Lets try to Understand Genesis whilst believing Evolution.

JimiTime

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Humm... are we straying?

As long as big science papers are not written, I think its grand. Christians arguing their positions about why genesis is literal or metephor or both etc is exactly where we should be IMO. While I second Brians earlier views about its importance, its still a very interesting topic, and may reveal itself to be more important than first realised with the explainations that may be given. I suppose we will see.

All i can hope for is no locking or moving the thread;):)

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Humm... are we straying?

I think the monster Creationist thread is there for anyone who wants to try and argue with others for the correctness of their position, either for or against literal interpretation or for or against the science.

This thread seems more, if I'm following the OP, for explaining positions, getting a broad idea of what people believe on this matter and why they believe it, rather than arguing with each other that position X is correct and position Y is wrong and heres why.

So by all means Wolfsbane should put forward his personal position, but I think if anyone wants to get into the nitty gritty about why it is right or wrong perhaps they should take it to the other thread. Otherwise this thread just becomes a repeat of that one.

Just my view.

Fanny Cradock

You guys are correct. I guess I am just terribly (over)anxious that we dont start another creationism thread. As it stands, though, this thread is very interesting.

Forget I said anything.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

You know God exists.

• We all know the scientific method works pretty well (hence computers!) and evolution has withstood the onslaught of scientific evaluation. The idea that of evolution not being accurate are ridiculous implausible as it would require nearly every evolutionary biology experiment in the last 50 years to have just been a weird fluke. Creationists like to go on about the "interpretation of the evidence", but science is not about interpretation it is about testing and the observed evidence either matches the predictions of your theory or it doesn't. You can't fudge that. You can certainly lie about it, but the Creationist idea that the worlds biologists are all united in some secret conspiriacy to pervert the truth is equally implausible
• Evolution is only one scientific theory that conflicts with literal reading of Genesis, there are hundreds more all of which have again withstood the onslaught of scientific evaluation.
• You know God doesn't lie, and thus wouldn't be fudging the science.

Hmmm. I'm sure you've seen the optical illusion picture entitled along the lines: Old Hag/Young Lady. The one picture (made up of bits of information) from which two interpretations can be easily extracted (if only you've the eyes to see)?

Now suppose folk were interpreting scientific evidence so as to arrive at the conclusion "Old Hag" - when the same evidence could as easily be interpreted "Young Lady"?

It wouldn't be a case of God lying were this the case. It would be a case of folk mis-interpreting the evidence and arriving at a wrong conclusion. No great worry for a Christian (seeing as they are saved by grace - not by their correctly interpreting scientific evidence). But telling for the non-Christian who would support their unbelief by believing in atheistic evolution.

The context is slightly different but lets not suppose God will be mocked by mans puffed-up dispensing with the need for him.

9The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, 10and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Hmmm. I'm sure you've seen the optical illusion picture entitled along the lines: Old Hag/Young Lady. The one picture (made up of bits of information) from which two interpretations can be easily extracted (if only you've the eyes to see)?

Now suppose folk were interpreting scientific evidence so as to arrive at the conclusion "Old Hag" - when the same evidence could as easily be interpreted "Young Lady"?

It wouldn't be a case of God lying were this the case. It would be a case of folk mis-interpreting the evidence and arriving at a wrong conclusion.

It is a myth of creationists and others pushing pseudoscience that science is about conclusions reached through the interpretation of evidence.

It would be great for them if it was because then anyone could say Well I'm interpreting it this way rather than that way. It becomes entirely subjective.

But that isn't what modern science is. Modern science is about predictive models, not interpretation. You don't interpret evidence and come to a conclusion. You look at your prediction and see if it matches.

This was highlighted inthe diver trial where the judge rejected the attempts by creationists to redefine science

wolfsbane

Fanny Cradock said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
You got it right about God existing, and about Him not lying. Pity about the delusional piece on science.

Understanding Genesis as historical narrative is the only natural option. Anything else is a forced interpretation and one that makes a nonsense of a defence of any other historical narrative in the Bible.
Did you get the chance to listen to that talk I posted a while back?

Yes, I did, and I hope to respond to it tomorrow.

