"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.

[1213]

Your link does talk about the fossils on Everest. It's a pity you ignored the bulk of the article talking about their origin.

Why would it matter what they believe is the origin of the findings?

[TRANSPONDER]

Your link does talk about the fossils on Everest. It's a pity you ignored the bulk of the article talking about their origin.

Why would it matter what they believe is the origin of the findings?

The explanation that the marine debris (coral etc) could be part of a sea bed raised up would nullify the flood - explanation as the best one, but it's even worse for you than that. As I said before, there are sea -bed features in situ that prove that it is an ancient sea -bed raised up geologically, and Not marine debris tossed up on the mountain by a flood.
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.

[POI]

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.

Earth science is silly and filled with 'wishful thinking god deniers'?

As stated prior, you must hand-wave away plate tectonics to retain your position of shells on top of mountains.

[brunumb]

Your link does talk about the fossils on Everest. It's a pity you ignored the bulk of the article talking about their origin.

Why would it matter what they believe is the origin of the findings?

Unlike those simply accepting what they have been told as an ancient story, it's not what they believe. It is the product of research in many different fields all corroborating the same conclusion. If the sea shells were deposited by waves or whatever washing them onto the submerged mountain tops, where are the remains such as bones of other organisms that should also be there? Do you now have to invent a scenario that selectively retains things in favour of your belief and dismisses anything contradictory? That is the necessary process to follow after all.

[The Tanager]

To call it an excuse is appropriate, when it seems clear that it is being used to wave away the fact that it isn't (as I believe you appeared to accept) actually true as an event but keeps it as valid in some other way. To call that an 'excuse' is rather polite. The rest of your comment just looks like compounding the 'excuse'.

No, showing it is an excuse (which, if done well, doesnt even need the word "excuse" to be written) is appropriate if that is what you think it is.

To talk of genre just sounds like an appeal to 'true' (in some way) when it isn't actually true. Which seems to be underlined by "genres within it is consistent with the account being based on a historical event and it not." It is either factual, in which case make a case for it, or admit that it isn't, in which case any discussion of Truth in any other way is simply Faithbased excuses for it Not being true. That is how it follows that if it isn't actually true, in the way it is explained in the Bible, then it isn't true as explained in the Bible, even if it was a memory of either the Black sea flood or the Sumerian Flood, neither of which are really convincing factual ancestors of the Noachian Flood.

Talk of genre, when talking about literature, is extremely vital to a rational view on the issue. A science treatise and poetry should not be confused for each other, if you want to understand truth. The "in the way it is explained in" whatever text you are talking about depends heavily on what genre it is because different genres explain their truth claims in different ways.

I don't see the point of your second para. I recall that you appealed to the belief of millions in the Bible or Biblgod as some evidence that it was true. If not, why did you bring it up?

Because some people dont see hyperbolic language as hyperbolic.

Sorry. I should have said an atom of real, good or valid evidence. I know there is plenty of bad, debunked or irrelevant evidence. Obviously debating it all would take time, but just take it that I am claiming that God, the Bible and Christianity has not an atom of good evidence that it is true, not as Bible, Biblegod or a religion. Even where there are real or possibly real events, like the doings of the Assyrians or Babylonians, there is not a shred of good reason to buy the Biblical interpretation of these as God bringing the events about. That is why, though I do credit the crucifixion as true, I do not buy for an instant that Jewry as a whole never mind humanity as a whole, is to blame for that, when it was the Romans who did it, as the Bible plainly says. And I do not at all accept the Bible as evidence of a resurrection from death; and that, I believe, can be demonstrated with good evidence as distinct from bad or irrelevant evidence.

I take it that you believe that, but dont use it to support any other claims being discussed if you arent willing to support its truth, at least not if you want to have a rational impact on the discussion.

[TRANSPONDER]

To call it an excuse is appropriate, when it seems clear that it is being used to wave away the fact that it isn't (as I believe you appeared to accept) actually true as an event but keeps it as valid in some other way. To call that an 'excuse' is rather polite. The rest of your comment just looks like compounding the 'excuse'.

No, showing it is an excuse (which, if done well, doesnt even need the word "excuse" to be written) is appropriate if that is what you think it is.

To talk of genre just sounds like an appeal to 'true' (in some way) when it isn't actually true. Which seems to be underlined by "genres within it is consistent with the account being based on a historical event and it not." It is either factual, in which case make a case for it, or admit that it isn't, in which case any discussion of Truth in any other way is simply Faithbased excuses for it Not being true. That is how it follows that if it isn't actually true, in the way it is explained in the Bible, then it isn't true as explained in the Bible, even if it was a memory of either the Black sea flood or the Sumerian Flood, neither of which are really convincing factual ancestors of the Noachian Flood.

