"Science" (vs) Genesis

[POI]

I've debated many apologists and/or theists in my day. In doing so, many of the same overarching comments are ultimately often made...

"Science has it's limitations"
"Science is merely about discovering the undiscovered."
"Science cannot or will not account for this/that"
"Science has changed it's stance upon things"
etc....

I understand there exists both YEC's - (young earth creationists), as well as OEC's - (old earth creationists).

I also understand that 'science' does not yet, or maybe never, have all the answers.

However, Genesis makes many claims which appear to fly in the face of 'scientific' discovery. Let's start with the flood claim, and see where this goes.... The two theist positions, which think this event actually happened, are as follows:

1) Global
2) Local

Another part of this claim, is the following:

A) ~4500 years ago
B) much longer

Before we head into this debate, I must mention a couple of caveats:

-- Just because you do not know, for certain, the ultimate answer to something, does not mean you cannot effectively rule out certain claims. Meaning, I do not know exactly how old any mature oak tree is; but I can still logically rule out that the answer could be 'ham sandwich' or "1 day old".

-- Same goes for earth. I may not know the exact shape of earth --- (egg-shaped, pear-shaped, perfectly round, etc), but I still know it is not flat.

For debate:

X) Theists, please select two answers above (i.e.): 1A or 2B. And then please explain why you have chosen this answer?

Y) How is it that a YEC and an OEC can BOTH read the same verses, and can BOTH equally justify their own conclusions respectively? Doesn't this demonstrate that the Bible is quite flawed in it's information delivery?

Z) How do you reconcile that 'science' does not suggest any such flood phenomenon?


My hypothesis? No flood, no bible. Meaning, if the Bible is wrong about this event, then it is logical to dismiss this book as just another mythological story.

[POI]

I've debated many apologists and/or theists in my day. In doing so, many of the same overarching comments are ultimately often made...

"Science has it's limitations"
"Science is merely about discovering the undiscovered."
"Science cannot or will not account for this/that"
"Science has changed it's stance upon things"
etc....

I understand there exists both YEC's - (young earth creationists), as well as OEC's - (old earth creationists).

I also understand that 'science' does not yet, or maybe never, have all the answers.

However, Genesis makes many claims which appear to fly in the face of 'scientific' discovery. Let's start with the flood claim, and see where this goes.... The two theist positions, which think this event actually happened, are as follows:

1) Global
2) Local

Another part of this claim, is the following:

A) ~4500 years ago
B) much longer

Before we head into this debate, I must mention a couple of caveats:

-- Just because you do not know, for certain, the ultimate answer to something, does not mean you cannot effectively rule out certain claims. Meaning, I do not know exactly how old any mature oak tree is; but I can still logically rule out that the answer could be 'ham sandwich' or "1 day old".

-- Same goes for earth. I may not know the exact shape of earth --- (egg-shaped, pear-shaped, perfectly round, etc), but I still know it is not flat.

For debate:

X) Theists, please select two answers above (i.e.): 1A or 2B. And then please explain why you have chosen this answer?

Y) How is it that a YEC and an OEC can BOTH read the same verses, and can BOTH equally justify their own conclusions respectively? Doesn't this demonstrate that the Bible is quite flawed in it's information delivery?

Z) How do you reconcile that 'science' does not suggest any such flood phenomenon?


My hypothesis? No flood, no bible. Meaning, if the Bible is wrong about this event, then it is logical to dismiss this book as just another mythological story.

Scripture is interpreted, different people interpret it in different ways, given that fact then, we can only argue that some interpretations "fly in the face of scientific discovery". If you feel that some interpretation really does seem out of step then try reviewing the interpretation, its worth a try - if one is a true seeker after truth anyway.

If you are a theist, do you have an answer to the question(s)?

[POI]

marine fossils on high mountains

Please list your source(s) for this finding?

[TRANSPONDER]

marine fossils on high mountains

Please list your source(s) for this finding?

(Talk origins) Claim CC364:
Seashells and other marine fossils have been found on mountaintops, even very tall ones. These indicate that the sea once covered the mountains, which is evidence for a global flood.
Source:
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, p. 203.
Response:
Shells on mountains are easily explained by uplift of the land. Although this process is slow, it is observed happening today, and it accounts not only for the seashells on mountains but also for the other geological and paleontological features of those mountains. The sea once did cover the areas where the fossils are found, but they were not mountains at the time; they were shallow seas.

A flood cannot explain the presence of marine shells on mountains for the following reasons:
Floods erode mountains and deposit their sediments in valleys.
In many cases, the fossils are in the same positions as they grow in life, not scattered as if they were redeposited by a flood. This was noted as early as the sixteenth century by Leonardo da Vinci (Gould 1998).
Other evidence, such as fossilized tracks and burrows of marine organisms, show that the region was once under the sea. Seashells are not found in sediments that were not formerly covered by sea.
References:
Gould, Stephen J., 1998. The upwardly mobile fossils of Leonardo's living earth. In: Leonardo's Mountain of Clams and the Diet of Worms, New York: Three Rivers Press, pp. 17-44.

