Oh, it's not your interpretation? Which verse mentions oxygen or carbon dioxide?
thanks
thanks
The Genesis Account and Science
- Thread starter Saquist
- Start date
I'm not sure what you're going on about in your remarks about dictators and such... it would seem that you have some seriously convoluted ideas about science to be sure. But its definitely clear that you are wholly ignorant and under-educated with regard to evolution. Not only this, but you are applying unsupported mythology as if it is tested fact. With regard to your personal belief of what the word "theory" means, believe what you like. This however is a science message board, so when it's discussed here, we're talking about ideas that can include facts and laws and tested hypotheses. Not the wild speculations and spurious ideas of the colloquial kind. Furthermore, when you see the word "theory" mentioned in this forum, it's accepted that this is what we're talking about.
And the concept of evolution is both fact AND theory, whether you choose to believe it or even understand it. This is a concept that has both been observed AND tested. Moreover, evolutionary theory has provided many, many predictions which have held true. Creationist nutbars can deny it and stick their heads where the sun doesn't shine with regard to evolution all they want, but it doesn't change the fact that evolution really happened. Not only that, but not a single creationist nutter has provided a single shred of evidence that invalidates the mountain of evidence in favor of evolution.
Really. The evidence is completely and utterly NOT in your favor. There is a mountain of evidence that says you're full of shit and you present not a single shred of evidence to the contrary. But don't present it to me, write it up and publish it: present it to the world. Of course you can't because you obviously don't know the first thing on the topic. Not a bad thing in and of itself, except that you keep making assertions and contentions that rely on actually having some knowledge in the subject. Your ignorance is making you look very stupid in this forum, so I'd recommend actually educating yourself so at least you can speak from authority. You can say you're educated on the subject, but you have yet to demonstrate that education through your words. Indeed, the things you've said to date indicate you are wholly ignorant on the topic of evolution and that you don't know the first thing about it.
I think you're inferring too much. Indeed, you're probably allowing your own emotions to influence your inferential ability based on your reactions to my statements. I assure you, I type them with cold, dispassionate opinion and I truly mean exactly what I type. I have no anger nor frustration that exists beyond some mild annoyance that someone with an obvious lack of education is willing to make assertions and contentions that require education. And by "education" I'm speaking specifically on the topic of evolution and science in general. The evidence that you are wholly ignorant on the topics at hand is apparent when you reveal that you lack understanding of basics like the scientific methods (in another thread) and the definition of "theory" (in this and that other thread) as held by those that actually do or study science. Am I "provoked?" Most assuredly. But not to react with anger or "belligerence." I speaking to you matter-of-factly using terms that are dispassionate, logical and accurate. Finally, my opinion on the subject has been quite on topic. Clearly you don't like it because it calls your delusions into question in a manner you don't appreciate, such as using the term "delusion." But I've defined and justified it in either this or another thread.
Pseudoscience: pseudo, meaning fake -> pseudo+science = fake-science.
You're making spurious correlations and explanations regarding a mythical tale. You make statements that don't hold up and call them "scientifically sound" based on these spurious correlations and explanations. This is "fake" science, a.k.a. pseudoscience. No dictionary required, just a simple understanding of basic etymology.
But since you're concerned with using definitions "written and approved for all to see," I'll provide you with some basic definitions on the two terms at hand.
pseudoscience - A pretended or spurious science; a collection of related beliefs about the world mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method or as having the status that scientific truths now have.
theory - A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed.
Source: The Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edition 1989.
There is no better, more reliable source for the definition of an English word.
In your own words Saquist:
As with other things that are misrepresented or misunderstood, ther first chapter of the Bible deserves at least a fair hearing. The need is to investigate and determine whether it harmonizes with known facts, not to mold it to fit some theorectical framework.
Then you say the "known facts" are still possibly a theory and the science is in dispute. So your attempt is to line up Genesis with known facts but ironically "known facts" are possibly flawed.....What the?????????
As with other things that are misrepresented or misunderstood, ther first chapter of the Bible deserves at least a fair hearing. The need is to investigate and determine whether it harmonizes with known facts, not to mold it to fit some theorectical framework.
Then you say the "known facts" are still possibly a theory and the science is in dispute. So your attempt is to line up Genesis with known facts but ironically "known facts" are possibly flawed.....What the?????????
In your own words Saquist:
As with other things that are misrepresented or misunderstood, ther first chapter of the Bible deserves at least a fair hearing. The need is to investigate and determine whether it harmonizes with known facts, not to mold it to fit some theorectical framework.
Then you say the "known facts" are still possibly a theory and the science is in dispute. So your attempt is to line up Genesis with known facts but ironically "known facts" are possibly flawed.....What the?????????
known facts are the only relevent information that Ophiolite deposited on this thread. Go back and read them.
Theory does not equal known facts. Your relating of my statements reflect you've not read everyones post. I encourage you to stop a put aside the toothbrush you're using to go over post you do not comprehend and read all the post in context...and then of course...try...try...again.
