"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.

[The Tanager]

There may have been an actual flood (a general rising of sea levels) which would explain all the Flood legends, but it was not done for the reasons the Bible says - to eliminate all humanity and start again with Noah's family, which didn't in the event turn out to be much of an improvement.

What if that is part of the point of the flood story? In the garden, Adam and Eve ignore Gods wisdom on how to act, wanting to decide for themselves right and wrong. And then they feel the consequences of their "knowledge". Cain ignores Gods advice and then feels the consequences of his "knowledge". That story keeps repeating. Humans doing what is good in their own eyes. What story is relayed right after the flood? Humans messing up again. Perhaps part of the point is that its not about just giving humans a clean slate and then they can try to be good on their own again. Maybe its about realizing our inability to be good on our own, to decide good and evil for ourselves, and to enter into a trusting relationship with God and what this God says about good and evil for us.

[TRANSPONDER]

Thank you, I was waiting for that (I assume I haven't already done this).

The Flood story (and I reckon we can say all of Genesis) is not literally true, nor intended to be taken as true (not that the Bible apologists ever fall over themselves to say so, until they are on the ropes) but is metaphorical, and specifically here, a argument about mans' condition.

Two points there: there is no reason to suppose a god is anything to do with it since it never really happened, at least not as it says in the Bible, if any of it was based on any real thing at all (1) and that a god is using it as a tall story to justify a release from sin which is just how we are, has no atom of support for believing it, any more than any other religious claim; and it is a far, far better thing to take it as the way we evolved and we have to deal with it, and are going to find a better lead and answers in biological sociology than we will in the pages of any Holy Book, theory or religion.

(1) for example I am sure that the Exodus never happened, but it Might be based on the expulsion of the Hyksos who were not (despite otseng's sterling efforts to make a case for it) credibly the Jews or even incorporating them, other than as a few immigrant workers from the hills.

[The Tanager]

The Flood story (and I reckon we can say all of Genesis) is not literally true.

How does the above reckoning follow? Genesis 1-11 and the rest of it have long been noted as distinct styles of literature.

nor intended to be taken as true

Do you mean this as an explanation of your "is not literally true" or something in addition to that statement? If the latter, why would a mythical story (whether based on a true event or not) not be meant to be taken as true?

nor intended to be taken as true (not that the Bible apologists ever fall over themselves to say so, until they are on the ropes) but is metaphorical, and specifically here, a argument about mans' condition.

No need to poison the well, whether intentionally or not. Some apologists are like that, some answer the issues as they come, some bring it up before they are directly asked to.

Two points there: there is no reason to suppose a god is anything to do with it since it never really happened, at least not as it says in the Bible, if any of it was based on any real thing at all

Do you mean that there is no reason to think God would have had a role in it, as though people use this to argue for Gods existence, or something else?

and that a god is using it as a tall story to justify a release from sin which is just how we are, has no atom of support for believing it, any more than any other religious claim

Theres obviously at least an atom of support for it or millions of people wouldnt have believed it throughout history. Surely, you dont think all of those who disagree with you are bumbling idiots. As to what level of idiot those people are, that's irrelevant to whether Genesis contradicts science.

and it is a far, far better thing to take it as the way we evolved and we have to deal with it, and are going to find a better lead and answers in biological sociology than we will in the pages of any Holy Book, theory or religion.

Why do you think this?

[TRANSPONDER]

The Flood story (and I reckon we can say all of Genesis) is not literally true.

How does the above reckoning follow? Genesis 1-11 and the rest of it have long been noted as distinct styles of literature.

nor intended to be taken as true

Do you mean this as an explanation of your "is not literally true" or something in addition to that statement? If the latter, why would a mythical story (whether based on a true event or not) not be meant to be taken as true?

nor intended to be taken as true (not that the Bible apologists ever fall over themselves to say so, until they are on the ropes) but is metaphorical, and specifically here, a argument about mans' condition.

No need to poison the well, whether intentionally or not. Some apologists are like that, some answer the issues as they come, some bring it up before they are directly asked to.

