Science vs. Creationism

[MVP]

I suggest you drop this angle of attack against "creationists." If you want to persuade people that the "evidence" is on your side you probably shouldn't start with a lie.

Well, the Bible I read when I was a kid said clearly land animals first, not sure where you got this adjusted version from but even your version of Bible is full of false statements as well. Whales before land creatures? So whales before dinosaurs and reptiles? Fossil records and carbon dating says it is a lie. Birds before reptiles? Same lies.

 

[PearlWatson]

Well, the Bible I read when I was a kid said clearly land animals first, not sure where you got this adjusted version from but even your version of Bible is full of false statements as well. Whales before land creatures? So whales before dinosaurs and reptiles? Fossil records and carbon dating says it is a lie. Birds before reptiles? Same lies.

You read a bible when you were a kid?

 

[MVP]

You read a bible when you were a kid?

I grew up in catholic family, was baptised and forced to go to church and read bible and get first communion as well.

 

[Zulu]

I grew up in catholic family, was baptised and forced to go to church and read bible and get first communion as well.

Sounds pleasent !!!

 

[dodo]

In the great tradition of American Debate...just tell me "Who won?"

 

[carolinajazz]

Carbon dating, fossil records and science tells us life started in the water. Bible says land animals were created first. So did the creator misarranged and misdated fossils to confuse us?

...not true! Don't know what translation your using but the Genesis account says this: (Genesis 1:19-23) 19 And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a fourth day. 20 And God went on to say: “Let the waters swarm forth a swarm of living souls and let flying creatures fly over the earth upon the face of the expanse of the heavens.” 21 And God proceeded to create the great sea monsters and every living soul that moves about, which the waters swarmed forth according to their kinds, and every winged flying creature according to its kind. And God got to see that [it was] good. 22 With that God blessed them, saying: “Be fruitful and become many and fill the waters in the sea basins, and let the flying creatures become many in the earth.” 23 And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a fifth day.

Scientists have taken note of the order of events presented in Genesis. For example, noted geologist Wallace Pratt commented: “If I as a geologist were called upon to explain briefly our modern ideas of the origin of the earth and the development of life on it to a simple, pastoral people, such as the tribes to whom the Book of Genesis was addressed, I could hardly do better than follow rather closely much of the language of the first chapter of Genesis.”

He also observed that the order as described in Genesis for the origin of the oceans and the emergence of land, as well as for the appearance of marine life, birds, and mammals, is in essence the sequence of the principal divisions of geologic time.

Consider: How did Moses—thousands of years ago—get that order right if his source of information were not from the Creator and Designer himself?

 

[babe]

I could hardly think of a more contemptible proponent of science than Bill Nye, a glorified elementary-level TV actor, or an equally unqualified proponent of religion as anyone who believes the Bible is the result of God-breathed spirit giving mankind an infallible text while actually ignoring or disbelieving major elements of that text, as most fundamentalist Christians are.

Might as well get a two baboons to chatter about this subject, say from two different kinds of trees in the jungle, trying to prove which tree is the true tree.

 

[carolinajazz]

During the fifth creative “day,” the Creator proceeded to fill the oceans and the atmospheric heavens with a new form of life—“living souls”—distinct from vegetation.

Interestingly, biologists speak, among other things, of the plant kingdom and the animal kingdom, and they divide these into sub-classifications. The Hebrew word translated “soul” means “a breather.” The Bible also says that “living souls” have blood. Therefore, we may conclude that creatures having both a respiratory system and a circulatory system—the breathing denizens of the seas and heavens—began to appear in the fifth creative period.—Genesis 1:20; 9:3,*4.

On the sixth “day,” God gave more attention to the land. He created “domestic” animals and “wild” animals, these being meaningful designations when Moses penned the account. (Genesis 1:24) So it was in this sixth creative period that land mammals were formed.

Day Five was marked by the creation of the first nonhuman souls on earth. Not just one creature purposed by God to evolve into other forms, but literally swarms of living souls were then brought forth by divine power. It is stated: “God proceeded to create the great sea monsters and every living soul that moves about, which the waters swarmed forth according to their kinds, and every winged flying creature according to its kind.” Pleased with what He had produced, God blessed them and, in effect, told them to “become many,” which was possible, for these creatures of many different family kinds were divinely endowed with the ability to reproduce “according to their kinds.”—Ge 1:20-23.