Quite aside from evolutionary science (we wont go down that route on this thread) there are also other stumbuling blocks to a literal 6-day creation account. It was Origen, I believe, who pointed out that one cant have days before the 4th day because the Sun wasn´t created.

Which ignores the light created before the sun and moon. Whatever way we understand that, it was the original basis of the diurnal pattern, not the sun.
Genesis 1:3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.

For that matter, what is a day? Due to the moon´s influence, the earth´s rotation has dramatically slowed down since it was formed (a 5-hour day) and it continues to slow down. So, for example, this is why we have leap seconds. So I would assume that even the creationist would have to admit that the Genesis creation accounts aren´t to be taken as an exact account.

The Creationist accepts exactly what the Genesis account says is a day:
a. The light part of the day/night cycle.
b. The day/night cycle itself.

Genesis does not say it had to be exactly so many hours, minutes and seconds.

Either way I don´t actually have a problem with creationists believing what they do.

I appreciate that.

However, while I also understand Genesis as a type of history (albeit a particular type of elevated prose or poetic account), it doesn´t seem fair to state that it can only be understood in one way. Quite aside from the science, I believe there are some excellent reasons for not subscribing to a literal account.

If one's reasons for understanding that it means something other than a recent special creation are valid, then fine. It will of course leave us open to similar explanations for any apparently historical narrative in the Bible. We can't complain when they are metaphorised out of history.

But that is to jump ahead. I hope to show the reasons are not valid.

Humm... are we straying?

I think not - the scientific debate has been deported to its homeland, persona non grata.

Turtwig

wolfsbane wrote: »

The Creationist accepts exactly what the Genesis account says is a day:
a. The light part of the day/night cycle.
b. The day/night cycle itself.

I'm confused here you have this "light" created by God by which day becomes defined. You accept it is not the light from the sun that He refers to when calling stuff day and night.How does the creationist interpret the day in the bible, when does it change from unknown duration to solar day?

Sam Vimes

Wicknight wrote: »

It would be great for them if it was because then anyone could say Well I'm interpreting it this way rather than that way. It becomes entirely subjective.

But that isn't what modern science is. Modern science is about predictive models, not interpretation. You don't interpret evidence and come to a conclusion. You look at your prediction and see if it matches.

Exactimaly. Long before scientists found the fossils showing the transition from land mammals to whales they predicted that these beings must exist because of unmistakable genetic markers in whale DNA and their vestigial legs of course. They even predicted that there must be a transition from an inner ear adapted for hearing in the air to the one whales have that's perfect for hearing in the water. And that's exactly what they found

They didn't look at the fossils and then fit them into their theory like creationists do, they predicted they would find fossils just like these and then had their theories validated when their predictions happened

wolfsbane

Malty_T wrote: »

I'm confused here you have this "light" created by God by which day becomes defined. You accept it is not the light from the sun that He refers to when calling stuff day and night.How does the creationist interpret the day in the bible, when does it change from unknown duration to solar day?

It is the same duration as the days illuminated by the sun - an evening and a morning in both cases. The first three days are equated with the latter three by the description, in six days in the 4th Commandment,
Exodus 20:8 “ Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

chozometroid

Wicknight wrote: »

Modern science is about predictive models, not interpretation.
You don't interpret evidence and come to a conclusion.
You look at your prediction and see if it matches.

Clever what you did there...

wolfsbane

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Did you get the chance to listen to that talk I posted a while back?

From the Creation thread:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fanny Cradock
JC and Wolfsbane, I'm wondering, if you have an hour or so to spare, would you consider listening to this talk given by a chap called Earnest Lucas? He gives a talk about Genesis 1 - 3. I would be interested to hear you opinion on what he has to say.
http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/fara...94%20Lucas.mp3

Thanks again to Fanny for pointing us to this talk. I understand Dr. Lucas is a good representative of Theistic Evolution.

His talk threw up several enlightening points, enlightening as to the actual beliefs of Christian TE. These however only confirmed my fears about the doctrinal dangers it poses for the Christian.

1. He appeals to heretics and unbelievers as supporters of Genesis-as-metaphor:
ORIGEN. How anyone can hope to defend their argument by appealing to Origen's interpretation of the Bible, is beyond me. He is notorious for his heresy.
PHILO, A 1st C. BC Jewish philosopher influenced by Grecian thought and MAIMONIDES, a medieval Jewish Rabbi.

