The Truth of Genesis

[Justadude]

Well, the Bible is the only record where "possible", "probable", and "might have" are not used to describe the creation of the universe. So, for a Christian believer who accepts that God is really there, and did inspire the Biblical record, he must also accept that God was the only eye-witness to the event of creation, and if He says that He created the universe and this world in seven days, and is quite definite about it, and does not require His record of events to be subject to man's judgment, then as a Bible-believing Christian, I just accept God's version of events as they are written, according to the Scripture, "Let God be true and every man [by comparison] a liar", and "As the heavens are above the earth, God's ways are above our ways, and His thoughts above our thoughts."

But then, if a person doesn't believe that God is really there, and did not communicate anything to mankind in any sort of record such as the Bible, then I can understand that evolution is probably the only possible explanation of how our universe and world came into being.

That's very nicely said.

 

[Paul Christensen]

That's very nicely said.

The writing of Francis Schaeffer is really good for explaining things from a philosophical perspective, especially in his books "God is There and He is not Silent", and, "Escape From Reason". He uses plain logic to show that God really does exist, and that He is who He says He is, and that the Bible is His true communication to mankind.

 

[reformed1689]

I'm pretty sure if I asked any doctor if a person could be dead for three days and then come back to life, they'd say no.

Oh brother, you are mixing supernatural EXCEPTION events. That is not the same thing. Christians also agree that under NORMAL circumstances nobody is dead three days and comes back to life.

Wrong. I don't rely on them for scientific information because they're not a scientific resource, not because they don't agree with me.

It is only your opinion that they are not a scientific resource.

That doesn't address the issue. You seem to be expecting me to accept things as true for no other reason than that you say they're true. For example, when you said "Evolution is not based on observation. It's based on theories that are EASILY debunked. It's not science", what was your expectation? That I would change my mind for no other reason than that you said so?

No, just pointing out the flaws in your arguments.

 

[reformed1689]

But then, if a person doesn't believe that God is really there, and did not communicate anything to mankind in any sort of record such as the Bible, then I can understand that evolution is probably the only possible explanation of how our universe and world came into being.

Other than the fact it doesn't even make logical sense.

 

[Enow]

I'll ask you the same thing I asked @Enow . Are you expecting me to believe that's true just because you say it is? I see scientists from all over the world holding the opposite view, so why do you think I would reject that just because of what you posted above? Who do you think you are?

Whenever you decide to lead by examples in providing links to actual reports you seem to demand from us, we will do the same to you in being equally dismissive to your claims. See how that works?

 

[Paul Christensen]

Which scientific organization works according to tenets similar to ICR's?


So medical science isn't true science?


Wrong. I'll say it again, I don't rely on Christian apologetics organizations for information about science, just like I don't rely on Muslim apologetics organizations for information about IT.


Wrong. The people at ICR are not scientists because they work according to an unscientific rule, "anything that disagrees with the Bible is wrong".


Because I find it interesting and I like to write.


I'll ask you the same thing I asked @Enow . Are you expecting me to believe that's true just because you say it is? I see scientists from all over the world holding the opposite view, so why do you think I would reject that just because of what you posted above? Who do you think you are?

The bottom line to all this is the mix of probabilities that makes the certainty somewhat possible, if the factor, or the non-factor of the principle is taken into account, along with the subsistence of the overall and overarching continuum of theoretic propositions that make up the complete picture, which is plain and open for all who are prepared to see it clearly.

 

[Justadude]

Oh brother, you are mixing supernatural EXCEPTION events. That is not the same thing. Christians also agree that under NORMAL circumstances nobody is dead three days and comes back to life.

Do you believe Genesis describes supernatural creation by God?

It is only your opinion that they are not a scientific resource.

Hardly. I'm not the only one with that opinion. I wonder just how you think science should work. Do you think when scientists do their research, they should have to check with the Bible before they publish their conclusions, and if any of their conclusions contradict the Bible they should throw those conclusions out and start over until they reach conclusions that agree with the Bible?

Is that how you think "true science" works?

 

[Justadude]

Whenever you decide to lead by examples in providing links to actual reports you seem to demand from us, we will do the same to you in being equally dismissive to your claims. See how that works?

If I make a claim that you think requires a citation, let me know. I have to wonder why you'd care though, since this is a religious-based, not science-based, issue for you. It's not like you find scientific papers persuasive, right?

 

[reformed1689]

Do you believe Genesis describes supernatural creation by God?

Of course.

 

[Justadude]

Of course.

If "true science" always agrees with the Bible, except when it comes to supernatural events, and the Genesis creation story describes supernatural events, then "true science" doesn't have to agree with Genesis (by your own reasoning).

 

[Enow]

If I make a claim that you think requires a citation, let me know. I have to wonder why you'd care though, since this is a religious-based, not science-based, issue for you. It's not like you find scientific papers persuasive, right?

I find the laws of science; the Law of Biogenesis and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, disproving the evolution theory even though you refuse to acknowledge that. Even what real science is defines as what can be observed and proven and as for the theoritical science, it is only valid when it is a phenomenon observed in the natural word which macroevolution does not apply when it only exists in the realm of a series of unproven hypothesis.

But I understand that this is not really science based issue for you because you are of the anti-religious/anti-God/anti-moral mindset, right? That is why when you read scientific papers, your English grammar fails on purpose by overlooking all the words that signify that whole paper as speculation. I understand why you do it because you want to believe in it.