[POI]

marine fossils on high mountains

Please list your source(s) for this finding?

(Talk origins) Claim CC364:
Seashells and other marine fossils have been found on mountaintops, even very tall ones. These indicate that the sea once covered the mountains, which is evidence for a global flood.
Source:
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, p. 203.
Response:
Shells on mountains are easily explained by uplift of the land. Although this process is slow, it is observed happening today, and it accounts not only for the seashells on mountains but also for the other geological and paleontological features of those mountains. The sea once did cover the areas where the fossils are found, but they were not mountains at the time; they were shallow seas.

A flood cannot explain the presence of marine shells on mountains for the following reasons:
Floods erode mountains and deposit their sediments in valleys.
In many cases, the fossils are in the same positions as they grow in life, not scattered as if they were redeposited by a flood. This was noted as early as the sixteenth century by Leonardo da Vinci (Gould 1998).
Other evidence, such as fossilized tracks and burrows of marine organisms, show that the region was once under the sea. Seashells are not found in sediments that were not formerly covered by sea.
References:
Gould, Stephen J., 1998. The upwardly mobile fossils of Leonardo's living earth. In: Leonardo's Mountain of Clams and the Diet of Worms, New York: Three Rivers Press, pp. 17-44.

I would like to know where "1213" obtained their source for this claim? This will likely reveal two things:

1. "1213" probably got this information from a pseudoscience location.
2. "1213" has not even bothered to see if this 'finding' has been debunked. And if they have, just ignored it...

"1213" is likely cleaving to conformation bias and belief preservation.

[1213]

marine fossils on high mountains

Please list your source(s) for this finding?

For example:
https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/nothin ... n-everest/

[1213]

...That evidence is for ancient fossilised sea beds raised up over millions of years as rock - strata incorporated in mountains when they were raised up through continents colliding through tectonic plate movement. They are NOT, NOT evidence of the Biblical Flood or any other.

Similarly I see "coal, gas fields, modern continents, vast sediment formations" as evidence for millions of years of rock formation and continent ...

Obviously, people can be in denial and make up alternative stories how it happened, but still, it is approved fact that there are marine fossils on mountains. And they are good evidence for that the land was covered with water and they are something we should expect to find, if the flood story is correct.

And sorry, I don't believe that modern plate tectonic theory, because it really doesn't give a good reasonable explanation how the mountain would be raised, it shows lack of understanding of the weight of the mountains.

[POI]

Obviously, people can be in denial and make up alternative stories how it happened,

It's pretty safe to say this would be you. It's called accepting the hits, and ignoring the misses. Theists, like yourself, use 'science' in two ways. If it seems to run in parallel with your a priori beliefs, then you use it. When it does not, you reject it. Why even rely upon "science" at all??? Just believe what your beloved book says, and be done with it...

If you are after truth, then you would follow the evidence where ever it takes you. But in your case, you cleave to claims from a book, and find ways to make it fit...

it is approved fact that there are marine fossils on mountains.

Right. And now you must discredit (plate tectonics/other) to retain your belief.

I don't believe that modern plate tectonic theory, because......

You don't believe it BECAUSE it destroys your a priori belief

[POI]

marine fossils on high mountains

Please list your source(s) for this finding?

For example:
https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/nothin ... n-everest/

I highly doubt any peer reviewed publication would say.... "The idea that the presence of marine fossils in mountains proves the earth was once flooded has been associated with literal readings of the Biblical story of Noah and the flood, included in the book of Genesis."

[brunumb]

marine fossils on high mountains

Please list your source(s) for this finding?

For example:
https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/nothin ... n-everest/

Your link does talk about the fossils on Everest. It's a pity you ignored the bulk of the article talking about their origin. Science denial at its selective best.

[1213]

Obviously, people can be in denial and make up alternative stories how it happened,

It's pretty safe to say this would be you. It's called accepting the hits, and ignoring the misses. Theists, like yourself, use 'science' in two ways. If it seems to run in parallel with your a priori beliefs, then you use it. When it does not, you reject it. Why even rely upon "science" at all???...

To me science is the method to study world and what is found with scientific method. For example, we can dig and find a fossil, and everyone can see the finding. The explanations people make on basis of the finding is just speculation and beliefs, not real science. I have no problem with real scientific findings that can be observed repeatedly and are not speculation. And speculation can be ok, if it is reasonable, logical and intelligent. I reject silly "scientific" beliefs that are purely wishful thinking from God deniers.