 

[babe]

During the fifth creative “day,” the Creator proceeded to fill the oceans and the atmospheric heavens with a new form of life—“living souls”—distinct from vegetation.

Interestingly, biologists speak, among other things, of the plant kingdom and the animal kingdom, and they divide these into sub-classifications. The Hebrew word translated “soul” means “a breather.” The Bible also says that “living souls” have blood. Therefore, we may conclude that creatures having both a respiratory system and a circulatory system—the breathing denizens of the seas and heavens—began to appear in the fifth creative period.—Genesis 1:20; 9:3,*4.

On the sixth “day,” God gave more attention to the land. He created “domestic” animals and “wild” animals, these being meaningful designations when Moses penned the account. (Genesis 1:24) So it was in this sixth creative period that land mammals were formed.

Day Five was marked by the creation of the first nonhuman souls on earth. Not just one creature purposed by God to evolve into other forms, but literally swarms of living souls were then brought forth by divine power. It is stated: “God proceeded to create the great sea monsters and every living soul that moves about, which the waters swarmed forth according to their kinds, and every winged flying creature according to its kind.” Pleased with what He had produced, God blessed them and, in effect, told them to “become many,” which was possible, for these creatures of many different family kinds were divinely endowed with the ability to reproduce “according to their kinds.”—Ge 1:20-23.

I find your detailed exposition here, and in your preceding entries, both knowledgeable and interesting. I've read the Bible perhaps six times cover to cover, and gone over the Genesis account probably a hundred or more times. Coming from an LDS background, I also have Joseph Smith's "inspired" versions of it, which in themselves are of three kinds. . . . one account renders a two-phase story where the first phase is a spiritual creation and the second phase is a temporal, which is to say, a physical 'this world' creation. Together with an "inspired translation" which purports to fix any problems in translation. . .

The net effect of an LDS perspective is we wonder why JS didn't fix the "day" definition by resorting to a word like "epoch" in it's place, wondering why if the Genesis story is an allegory in the first place and the fact being that we and other life were brought here from other planets, JS didn't just expand the story to include those "facts", wondering why JS said the earth was 5 billion years in it's course, wondering what else we just haven't been told, etc etc etc.

Still, I have long recognized the generality of the Genesis account being largely compatible with the geologic record and what we scientifically can surmise about the history of our planet from it's inception as a gathering center for gas and rock in a favorable orbit around the sun. . . .

Genesis alludes to the gas/rock phase, then to the liquid surface phase and finally to the emergence of dry land. Considering the amount of carbon dioxide in the equation, the first "sea"/atmosphere would have been pretty dense. Before photosynthesis became an established force in the equation, most of the oxygen was probably consumed in the upper crust as oxide rock, the sulfur being the first removed and deposited in the rock of lower layers with more metallic content. . . .

Before the thick atmosphere was cleared by chemical reaction removing vast amounts of carbon dioxide gas, there would have been no such thing as "daylight" or "days" . . . . . nope, no way is the Genesis account just stupid or something. Anyone with a mind for science has to recognize the validity of the basic story. . . .

plants, photosynthesis had to come first, in the developing seas and then on land. . . . then came the fish and animals. . . . and last perhaps of all, us humans. The Genesis account gets all that right.

 

[franklin]

I find your detailed exposition here, and in your preceding entries, both knowledgeable and interesting. I've read the Bible perhaps six times cover to cover, and gone over the Genesis account probably a hundred or more times. Coming from an LDS background, I also have Joseph Smith's "inspired" versions of it, which in themselves are of three kinds. . . . one account renders a two-phase story where the first phase is a spiritual creation and the second phase is a temporal, which is to say, a physical 'this world' creation. Together with an "inspired translation" which purports to fix any problems in translation. . .

The net effect of an LDS perspective is we wonder why JS didn't fix the "day" definition by resorting to a word like "epoch" in it's place, wondering why if the Genesis story is an allegory in the first place and the fact being that we and other life were brought here from other planets, JS didn't just expand the story to include those "facts", wondering why JS said the earth was 5 billion years in it's course, wondering what else we just haven't been told, etc etc etc.