2. He misrepresents Augustine and Calvin. None of their comments on Genesis mean they did not hold to a creation of the earth and all on it about 6000 years ago, yet he implies they did not. See this helpful article on the Limerick Reformed Fellowship site:
Creation, Providence and Divine Accommodation: John Calvin and Modern Theories of Evolution by Erik Guichelaar
http://www.limerickreformed.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=23:calvins-doctrine-of-creation&catid=13:creation&Itemid=12

3. He misrepresents YEC. He says we hold that 'the only kind of truth is literal'. I know of no YEC person who believes this.

He says YEC rejects truth if it from secular sources. That is utterly false - we hold that all truth is God's truth, so whether it is a Christian or an atheist who makes a scientific discovery, we embrace it.

4. He seems to suggest the early scientists who were Christian were looking for an alternative explanation for the origin of the Universe. I have no idea who he is thinking of.

5. He argues that the Genesis creation account was written to counteract the pagan accounts: in the latter the sun and moon were gods, in Genesis they are mere creations; pagan thought had man as mere slaves of god, genesis has man in fellowship with God. It seems to me the implication he creates is that God gave a fictional account to counteract the pagan fictional one.

6. Argues that the anthropomorphic language in the account (God walks) must mean the account is all figurative. But would we do that with any other literature? Even in our daily life we mix idioms with historical narrative.

7. He is open to heresy himself:
a. There may not have been a beginning of the universe.
b. There may be human life in a parallel universe.
c. We are not necessarily physically descended from Adam - our sinful nature could be only figuratively from Adam. (I think I got him right on this - those of you who have listened also can please correct me).
d. Suffering and death are not the result of Adam's sin, but are a natural and necessary part of God's creation-by-evolution. Man was the desired outcome, and it took the billions of years of suffering and death to get there. Dr. Lucas uses the analogy of the sculptor and the block of wood: all the shavings on the floor are necessary for the beautiful object that was the artist's goal. A very meagre view of suffering and death indeed.

I think that is all I got from the lecture. If any of you picked up other points, I would be glad to see them.

Indeed, as I pointed out a little before, God himself has shown by the order of Creation that he created all things for man’s sake. For it is not without significance that he divided the making of the universe into six days [Gen 1:31], even though it would have been no more difficult for him to have completed in one moment the whole work together in all its details than to arrive at its completion gradually by a progression of this sort. But he willed to commend his providence and fatherly solicitude toward us in that, before he fashioned man, he prepared everything he foresaw would be useful and salutary for him.
Calvin,*Institutes, 181, 182. 1:14:22.

Sam Vimes

chozometroid wrote: »

Clever what you did there...

To pick an example, scientists use the theory of gravity to predict that a lunar eclipse will happen at X time on Y date in Z place. If people look up at the moon at that time on that date in that place and they don't see an eclipse then the prediction failed and the theory has been falsified. There's not much interpretation to be done.

Scientists say in detail what they expect to find in advance and then see if their findings tick all the boxes, such as the scientists who expected to find intermediary inner ears in the ancestors of whales showing a transition from land-adapted ones to water-adapted ones an that's exactly what they found. This is why, unlike scientists, people who claim to be able to predict the future always keep things vague because, unlike scientists, they can't actually predict the future.

chozometroid

Sam Vimes wrote: »

To pick an example, scientists use the theory of gravity to predict that a lunar eclipse will happen at X time on Y date in Z place. If people look up at the moon at that time on that date in that place and they don't see an eclipse then the prediction failed and the theory has been falsified. There's not much interpretation to be done.

Scientists say in detail what they expect to find in advance and then see if their findings tick all the boxes, such as the scientists who expected to find intermediary inner ears in the ancestors of whales showing a transition from land-adapted ones to water-adapted ones an that's exactly what they found. This is why, unlike scientists, people who claim to be able to predict the future always keep things vague because, unlike scientists, they can't actually predict the future.

I predicted that you would bash religious folk in your next post through extrapolation. I guess that makes me a scientist.