Two points there: there is no reason to suppose a god is anything to do with it since it never really happened, at least not as it says in the Bible, if any of it was based on any real thing at all

Do you mean that there is no reason to think God would have had a role in it, as though people use this to argue for Gods existence, or something else?

and that a god is using it as a tall story to justify a release from sin which is just how we are, has no atom of support for believing it, any more than any other religious claim

Theres obviously at least an atom of support for it or millions of people wouldnt have believed it throughout history. Surely, you dont think all of those who disagree with you are bumbling idiots. As to what level of idiot those people are, that's irrelevant to whether Genesis contradicts science.

and it is a far, far better thing to take it as the way we evolved and we have to deal with it, and are going to find a better lead and answers in biological sociology than we will in the pages of any Holy Book, theory or religion.

Why do you think this?

Genesis (and indeed the other 'origin' story, Exodus) are not to be accepted as actual events for Genesis for the arguments given up to now and Dave for one passes them off as metaphor or mythologically true or some such thing. The point about 'bumblimg idiots' is a deep one, but I'll just say that we goddless can do well, as the evidence is with us; Bible apologists flounder because even the smartest are trying to make a case despite the evidence ad reason being against them.

If you want to argue that Genesis is true, go for it. On the other hand, the irrelevant excuse of 'different style of literature' rather betrays that you don't think it is actually true as an event. There is of course no reason why a mythical story should not be based on a real event, such as whether (perhaps) Exodus is based on the expulsion of the Hyksos or indeed the Gospels based on the execution of a Galilean felon) but IF the true part of the story is natural like the limited flood, then the mythical part of it can be discarded as having and validity.

Even though, as you say millions of people have believed it. Aside that millions have believed in other gods and religions and I doubt that you credit those, the mere persistence of the unproven idea of a god, like the unproven idea of ghosts, giants and fairies, suggests this is a human instinctive myth with (these days) no reason to believe it, either on evidence or on persistent delusion. You again betray your false, or at least shaky, position by the appeal to the fallacy of numbers AND fallacy of tradition, which is not an atom of support but debunks your case because you had to resort to two fallacies for the price of one faithcalim.

It may be going off topic to discuss secular morality. Perhaps I could refer you to the thread on that topic.

[Inquirer]

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.

[1213]

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

I believe there was a real global flood as the Bible tells. And all real scientific evidence suggests it really happened, marine fossils on high mountains, oil, coal, gas fields, modern continents, vast sediment formations, development of human civilizations, all the stories in all over the world.

Exact time of the flood is not told in the Bible. But the development of human civilizations suggests it could have been about 5000 years ago.

[The Tanager]

If you want to argue that Genesis is true, go for it. On the other hand, the irrelevant excuse of 'different style of literature' rather betrays that you don't think it is actually true as an event.

Calling it an "excuse" is empty rhetoric, even if correct. Calling it "irrelevant" without sharing why isnt helpful either. The fact that genre matters tremendously in interpretation of a text and that Genesis contains different genres within it is consistent with the account being based on a historical event and it not.

There is of course no reason why a mythical story should not be based on a real event, such as whether (perhaps) Exodus is based on the expulsion of the Hyksos or indeed the Gospels based on the execution of a Galilean felon) but IF the true part of the story is natural like the limited flood, then the mythical part of it can be discarded as having and validity.

Why do you think this follows?

Even though, as you say millions of people have believed it. Aside that millions have believed in other gods and religions and I doubt that you credit those, the mere persistence of the unproven idea of a god, like the unproven idea of ghosts, giants and fairies, suggests this is a human instinctive myth with (these days) no reason to believe it, either on evidence or on persistent delusion. You again betray your false, or at least shaky, position by the appeal to the fallacy of numbers AND fallacy of tradition, which is not an atom of support but debunks your case because you had to resort to two fallacies for the price of one faithcalim.

Youve misunderstood. I wasnt saying that the event happened or that God exists because a great number of people believe it. I figured you were being hyperbolic, as you seem informed of these discussions, and made a point towards that, but maybe you werent.

I understand thinking a view doesn't have much going in its favor, but to say there isn't an atom of a reason for a belief that has lasted thousands of years, spread around the world, across various cultures, etc. just doesn't make sense to me.