Here is a link to a list of scientists that testifying to dissent from Darwinism that you can download to see.

Dissent from Darwin – There is a scientific dissent from Darwinism and it deserves to be heard.

Or you can take it at face value at this video at Youtube; when the video is running, you can stop it when they show a part of the list to see the names and their doctoral degree or position.

 

[Justadude]

I find the laws of science; the Law of Biogenesis and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, disproving the evolution theory even though you refuse to acknowledge that. Even what real science is defines as what can be observed and proven and as for the theoritical science, it is only valid when it is a phenomenon observed in the natural word which macroevolution does not apply when it only exists in the realm of a series of unproven hypothesis.

I'm not going to accept all that as truth just because you tell me so, especially when you're wrong about the fundamentals of science. Events do not need to be observed in order to be "real science". If that was true, geology, cosmology, archaeology, forensics, etc. wouldn't be "real science".

But I understand that this is not really science based issue for you because you are of the anti-religious/anti-God/anti-moral mindset, right? That is why when you read scientific papers, your English grammar fails on purpose by overlooking all the words that signify that whole paper as speculation. I understand why you do it because you want to believe in it.

Wrong. I have no religious stakes in this any more than I have with IT or car repair.

Here is a link to a list of scientists that testifying to dissent from Darwinism that you can download to see.

Dissent from Darwin – There is a scientific dissent from Darwinism and it deserves to be heard.

Or you can take it at face value at this video at Youtube; when the video is running, you can stop it when they show a part of the list to see the names and their doctoral degree or position.

Is your argument that since that many people signed the list, then their point is valid?

 

[Enow]

I'm not going to accept all that as truth just because you tell me so, especially when you're wrong about the fundamentals of science. Events do not need to be observed in order to be "real science". If that was true, geology, cosmology, archaeology, forensics, etc. wouldn't be "real science".

Science definition - What is science?

"How Do We Define Science?
According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, the definition of science is:

• "knowledge attained through study or practice," or
• "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world."

What Does That Really Mean?

Science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge. This system uses observation and experimentation to describe and explain natural phenomena."

Macroevolution is not a phenomenon found in the natural world to observe nor proven by experimentation. So wake up.

Wrong. I have no religious stakes in this any more than I have with IT or car repair.

I would say your sinful behavior is at stake because that would mean you need Jesus to save you from your sins. So denial is a useful tactic for you.

Is your argument that since that many people signed the list, then their point is valid?

That they know real science form what is a false science, yeah, it is valid. The point here is "science" does not really support the evolution theory.

 

[Justadude]

Science definition - What is science?

"How Do We Define Science?
According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, the definition of science is:

• "knowledge attained through study or practice," or
• "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world."

What Does That Really Mean?

Science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge. This system uses observation and experimentation to describe and explain natural phenomena."

Nothing in there about an event having to be observed before science can study it.

To repeat, if that were true how can geologists study past geological events if they didn't observe them? How can forensic scientists study crime scenes if they weren't there when the crime happened?

Macroevolution is not a phenomenon found in the natural world to observe nor proven by experimentation. So wake up.

You're getting a little stale. I'm not going to go against the conclusions of scientists based on nothing more than your statements.

I would say your sinful behavior is at stake because that would mean you need Jesus to save you from your sins. So denial is a useful tactic for you.

Is that the case for the millions of Christians who don't deny evolution?

That they know real science form what is a false science, yeah, it is valid. The point here is "science" does not really support the evolution theory.

If that list is supposed to be persuasive, then this list must be even more persuasive.

Project Steve | National Center for Science Education

 

[reformed1689]

If "true science" always agrees with the Bible, except when it comes to supernatural events, and the Genesis creation story describes supernatural events, then "true science" doesn't have to agree with Genesis (by your own reasoning).

No, my reasoning is true science can't deal with creation. You miss that part. Plus, it can't. It was a historical event that cannot be tested, observed, or recreated. Therefore does not fall within the realm of science.

 

[Enoch111]

Nothing in there about an event having to be observed before science can study it.

Well then you don't know much about science.

'The scientific method uses deduction to test hypotheses and theories. "In deductive inference, we hold a theory and based on it we make a prediction of its consequences. That is, we predict what the observations should be if the theory were correct. We go from the general — the theory — to the specific — the observations..."'

 

[reformed1689]

Well then you don't know much about science.

'The scientific method uses deduction to test hypotheses and theories. "In deductive inference, we hold a theory and based on it we make a prediction of its consequences. That is, we predict what the observations should be if the theory were correct. We go from the general — the theory — to the specific — the observations..."'

That's my entire point. He doesn't even know what science actually is.

 

[Justadude]

No, my reasoning is true science can't deal with creation. You miss that part. Plus, it can't. It was a historical event that cannot be tested, observed, or recreated. Therefore does not fall within the realm of science.

I'll repeat, I'm content to let scientists decide what they can and can't study.

 

[Justadude]

Well then you don't know much about science.

'The scientific method uses deduction to test hypotheses and theories. "In deductive inference, we hold a theory and based on it we make a prediction of its consequences. That is, we predict what the observations should be if the theory were correct. We go from the general — the theory — to the specific — the observations..."'

Then how do forensic scientists study a crime scene if they didn't observe the crime?

 

[Enoch111]

Then how do forensic scientists study a crime scene if they didn't observe the crime?

What the observe is the aftermath of the crime, and then work backwards. It is still minute observation.