Sam Vimes

chozometroid wrote: »

I predicted that you would bash religious folk in your next post through extrapolation. I guess that makes me a scientist.

So do you think psychics and mediums can actually predict the future? Why don't they win the lotto every week so?

chozometroid

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So do you think psychics and mediums can actually predict the future? Why don't they win the lotto every week so?

No, I do not think they can.

Zombrex

chozometroid wrote: »

Clever what you did there...

If your test is open to multiple subjective interpretations that rely on the opinion of the observers you are doing it wrong. Your test is scientifically invalid and ignored.

Sam Vimes

chozometroid wrote: »

No, I do not think they can.

So how was I bashing religious people

chozometroid

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So how was I bashing religious people

Well, the fact that you responded to my post with the following seems to point out that you lump psychics and mediums in the same category as religious folk:

Quote:Originally Posted by chozometroid
I predicted that you would bash religious folk in your next post through extrapolation. I guess that makes me a scientist.

So do you think psychics and mediums can actually predict the future? Why don't they win the lotto every week so?

And your original post:

This is why, unlike scientists, people who claim to be able to predict the future always keep things vague because, unlike scientists, they can't actually predict the future.

Are you now saying that you only referred to psychics and mediums when you mentioned "people who claim to be able to predict the future?"
I highly doubt this is the case. I'm sure you are aware that the prophets of the Bible and Jesus Christ Himself claimed to predict the future.

Your last line is classic: "unlike scientists, they can't actually predict the future."

Sam Vimes

chozometroid wrote: »

Well, the fact that you responded to my post with the following seems to point out that you lump psychics and mediums in the same category as religious folk:


And your original post:

Are you now saying that you only referred to psychics and mediums when you mentioned "people who claim to be able to predict the future?"

Yes I was. I was talking about people today who claim to be able to predict the future and yet don't win the lotto. I can't really say much about the stories in the bible about people who supposedly claimed to be able predicted the future. But if you want to include them then I don't think they were able to predict the future either. But that's another thread.......

Turtwig

chozometroid wrote: »

Clever what you did there...

Not really, Wicknight's, point was very clear. I'm not sure why you even quoted that as it was quite clear from his overall post that he meant nothing of the sort you are trying to imply. Anyways, seeing as you did, the call for clarity shall be answered.:)

Science : Physics/Chemistry.

JJ Thompson discovered the electron and proposed the plum-pudding model of the atom. This model has the clear prediction that negatively charged electrons are distributed evenely within the atom and that the atom is made of some sort of postively charged "soup".


Fastforward a few years to the now famous Gold Foil experiment.
The experiment showed the unexpected result of a large clump of something in the centre and empty space pretty much everywhere else.
Rutherford used the results to dump the plump pudding model and replace with the "Rutherford Model" or Planetary Model. This consisted of electrons orbiting around a nucleus with positive charge placed at the centre of the atom. Rutherford also discovered that the Hyrdogen "Nucleus" was present in many different atoms, he thus concluded that it was an elementary particle : the proton.

N.B That's the best image I could find of Rutherford's model. Try to treat the orange and red as the same colour.:)


So let's recap. Thompson had made the clear and unambigous predictions that:
Positive charge occupied the entire volume of the atom.
Electrons were equally dispersed throughout the "soup" of positive charge.

Rutherford predicted that the postive charge (protons) were lumped together heavily at the centre and electrons were orbiting like planets.

Of course we now know that Rutherford too was wrong, but he was also right( as was Thompson). We keep the stuff he did right, and dump what was wrong until we get something that works.

• Make predictions.
• Test them.
• Keep the predictions that worked.
• Make new predictions to explain what didn't work.
• Test them.
• Keep the predictions that worked.
• Test them.
• Make new predictions to explain what didn't work.
• Test them
• .....
• Nature Revealed.
• Science stops.

Through use of this method, physicists devised the Standard Model.
This model is incomplete (they know it is) so one of the biggest tests to that model is about to get underway. What these tests will tell us is what to keep,what to chuck out and, more importantly,allow us to make new predictions on what to test next:
That's how science works

Edit : Ahh fudge...I sorta transformed this into a reply for Soulwinner.
Don't worry Chozo I'll get around to your one..

chozometroid

Malty_T wrote: »

Not really, Wicknight's, point was very clear. I'm not sure why you even quoted that as it was quite clear from his overall post that he meant nothing of the sort you are trying to imply. Anyways, seeing as you did, the call for clarity shall be answered.:)

I appreciate your effort, but that was unnecessary. I know what he meant.