Talk of genre, when talking about literature, is extremely vital to a rational view on the issue. A science treatise and poetry should not be confused for each other, if you want to understand truth. The "in the way it is explained in" whatever text you are talking about depends heavily on what genre it is because different genres explain their truth claims in different ways.

I don't see the point of your second para. I recall that you appealed to the belief of millions in the Bible or Biblgod as some evidence that it was true. If not, why did you bring it up?

Because some people dont see hyperbolic language as hyperbolic.

Sorry. I should have said an atom of real, good or valid evidence. I know there is plenty of bad, debunked or irrelevant evidence. Obviously debating it all would take time, but just take it that I am claiming that God, the Bible and Christianity has not an atom of good evidence that it is true, not as Bible, Biblegod or a religion. Even where there are real or possibly real events, like the doings of the Assyrians or Babylonians, there is not a shred of good reason to buy the Biblical interpretation of these as God bringing the events about. That is why, though I do credit the crucifixion as true, I do not buy for an instant that Jewry as a whole never mind humanity as a whole, is to blame for that, when it was the Romans who did it, as the Bible plainly says. And I do not at all accept the Bible as evidence of a resurrection from death; and that, I believe, can be demonstrated with good evidence as distinct from bad or irrelevant evidence.

I take it that you believe that, but dont use it to support any other claims being discussed if you arent willing to support its truth, at least not if you want to have a rational impact on the discussion.

Still doing excuses and evading the real issue "science vs. Genesis" and using 'genre' to evade that the Bible does not fit the facts. " A science treatise and poetry should not be confused for each other" you say, but that is just what you do when you drag 'genre' in to try to excuse Genesis not being scientifically credible.

And the points I made support the 'claims being discussed' or 'truth' or any of the other stuff you are throwing out when you drag 'genre' or the irrelevance of poetry or hyperbole in to Excuse (I say again...I could add 'evade') that (topic) Genesis is invalidated by science. The point I made, which you ignored, rather jumping on the irrelevance that I don't support (I can only suppose you mean) a debunk of the doings of the Assyrians, which i said I take as true; I can only assume that you don';t read posts) is that, even where the Bible recounts credibly true events, the god behind it is a mere faith-claim; it has no rational validity, let alone scientific.

This is even more the case where Genesis is not supported by the fact (so far as science says what those are. In fact you undermine your whole argument by apparently accepting it isn't true but 'genre' somehow makes it relevant, or perhaps not accepting it as poetry (ok) which is irrelevant to the discussion. It looks to me like you have to go right back to the workshop and consider just what you are trying to argue.

[1213]

... where are the remains such as bones of other organisms that should also be there? Do you now have to invent a scenario that selectively retains things in favour of your belief ...

Did you notice you just invented own scenario to support your belief? Why and what other organisms there should be?

[1213]

....
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....

Sorry, I can't ignore that there is no credible natural force in your belief that can counter the weight of mountains. Also, if the "rising of mountain" is slow, why is the matter not eroded?

[TRANSPONDER]

....
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....

Sorry, I can't ignore that there is no credible natural force in your belief that can counter the weight of mountains. Also, if the "rising of mountain" is slow, why is the matter not eroded?

There is a known natural force that 'counters the weight of mountains', tectonic plate movement. This is a validated part of geology. To ignore it is to deny validated science. That is what you 'ignore'.

And matter is eroded. Some mountain ranges like the Himalayas Andes and Alps are recent and the erosion is minimal, but others have been very much eroded. I am obliged to say that you are not waving away Bible skeptics here, but denying science.

... where are the remains such as bones of other organisms that should also be there? Do you now have to invent a scenario that selectively retains things in favour of your belief ...

Did you notice you just invented own scenario to support your belief? Why and what other organisms there should be?

That is a false argument which I'll get to. But first brunum cited a logical and very valid aspect of science falsification. Geology says that if deep time palaontology is true, there should be layers of deposited rock with fossils in exclusive to that time period and no other. If the Flood scenario is true, all the kinds of animals supposed to be on the Ark should be in the 'flood layer'.

Which do we find? The former and never the latter. This is logic and evidence for Geology and against the Flood. The False argument is that the old traditional creation - myth of the Bible is taken by you as the default hypothesis, and science coming later and debunking it is portrayed by you as an 'invented scenario', because Brunum did not make that up - it is a method of science - falsification.

p.s I'm going to ask a question, and not a new one; 1213, old mate, why don't you know this? If you want to argue against science, why don't you know what the science arguments are? You have to be unaware of what the evidence is to act as though it was just a hypothesis invented out of nowhere.

[brunumb]

... where are the remains such as bones of other organisms that should also be there? Do you now have to invent a scenario that selectively retains things in favour of your belief ...

Did you notice you just invented own scenario to support your belief? Why and what other organisms there should be?

Surely you jest. A cataclysmic flood killed almost all life on the planet yet only managed to wash sea shells onto the tops of mountains and you ask what other organisms there should be. There are none so blind as those who will not see.