How do we know Genesis was intended to be a metaphor?

[Justin108]

Other than our current understanding of science clearly contradicting Genesis, what reason is there to believe Genesis was written as a metaphorical account of creation?

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 5 by KingandPriest]

That is my point. Science supports that creatures were created each after their own kind, just as the bible describes.

I wasn't aware that science had 'cracked the case' so to speak, with regards to the origin of life. I could've sworn that it's still an open question as of this moment in time, with several different hypotheses, such as panspermia, being investigated, but none of them having gained a full (or close to) consensus.
I also wasn't aware that 'kind' is valid terminology in biology. I'm aware of clade, species, family, genus, etc...but not 'kind'.

The OP insinuated that science contradicts the Genesis account. I attempted to point out that no such contradiction can be proven, just insinuated.

I may have used poor word choice in conveying what science states about the origin of life, but regardless of my errors in speech, but the facts remain the same.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 11 by KingandPriest]

The OP insinuated that science contradicts the Genesis account. I attempted to point out that no such contradiction can be proven, just insinuated.

What happened to the vault of water in the sky that is mentioned in Gen 1:6-8? Also, how could the terms evening or morning even make sense before the Sun is made? If I'm standing on a rock in the cold black void of space and there are no stars, I pretty much don't have a reference point (other than maybe a watch or a clock I might have on my person?) to measure time with.

I may have used poor word choice in conveying what science states about the origin of life, but regardless of my errors in speech, but the facts remain the same.

No, your claim is still wrong, poorly worded or not. Science doesn't support that lifeforms on Earth were 'created each after their own kind'.

[TheBeardedDude]

[Replying to post 5 by KingandPriest]

That is my point. Science supports that creatures were created each after their own kind, just as the bible describes.

I wasn't aware that science had 'cracked the case' so to speak, with regards to the origin of life. I could've sworn that it's still an open question as of this moment in time, with several different hypotheses, such as panspermia, being investigated, but none of them having gained a full (or close to) consensus.
I also wasn't aware that 'kind' is valid terminology in biology. I'm aware of clade, species, family, genus, etc...but not 'kind'.

The OP insinuated that science contradicts the Genesis account. I attempted to point out that no such contradiction can be proven, just insinuated.

I may have used poor word choice in conveying what science states about the origin of life, but regardless of my errors in speech, but the facts remain the same.

The Genesis account gets the origin of humans wrong, we don't descend from dirt for instance but from the Great Apes. It gets the origin of the female sex wrong, female is the default biological position which means that other sexes (male isn't the only one, yeast have 40+ sexes) derive from female.

So yes, much of the assumption in Genesis appears to read as if it is from ignorant humans who were writing down common myths from the time and not as if it is divined from a being that knows all things and would have been able to give sufficient explanations that are compatible with science.

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 11 by KingandPriest]

The OP insinuated that science contradicts the Genesis account. I attempted to point out that no such contradiction can be proven, just insinuated.

What happened to the vault of water in the sky that is mentioned in Gen 1:6-8? Also, how could the terms evening or morning even make sense before the Sun is made? If I'm standing on a rock in the cold black void of space and there are no stars, I pretty much don't have a reference point (other than maybe a watch or a clock I might have on my person?) to measure time with.

Are not the clouds in the sky made up of water that has just changed state from liquid to gas. Water separated from water occurs on a continual daily basis where water evaporates from the ocean and collects in the sky.

The terms evening and morning make sense as long as you have light. Darkness came before sunlight. So before the first light ever existed from a star it could have been called darkness or evening. Even look at the clock we use today. The day begins at midnight (where it is dark) and then progresses into daylight, and then darkness again. If you were to shift this cycle back 6 hours, you would have evening and then morning or evening and then day. The cycle we use today was not always used throughout history. Some ancient cultures recognized the day starting with the sunrise, others with the loss of sunlight. So it is only difficult to understand if you apply today's concept of day and night to be the only application which could exist.

I may have used poor word choice in conveying what science states about the origin of life, but regardless of my errors in speech, but the facts remain the same.

No, your claim is still wrong, poorly worded or not. Science doesn't support that lifeforms on Earth were 'created each after their own kind'.

