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?

 

[Bawse Dawg]

 

[Nate505]

I've read the Bible perhaps six times cover to cover

I'm sorry.

 

[Zulu]

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.

Plants do gas exchange, they take in Carbon Dioxide and release molecular Oxygen!! They also have a circulatory system the xylem and phloem...

Also there are many members on the animal kingdom with out blood...


Soo ya!!!

 

[Zulu]

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.

Plants came later.... You had cyano bacteria and other single cellular organisms that did photosynthesis that filled our earth with its concentration if molecular oxygen!!!

 

[babe]

I rather think the effort to understand the Bible, and reading it, are some of the better days of my life. I get it that some people think there are bigger fish to fry.

for Jf0124, I get it that the pious folks around you can be intolerant or offensive, and you might be trying to carve out some ground you can stand on. And I get it that you are a serious student of science with some information at hand that can challenge others' opinions. And this is a good place to lay out your views.

Your response above, however, raises some questions in my mind on the issue of perspective and maturity. I surely don't imagine that the God of the Universe, who created us and gave us life in the conditions we are in, is really focused on one relatively inconsequential maladjustment in our conduct. Sure we are given a drive in favor of procreation, and surely God would think purposed use of our drives is better than relatively purposeless uses/abuses. I think in the larger view, having a kid counts more in the eyes of God, oh probably ten orders of magnitude. But even in that scale we often fail to raise our kids in a way that would show our respect for life.

The greatest argument, in my mind, in favor of the idea/belief in "God" is the stunning realization that God cares about us, and tries to nurture life as His primary mission.

On the issue of maturity, I am realizing more and more as years go by that it's a wonderful quality that empowers us to let a lot of stuff just roll off and not bother us, and having an abiding self-respect is essential to that. It eliminates the needless impulse to just diss other people who are different or who don't just appreciate us as we might wish.

Evolution does not bother me. I was at one time a student of Mario Capecci and found his lectures compelling. If we can play "God" in a laboratory today, I'm sure our creator can use the same or better principles. . .. and has done so across many planets like ours. So when I find "evolutionay anomalies" or curious information about unparalleled life forms, I don't even hesitate to realize that in all likelihood, these things were not all created in a day, but rather in a process of time probably exceeding our cellular "big bang" universe. The larger reality, in my imagination, would make the known universe a tiny little blip of light on a 3-D map some cubic miles in size.

In the language of early LDS writers, the word "endless" is resorted to when discussing "God" or the heavens. . . . .

 

[babe]

Plants came later.... You had cyano bacteria and other single cellular organisms that did photosynthesis that filled our earth with its concentration if molecular oxygen!!!

I won't argue this point. . . . . we still have these life forms in underwater volcanic plumes. .. . .

I did vaguely mention the element sulfur and the sulfide zone found in plutonic rock. I have not heard of "plants" that utilize SO2, no trees nor sagebrush nor grass at least, though we have some fairly different alternatives for classifying single cellular life "plant" or "animal". Some have CO2 photosynthesis onboard, some don't. Using SO2 and as an energy-transfer series is a great trick, but don't these organisms also have carbon compounds, proteins and DNA in their essential chemistry???? If so, they are reducing carbon dioxide one way or another.

 

[MVP]

. 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.

Well Pearl's version said whales and not great sea monsters right? And your version still says winged creatures before land animals. So you agree that your story tells about whales and birds being first before reptiles and other land creatures correct? Which is not true as far as fossil records and carbon dating goes. Bible as well says Earth was created first and then God made stars. Which is not true again as we know for sure that there are billions of stars older then Earth.

 

[babe]

Well Pearl's version said whales and not great sea monsters right? And your version still says winged creatures before land animals. So you agree that your story tells about whales and birds being first before reptiles and other land creatures correct? Which is not true as far as fossil records and carbon dating goes. Bible as well says Earth was created first and then God made stars. Which is not true again as we know for sure that there are billions of stars older then Earth.

There are some differences in the terms used that arise "in translation", and it's probably a stretch to expect technical terms to be correctly applied by shepherds and plowboys across the hundreds of years between Moses and the attempt under Solomon's orders to gather the remnants of old writings and merge them together with the faithful folklore. . .. into a cohesive and compelling "faithful" narrative.

I won't choke on the fact that Bible puts some things in the fifth day, and others in the sixth day, and that it doesn't fit the fossil record exactly. . . .

Today, after only 240 years roughly speaking we Americans can't get it straight that our Constitution was a compact between sovereign states with a Federal government that was limited to specific defined powers. . . .

And, considering the probably murky primeval skies, which had more pollution generally than even Shanghai today, I can see where some anthropocentric shepherds might think the stars came later. They thought, afterall, that stars were little lanterns, not suns. . . .