Thread: Genesis and science agree

Originally Posted by daytonturner

It is a 10-year-old, and quite lengthy treatise, but I am herewith providing a link to a treatise by a Christian scientist which purports to show harmony between science and the Genesis account of creation.

The author, Don Stoner (whose name probably should not be taken literally), is (was?) a physicist and computer software engineer and, I assume, a Christian. His basic premise is that if the Bible and the Universe are both creations of God, they must be totally compatible and without any disagreement wherein they interrelate.

He points out that both scientists and theologians are seeking truth. He suggests that wherein there appear to be conflicts between the Bible and science, it is because either the theologians have misunderstood the scriptures or science has misunderstood the universe or, in some cases, both have misunderstood their area of focus. For example, both science and the Church were involved in repudiating Galileo, not just the Church as many atheists try to contend.

I think this will be particularly helpful for those of you who object to creationism on the basis of young earth advocates because Stoner debunks young-earth theory. It will give you much ammunition to combat young earth advocates.

http://www.answers.org/newlook/NEWLOOK.HTM#Top

If you feel comfortable with what Stoner has to say on that matter, you might also enjoy his chastisement of Michael Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box.

http://answers.org/newlook/behe2.html

The only agreement between the OT and the BBT is that they both believe in 'creation out of nothing'. Ha ha.

The Laws of Conservation of Matter and Energy are thoroughly proven to be factual, so both the OT and BBT are wrong in my opinion.

The OT is completely in opposition to Nature and its teachings.

I can give some credibility to the NT as teaching a refutation of the OT's teachings of 'chauvinism that both John, the Baptist, and Christ opposed.
So Christ was killed for speaking his mind.

However, I believe that our US Constitution is an endorsement of the Christian Gospel because it outlaws 'cruel and unusual punishment' and allows 'free speech'.

Cosmo

Originally Posted by daytonturner

(Q) mentions panspermia and RNA as hypotheses related to abiogenesis.

My understanding of the general concept of abiogenesis is that it has to do with the development of living cells from non-living materials via a series of random chemical actions and reactions.

I would say that is correct, other than I don't think abiogenesis includes the claim of "random chemical actions and reactions."

As such, I would could not accept panspermia as a form of abiogenesis since it has at its core the idea that life came to earth from some alien source. That would only move the question a step away as one would now have to explain how THAT life began.

I share your concern.

Thanks for the coffee invite, but I get impression you are Brit which is some distance from the Pacific Northwest although I understand the weather and coastal environs are somewhat similar. Maybe after we develop teletransportation.

That's fine, although I hope you appreciate the intent of the invite, which simply refers to the time and effort you'd require to get a comprehensive understanding of abiogenesis, the hypotheses and the evidence, if not already acquired.

And until you do acquire such an understanding, I would submit that any arguments you make in reference to it would not be valid.

mitchell and dayton:

I do not feel qualified to discussing this subject, but I did suggest on another thread that if 'stem cells' can survive in space at 3K, than that means that there is 'everlasting' life as there is everlasting physical matter according to the Laws of Conservation.

So, I wonder if there has been any study done on testing this 'stem cell' survival in space as a living but dormant survival?

NASA has done a lot of scientific research in space and I wonder if they did some research in this respect?

Cosmo

After spending a couple of years reading through the articles on the following lovely site http://www.answersingenesis.org/, I have decided that it is pointless attempting to argue scientifically with creationists.

Intelligent Design is simply stating that what we cannot explain sufficiently (and sufficiently depends entirely on the individuals level of understanding) we shall attribute to a Divine Intelligence. Instead of saying we don't know yet but lets endeavour to find out, they simply declare that a divine intelligence called God did it. Doesn't actually explain anything and raises more questions that are unanswerable.

Creationists, on the other hand, seem to think that a collection of books reflecting one particular societies views is the most accurate desciption we'll have of how things came to be, and, that this collection of Books should be used to frame scientific discussion in.

religion is the natural process of all societies creating cultural myths to explain the origin of life in the absense of science and its continuation today is consistant with its indoctorination of its offspring.

a child raised in a science only home will never find themselves worshiping a cultural myth that resolves human existance with the promise of an after-life or life after death. However, many children indoctornated with a religious myth from birth will denounce its faith and turn to science when they become of age and began to form their own conclusions.