Please correct me and explain what science does support in terms of the various species we see today.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 13 by TheBeardedDude]

The Genesis account gets the origin of humans wrong, we don't descend from dirt for instance but from the Great Apes. It gets the origin of the female sex wrong, female is the default biological position which means that other sexes (male isn't the only one, yeast have 40+ sexes) derive from female.

I always find it amazing that some people will gladly use scientific findings to support their assertions, but when other scientific findings contradict those very same assertions later on...it's the assertions that win out.
If science were to support the creation of man story in Genesis, then how come genetics tells us that humankind wouldn't be able to survive as a species with such a limited gene-pool? Genesis tells us we're all supposedly descended from Adam and Eve (if one wants to dispute that, then guess what happens to original sin, which is what Jesus's death was supposed to rectify?).
If one wants to argue that Adam and Eve had 'superior DNA' not subject to the problems of inbreeding (I have honestly heard this claim before), then one is bound by the burden of evidence to provide examples of this 'superior DNA', as vetted by science.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 14 by KingandPriest]

Are not the clouds in the sky made up of water that has just changed state from liquid to gas. Water separated from water occurs on a continual daily basis where water evaporates from the ocean and collects in the sky.

Why talk about it as a dome, or vault, if it's just the clouds we're talking about? That explanation doesn't hold water (get it? ^^) if it's a cloudless day out. Is there still water up there, enough of it that it requires a dome or vault to hold it back?

The terms evening and morning make sense as long as you have light.

Which comes from where...?
And no, even if there was some mystical light, no. What is another term for morning? Sunrise. Another term for evening? Sunset. Mankind's concept of a day is predicated on the movement of the sun.

So before the first light ever existed from a star it could have been called darkness or evening.

So I have KnP stating that the first light comes from a star. Well, in Genesis, when are stars formed? Genesis 1 says "Day Four"...so what happened with the light at the start on Day One? Where in science does it say this light came from?
Remember, KnP, you're appealing to science to justify your claims here. This means that any time science contradicts a Genesis claim, that claim should be discarded.

Some ancient cultures recognized the day starting with the sunrise, others with the loss of sunlight. So it is only difficult to understand if you apply today's concept of day and night to be the only application which could exist.

But I'm not. As I just explained, I used the concept of sunrise and sunset against your claim.
The ancient Hebrews would have used simple sunrise and sunset to mark their days, would they have not? So why would they write about 'days' as a concept of measured time before they say the sun was created?

Please correct me and explain what science does support in terms of the various species we see today.

I'll tell you what it does not. It does not support that creatures are 'created after their own kind'. This was your claim.
I am not going to argue evolution here, not as a rebuttal to this. All I have to do is point out that science does not do what you say it does. If you say Jerry ate a sandwich today, but he didn't actually eat one, I do not have to point out what exactly Jerry ate instead (if he even ate at all). At the very least, all I have to do is point out he didn't eat a sandwich.
The burden of evidence is upon you, to show that science supports creationism.
To my knowledge, it does not.

[Rufus21]

Which current understanding of science contradicts Genesis?

A few things that science (and common sense) tells us:

Creation did not take 6 days.
Man was not created by God blowing on dust.
Woman was not created from a man's rib.
All animals were not created at the same time in the same place.
Mankind was not suddenly scattered across the world and forgot how to speak.
There was never a global flood that bottle-necked all living things, including humans.
A 600 year old man did not build a huge seaworthy boat and collect several of all living "kinds".
Snakes can't talk.

More generally, we know that:

The story of creation is false.
The Garden of Eden did not exist.
The flood myth did not actually happen.
The story of the Tower of Babel is false.

And that's just the beginning of the book!

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 4 by JehovahsWitness]

Can plants grow without sunlight?

Why do you ask?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 4 by JehovahsWitness]

Can plants grow without sunlight?

Why do you ask?

Should be obvious. Genesis 1 says that plants are created and grow on the third day, yet stars are not created until the day after.
This is a storybook claim that is shown to be false through science. Most plants require photosynthesis to survive, yet they could not have survived (or even exist at all) before stars.
After all, science tells us that we are formed out of the remains of old stars that have gone supernova.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 4 by JehovahsWitness]

Can plants grow without sunlight?

Why do you ask?

Should be obvious. Genesis 1 says that plants are created and grow on the third day, yet stars are not created until the day after.

Genesis says nothing of the kind. Please provide the quote that says "the stars were not creatd until the day after".

JW