Still, I have long recognized the generality of the Genesis account being largely compatible with the geologic record and what we scientifically can surmise about the history of our planet from it's inception as a gathering center for gas and rock in a favorable orbit around the sun. . . .

Genesis alludes to the gas/rock phase, then to the liquid surface phase and finally to the emergence of dry land. Considering the amount of carbon dioxide in the equation, the first "sea"/atmosphere would have been pretty dense. Before photosynthesis became an established force in the equation, most of the oxygen was probably consumed in the upper crust as oxide rock, the sulfur being the first removed and deposited in the rock of lower layers with more metallic content. . . .

Before the thick atmosphere was cleared by chemical reaction removing vast amounts of carbon dioxide gas, there would have been no such thing as "daylight" or "days" . . . . . nope, no way is the Genesis account just stupid or something. Anyone with a mind for science has to recognize the validity of the basic story. . . .

plants, photosynthesis had to come first, in the developing seas and then on land. . . . then came the fish and animals. . . . and last perhaps of all, us humans. The Genesis account gets all that right.

another babe money post. Read it.

 

[Bawse Dawg]

The "6 days to create earth thing doesn't dispute science because days could mean something else." Sounds great and all, but if you weren't trying to incorporate the bible into science than you wouldn't try to find a bunch of loopholes. The 'word of God' shouldn't be trying to trick you.
Colton, If I came and told you that a virgin had given birth would you believe me just because I told you so? I'm surprised that a physics professor would think that the laws that govern the universe can be put on hold for a short period of time with divine intervention. Do we have any recordings that gravity has stopped working, or someone has risen from the dead?
I'm not a huge fan of what Hantlers believes, but hey he is all in. People who grew up religious then later in life just found so much evidence to contradict their beliefs so they try to cram it all into one thing. You could not have two more incompatible things, and I must admit people have done a great job making up stories that seem to make it all work. But come on... The book has been changed throughout history, or the 'meanings' of the words are different? That is just going to great lengths to avoid saying what I think a lot of people know deep down, but they are terrified to admit.
If you wanna believe that stuff it's fine, but don't try to find science in the Bible.

 

[Bawse Dawg]

I find your detailed exposition here, and in your preceding entries, both knowledgeable and interesting. I've read the Bible perhaps six times cover to cover, and gone over the Genesis account probably a hundred or more times. Coming from an LDS background, I also have Joseph Smith's "inspired" versions of it, which in themselves are of three kinds. . . . one account renders a two-phase story where the first phase is a spiritual creation and the second phase is a temporal, which is to say, a physical 'this world' creation. Together with an "inspired translation" which purports to fix any problems in translation. . .

The net effect of an LDS perspective is we wonder why JS didn't fix the "day" definition by resorting to a word like "epoch" in it's place, wondering why if the Genesis story is an allegory in the first place and the fact being that we and other life were brought here from other planets, JS didn't just expand the story to include those "facts", wondering why JS said the earth was 5 billion years in it's course, wondering what else we just haven't been told, etc etc etc.

Still, I have long recognized the generality of the Genesis account being largely compatible with the geologic record and what we scientifically can surmise about the history of our planet from it's inception as a gathering center for gas and rock in a favorable orbit around the sun. . . .

Genesis alludes to the gas/rock phase, then to the liquid surface phase and finally to the emergence of dry land. Considering the amount of carbon dioxide in the equation, the first "sea"/atmosphere would have been pretty dense. Before photosynthesis became an established force in the equation, most of the oxygen was probably consumed in the upper crust as oxide rock, the sulfur being the first removed and deposited in the rock of lower layers with more metallic content. . . .

Before the thick atmosphere was cleared by chemical reaction removing vast amounts of carbon dioxide gas, there would have been no such thing as "daylight" or "days" . . . . . nope, no way is the Genesis account just stupid or something. Anyone with a mind for science has to recognize the validity of the basic story. . . .

plants, photosynthesis had to come first, in the developing seas and then on land. . . . then came the fish and animals. . . . and last perhaps of all, us humans. The Genesis account gets all that right.

We cannot even comprehend how tiny the amount of time humans have been here is in the Earths lifetime.

98% of every species that ever existed has gone extinct, there have been five mass extinctions that we know of in the earths lifetime. All that is conveniently left out of the Bible, did God not care about those species he created? Just doing a couple test runs?