Anyways, would you say that testing a prediction does not require interpretation of evidence?

MooseJam

Didn't Jesus die to wipe out original sin , I don't know the correct phraseology , so no Adam and Eve no original sin so what did Jesus die for.

Turtwig

chozometroid wrote: »

I appreciate your effort, but that was unnecessary. I know what he meant.

Anyways, would you say that testing a prediction does not require interpretation of evidence?

Em...you see I kinda fudged with my reply to Soulwinner's statement on why would anyone want to rewrite science....

Short answer no.

I'll reply back in detail later.:)

Turtwig

wolfsbane wrote: »

It is the same duration as the days illuminated by the sun - an evening and a morning in both cases. The first three days are equated with the latter three by the description, in six days in the 4th Commandment,
Exodus 20:8 “ Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

This does not add up.

The LORD created the heavens and earth, he then created this first initial light by which a day was to become known.
This light is obviously not the same as the light from our sun, so the idea that the duration of the first days is the same as our solar days is quite a leap of faith - and really improbable. What "light" is God defining the first day's relative to?
Also, how the heck is the moon a light?

chozometroid

Malty_T wrote: »

This does not add up.

The LORD created the heavens and earth, he then created this first initial light by which a day was to become known.
This light is obviously not the same as the light from our sun, so the idea that the duration of the first days is the same as our solar days is quite a leap of faith - and really improbable. What "light" is God defining the first day's relative to?
Also, how the heck is the moon a light?

God could have created(or served as) a light source before creating the celestial bodies. With a fixed light source and a rotating Earth, you have a day/night cycle. God provided a light source, made the Earth, then made everything else. Perhaps it's the order of importance. He had some reason for doing it this way.
On the fourth day, He designated the sun as the "greater light" for the day and the moon as the "lesser light" for the night. The moon is a light source, regardless of the fact that it needs the sun to reflect the light.

Revelation mentions that God will be the source of light in the New Jerusalem.

Turtwig

chozometroid wrote: »

God could have created(or served as) a light source before creating the celestial bodies. With a fixed light source and a rotating Earth, you have a day/night cycle. God provided a light source, made the Earth, then made everything else. Perhaps it's the order of importance. He had some reason for doing it this way.
On the fourth day, He designated the sun as the "greater light" for the day and the moon as the "lesser light" for the night. The moon is a light source, regardless of the fact that it needs the sun to reflect the light.

Revelation mentions that God will be the source of light in the New Jerusalem.

Then this "light" source God made before creating the celestial bodies should still be visibile today. If it is visible light then clearly if a day on earth is defined by it, the light source should be shining on earth. For the duration of a day to be same, the only point this light source could have been at is around the second focal point of the earth's orbital eclipse around the sun. There is no light source there. If there was one there; it isn't now and the certainly is no evidence to suggest there ever was one.
What you've done is assumed something after the fact but this begs the question if God had a temporary fixed light, why didn't the bible say He removed it?


The moon is NOT a light source, end of. That's like saying the paper that we write on is a light source.

Flamed Diving

This guy seems to attempt your very question:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Schroeder

Zombrex

Malty_T wrote: »

This does not add up.

Don't mean to back seat mod, but probably best not to get to into the ins and outs of this on this thread. The Creationist thread is there fore that.

Wolfsbane is presenting his view/beliefs. If others are convinced by this on this thread more power to him. This thread isn't the place to say he is wrong.

And equally this is an opportunity for us to present a science based position, and again if people are convinced by that then that is obviously good.

Fanny Cradock

Malty_T wrote: »

The moon is NOT a light source, end of. That's like saying the paper that we write on is a light source.

In light (boom boom) of how it would have been understood by ancient civilisations, I would have to disagree.

Flamed Diving

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

In light (boom boom) of how it would have been understood by ancient civilisations, I would have to disagree.

So this opening chapter was written without God's divine... whatever?