind some of these acts.
Now, it's allowed me to make a decsion about religion but objectively...

No. If something is right, it's right. I'd don't have an objective in this matter. Knowledge illistrates this. Creationist specificly believe that the Earth is either litterally six days old or 6,000 years old. I find that bias toward the bible and tradition for a host of reasons. And I'm squarely against pointless tradition. Yet that's what the world has made out of the bible...a series of meaningless and doctrinal traditions. No one cares why you do them you just do them because it's how it's always been done.

No I don't play that game.
Science has roots in religion. The attitudes that science recielved from religion hasn't changed. Ridicule, deny, discredit, ridicule, ignore.
Not everyone does this but so many do that the agenda is clear.

This is how irrational individuals behave.
They never try to settle the differences through communication and last thing they wish to do is given any consideration to an opposing view.

It's about the balance of reason. Let me sum up the Creationist error.
The bible either says 6 days or it doesn't. The only overriding reason we can find is in the Hebrew language, grammar, context, repeated opposing use to the meaning we've intially been told. All those Markers have been found and more.

So you can either beleive it litteral because it said so or you can go a little deeper and inform yourself on the uses of words...I've chosen to do the latter, language demands it to accertain what is litteral and what is metaphorical.

 

[Saquist]

On the creation account "after status" of other creation stories...I remember a quote from P.J. Wiseman.

He points out that when the Babylonian creation tablets were discovered scholars made a simple prediction. They assumed that a future discovery and research would show that there was a corresponding traits between the creation account of Genesis and the Babylonian account.

As you did Skinwalker they assumed before meant first and always and after meant "duplication".

Those discoveries never happened and research showed that they were more different than alike.

He says and I found his exact quote. "It is more than a pity that many theologians instead of keeping abreast of modern archaeological research, continue to repeat the now disproved theory of Hebrew 'borrowing's from Babylonian sources"- Creation Revealed in Six Days, Londonp p.58

Yeah, I've read the same WIki page on Genesis. It didn't include this and it seemed your post duplicated the Wiki source and perhaps others I've seen on the internet. You did a good job of summarizing the entry and showed great understanding of what you read....However your research was not complete.