You have yet to show that biblical mythology matches a scientific progression. You've made some weak -very weak- correlations and used pseudoscientific process. That's all. You can blindly and ignorantly argue from an uneducated perspective that evolution is unscientific all you want -but what you're revealing is your own ignorance and lack of education. Again, these aren't things that are necessarily wrong. But they are if you're making claims and assertions that depend on knowing something of the subject.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
A quick summary:
Saquist has little knowledge of evolution, beyond the fact that he thinks it is a 'bad thing'.
Saquist has utterly failed to demonstrate any significant correlation between the sequence of events described in Genesis and the Earth's history as demonstrated by scientific study of the evidence.
Saquist has somehow deluded himself that he has demonstrated the above. [Given the clarity of the evidence against his thesis, this is mighty powerful self delusion.]
Saquist's score in a comparative religion exam would be very low.
Saquist does not understand the scientific method, or scientific terminology.
Saquist has an unsual preference for using dictionary definitions for scientifi terms.
Saquist is persistently rude and patronising. [These characteristics do not sit well on someone who is so ignorant of a topic they claim knowledge about.]
Conclusion: continued discussion with an ignorant, rude, self deluded individual who will not listen, is probably counterproductive. [However, on cold wet winter mornings it can help to pass the time.]
Saquist has little knowledge of evolution, beyond the fact that he thinks it is a 'bad thing'.
Saquist has utterly failed to demonstrate any significant correlation between the sequence of events described in Genesis and the Earth's history as demonstrated by scientific study of the evidence.
Saquist has somehow deluded himself that he has demonstrated the above. [Given the clarity of the evidence against his thesis, this is mighty powerful self delusion.]
Saquist's score in a comparative religion exam would be very low.
Saquist does not understand the scientific method, or scientific terminology.
Saquist has an unsual preference for using dictionary definitions for scientifi terms.
Saquist is persistently rude and patronising. [These characteristics do not sit well on someone who is so ignorant of a topic they claim knowledge about.]
Conclusion: continued discussion with an ignorant, rude, self deluded individual who will not listen, is probably counterproductive. [However, on cold wet winter mornings it can help to pass the time.]
Skin walker I don't think your belief system could allow you ever to see this anything other than weak-correlations.
Theres a wall there...denial, if you will. If you can't be honest with yourself I wouldn't expect honesty towards myself.
This is lack of objectivity thus allows me to pool from sources that excced my education.
Proffessor Georg A. Barton observed: "A more important difference lies in the religous conceptions of the two. The Babylonian poem is mythological and polytheistic. Its conception of deity is by no means exalted. Its gods love and hate, they scheme and plot, fight and destroy. Marduck, the champion, conquers only after a fierce struggle, which taxes his powers to the utmost. Genesis, on the other hand, reflects the most exalted monotheism. God is so throuroughly the master of all the elements of the universe that they obey his slightest word. He controls all without effort. He speaks and it is done. Granting as most scholars do, that there is a connection between the two narratives, there is no better mearuse of the inspiration of the Biblical account than to put it side by side with the Babylonian. As we read the chapter in Genesis today, it still reveals to us the magjesty and power of the one God, and creates in the modern man, as it did in the ancient Hebrew, a worshipful attitude toward the Creator."- Archaeology and the Bible, pp. 297,298
Essential this gentleman says that you're putting only the most cursory amount of thought and consideration into it's differences and it's scientific impact.
That's not just ignorance Skinwalker, its a choice. I can't defy your choice to ignore these people that's an internal trigger and there's nothing I can say nor anyone else of any authority or righteousness that can disarm that trigger but you.
There's more Skinwalker, but you'll never hear it. You've already made the decision to disregard anything of credit....That line has been drawn by your issue with religion. For you religion can never be right, it's always wrong in your judgement. I thank you for time but you did not give me your ear. Your response will be forseeable from this point on and therefore I can predict that you emotions will get the better of you...so I end it now.
P.S. If you have anything further to relate you may send a private message. I'll never turn my ear away from those that seek humble discussion.
I'll see you out there Skin walker...
Theres a wall there...denial, if you will. If you can't be honest with yourself I wouldn't expect honesty towards myself.
This is lack of objectivity thus allows me to pool from sources that excced my education.
Proffessor Georg A. Barton observed: "A more important difference lies in the religous conceptions of the two. The Babylonian poem is mythological and polytheistic. Its conception of deity is by no means exalted. Its gods love and hate, they scheme and plot, fight and destroy. Marduck, the champion, conquers only after a fierce struggle, which taxes his powers to the utmost. Genesis, on the other hand, reflects the most exalted monotheism. God is so throuroughly the master of all the elements of the universe that they obey his slightest word. He controls all without effort. He speaks and it is done. Granting as most scholars do, that there is a connection between the two narratives, there is no better mearuse of the inspiration of the Biblical account than to put it side by side with the Babylonian. As we read the chapter in Genesis today, it still reveals to us the magjesty and power of the one God, and creates in the modern man, as it did in the ancient Hebrew, a worshipful attitude toward the Creator."- Archaeology and the Bible, pp. 297,298
Essential this gentleman says that you're putting only the most cursory amount of thought and consideration into it's differences and it's scientific impact.