It may be going off topic to discuss secular morality. Perhaps I could refer you to the thread on that topic.

Yes, I think that would be a discussion for another thread. Not sure I have the time to pursue your posts there, but thanks for the clarification on where your thoughts were going there.

[brunumb]

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

I believe there was a real global flood as the Bible tells. And all real scientific evidence suggests it really happened, marine fossils on high mountains, oil, coal, gas fields, modern continents, vast sediment formations, development of human civilizations, all the stories in all over the world.

Exact time of the flood is not told in the Bible. But the development of human civilizations suggests it could have been about 5000 years ago.

Sorry, but real scientific evidence does not support your contention. Perhaps it would be enlightening if you were to investigate the things you mentioned in bona fide sources rather than those created specifically with a religious agenda.

[TRANSPONDER]

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

I believe there was a real global flood as the Bible tells. And all real scientific evidence suggests it really happened, marine fossils on high mountains, oil, coal, gas fields, modern continents, vast sediment formations, development of human civilizations, all the stories in all over the world.

Exact time of the flood is not told in the Bible. But the development of human civilizations suggests it could have been about 5000 years ago.

Oh god no, no no... So many of these old Flood evidence claims have been debunked long since. The marine fossils on high mountains show fossil sea beds with shells and even worm burrows in situ. They are not sea debris washed up and deposited on the mountain.

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 -shifting and in no way evidence for the Biblical Flood or any other. The evidence - ancient oceans dried up and buried as salt mines, the strata not only laid down over millions of years (estimated before radiometric dating confirmed it) buried, raised up, and eroded is evidence of deep time sequential geology, and without any evidence of a total global Flood is rather evidence there never was one. That's before we even look at the sequential development of life and plant forms related in time to the strata in which we find them, never a rabbit in Devonian strata and never an Edaphosaurus in Miocene strata.

And I cannot see how the development of human civilisations gives any support to the Biblical Flood, unless you are going to point to (as otseng did) a supposed similarity between Mayan Temples, Egyptian pyramids and Mesopotamian ziggurats.

The date of the Flood has varied (so far as I can recall) from 50 thousand years ago to around 4,000 years ago. If C14 dating had a plus or minus error rate no better than that, I wouldn't believe it myself.

[TRANSPONDER]

If you want to argue that Genesis is true, go for it. On the other hand, the irrelevant excuse of 'different style of literature' rather betrays that you don't think it is actually true as an event.

Calling it an "excuse" is empty rhetoric, even if correct. Calling it "irrelevant" without sharing why isnt helpful either. The fact that genre matters tremendously in interpretation of a text and that Genesis contains different genres within it is consistent with the account being based on a historical event and it not.

There is of course no reason why a mythical story should not be based on a real event, such as whether (perhaps) Exodus is based on the expulsion of the Hyksos or indeed the Gospels based on the execution of a Galilean felon) but IF the true part of the story is natural like the limited flood, then the mythical part of it can be discarded as having and validity.

Why do you think this follows?

Even though, as you say millions of people have believed it. Aside that millions have believed in other gods and religions and I doubt that you credit those, the mere persistence of the unproven idea of a god, like the unproven idea of ghosts, giants and fairies, suggests this is a human instinctive myth with (these days) no reason to believe it, either on evidence or on persistent delusion. You again betray your false, or at least shaky, position by the appeal to the fallacy of numbers AND fallacy of tradition, which is not an atom of support but debunks your case because you had to resort to two fallacies for the price of one faithcalim.

Youve misunderstood. I wasnt saying that the event happened or that God exists because a great number of people believe it. I figured you were being hyperbolic, as you seem informed of these discussions, and made a point towards that, but maybe you werent.

I understand thinking a view doesn't have much going in its favor, but to say there isn't an atom of a reason for a belief that has lasted thousands of years, spread around the world, across various cultures, etc. just doesn't make sense to me.

It may be going off topic to discuss secular morality. Perhaps I could refer you to the thread on that topic.

Yes, I think that would be a discussion for another thread. Not sure I have the time to pursue your posts there, but thanks for the clarification on where your thoughts were going there.

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'. 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.

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? 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.