That's not just ignorance Skinwalker, its a choice. I can't defy your choice to ignore these people that's an internal trigger and there's nothing I can say nor anyone else of any authority or righteousness that can disarm that trigger but you.
There's more Skinwalker, but you'll never hear it. You've already made the decision to disregard anything of credit....That line has been drawn by your issue with religion. For you religion can never be right, it's always wrong in your judgement. I thank you for time but you did not give me your ear. Your response will be forseeable from this point on and therefore I can predict that you emotions will get the better of you...so I end it now.
P.S. If you have anything further to relate you may send a private message. I'll never turn my ear away from those that seek humble discussion.
I'll see you out there Skin walker...
Last edited:
Yes, I did read all the posts and did understand them and yes, in context of course.
So,let me re-phrase this in a VERY basic way. You claim science as we know it concurs with genesis, then....you say science as we know it is possibly flawed and disputable( in your responses to Skinwalker and others here who have given you scientific facts in refuting your crazy logic).Bizarre to say the least...but not unexpected!
A) How exactly is monotheism more pertinent than polytheism?
B) Since when was it a requirement of gods not to love and hate? Even the biblical god, (who is an amalgamation of those other gods), shows both sides of the coin on many occasions. His power is also tested, (he is unable for instance to defeat chariots).
C) The statement made is pure bias from a guy that will refuse any being other than his own specific god not on the merits of evidence, (because there exists no such thing in terms of gods), but on the merits of his own personal feelings and desires.
river-wind
Valued Senior Member
But you didn't. You stated things, both quotes from the bible and your own understanding of thoe quotes, that other people showed to be innaccurate to the scientific understanding of creation. You never addressed those issues, but instead seem to have the ability to completely block them out of your mind like they were never mentioned.
Help me here. you say that the word used in the Hebrew text could be more accurately translated as "revealed" instead of "created". That common understanding of Genesis is wrong, and that the sun and moon and stars existed before the Earth. But you also say that Genesis accounts for the creation of the universe - in fact you point this out as critical to the Genesis account being superior to other creation myths.
If the universe's creation is included in Genesis, and the Sun and Moon are a part of the Universe, then the creation of those light-giving objects, even if not stated explicitly, must have occurred after the creation of the universe, and before the revelation of light, no?
This may be a translation issue, but this paragraph completely contradicts itself, doesn't it?
Unless you mean to claim that Genesis follows the scientific method in its descriptions of creation, which it doesn't even come close to doing. Where are the Hypotheses? The predictions? The tests? How is genesis in the least bit scientific? It is a telling of events. That's not science, that's journalism.
And just like all reporting, it can be accurate to the facts, or inaccurate to the facts. So far, you have shown some area that could be accurate if understood in certain ways, and other items which appear to be simply wrong.
WOW. WOW! I'm simply amazed that anyone would think it a good idea to lay out such arrogance in public. I even agree with you (I'd say it applies to pretty much everyone, the three of us included), but the way you put it make you out to look like a perfect being, and Skinwalker to be the Fool of all eternity.
WOW.
So you will of course now tell me where the Genesis account was inaccurate?
because your allegations of "unscientific" continue to be unsubstantiated.
My "belief system" is grounded in empiricism and rational thought; critical examination and inquiry. And I find it ironic that you consider yourself to be the "objective" one in this discussion. Your pseudoscientific perspective is anything but objective -skewed by the delusions you harbor for the inerrant and literal truth of the mythical superstitions you cling to. The "denial" is in refusing to acknowledge any data that doesn't already support your preconceived conclusions -conclusions you have about that very mythology you believe to be inerrant fact. The "denial" is in refusing to educate yourself on issues that are pertinent to your assertions, arguing instead from ignorance (a serious logical fallacy on your part) that since you don't know a subject, it must therefore not have any truth to it.
Wow. You quoted someone who supports your belief that Genesis is not a result of earlier Sumerian (via the Babylonians) myths simply because he likes the Genesis account better. An argument from personal incredulity as well as popularity. More evidence of pseudoscientific method in your opinion and assertions and certainly further evidence of acknowledging only that data which are supportive of your preconceived conclusions (a pseudoscientific character, by the way).
This "gentleman" is arguing from personal incredulity. Moreover, he has not the first thought of how much consideration I've put into the issue. This is merely your own projection of your own emotional dismay that there are those who are willing to question and inquire about your myths and not take them at face-value. That there are those for whom biblical mythology is just that: mythology.
No. I'll keep my comments public. Thank you.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Perfectly expressed. Saquist, these statements lie at the heart of our disagreement with you. [That, and in my case, your obnoxious arrogance.]
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
For the third time you self aggrandizing the Earth was not formless, it was not covered with water, and it was not dark [and arguably it was not rocky.] You have utterly failed to contradict any of these. :shrug:
Plus, as RiverWind has succinctly pointed out, even if the story in Genesis was 100% accurate, that would merely make it factual, not scientific.
Last edited by a moderator:
So you will of course now tell everyone where the Genesis account was scientific?
because your allegations of "scientific" continue to be unsubstantiated.