A widely accepted method of validating one cultural myth is to discredit science. However, true scientists belive religion to be only a cultural myth and admitting anything to the contrary is for the purpose of being politically correct.

Originally Posted by ajg624

a child raised in a science only home will never find themselves worshiping a cultural myth that resolves human existance with the promise of an after-life or life after death. However, many children indoctornated with a religious myth from birth will denounce its faith and turn to science when they become of age and began to form their own conclusions.

Since you believe in such a wild fantasy and preposterous myth as this, apparently you were not raised in a "science only" home, whatever that means, unless of course what you really mean by "science only" is atheist indoctrination (and that is still only a vain hope and a delusion).

Since religions have both a beginning and have converts this myth is the sort of idiocy that one would expect of young earth creationists and flat earthers. It is the same self-congratulatory nonsense that one sees in the most ignorant religious people.

I was raised by two psychology graduates and scientific explanations where the only explanations that were offered for things. But they taught me to think for myself. So I made up my own mind about things and now I am a Christian. I have no doubt there are others raised by Christians (of a more classically liberal sort) that were raised in a similar manner and chose an atheistic worldview.

I might suspect it is in homes where parents simply teach their children to believe whatever they are told, indoctrinating them into either a religious or an atheistic world view, that the children predominantly grow up to believe whatever they have been programmed to. But I know this simply is not true. I know lots of people who were raised in an environment of religious indoctrination who reacted against it and tried to indoctrinate their children against this same religion. But the funny thing is that I know these children grown up because I met them at church. It is the nature of children to rebel and live their own life.

People really do believe the goofiest things and this atheist doctrine that the religious are purely a product of indoctrination is one of the goofiest belief I have ever heard that people cling to -- right up there with YEC and that the holocost never happened. Why do people cling to such goofy beliefs, ignoring all evidence of their senses and redifining words or whatever else it takes so that they can maintain these goofy beliefs? I think it demonstrates a fundemental fact about human beings that they can and will believe just about anything.

i

Originally Posted by ajg624

a child raised in a science only home will never find themselves worshiping a cultural myth that resolves human existance with the promise of an after-life or life after death. However, many children indoctornated with a religious myth from birth will denounce its faith and turn to science when they become of age and began to form their own conclusions.

I would suggest this is pretty much unadulterated BS and I have no idea where some of you folks are getting this kind of crap. What studies are showing this kind of information? Where do you get this idea and what makes you say these things?

The TRUTH is that many people raised in non-believing homes become believers. Many people raised in believing, churched homes leave that faith later in life. Well, that would apply to Christianity. I would agree that it is very difficult for people raised in Muslim or Hindu families to leave that faith because of the social ostracization they experience when or if they do so.

In the U.S. at least, your hypothetical "science only" home can hardly be a large sement of the society in view of the most recent study showing only seven percent of people are absolute non-believers. And, likely, some of them are married to believers making the "science only" home virtually a non-existence possibility in the U.S.

My bet, is that the people who seem to be advancing this silly idea are people who came up in churched homes and have left the church. And they think because they have left the church, those who have remained have done so only because they have been brainwashed.

My experience and observation is that when parents attempt to cram religion down the throats of their children, it is far more probable that they will leave the church the first chance the get. Children who observe religious hypocrisy in their home are also prone to leave the faith.

Those who are raised in homes where the see Christanity being practiced without hypocracy, are much more likely to become believers when they attain an age of discernment.

It is not the "indoctrination" they receive in the home which leads them into belief, but observing how God has worked in the lives of their parents.

in the absence of science or in the age of science, all religions were and always will be a cultural myth. nothing more and nothing less. rants won't change the fact there is truly nothing here to debate.

Originally Posted by ajg624

in the absence of science or in the age of science, all religions were and always will be a cultural myth. nothing more and nothing less. rants won't change the fact there is truly nothing here to debate.

Well by all means, please don't discuss anything you are not interested in discussing. That way we will not challenge your own irrational myths. Oh and you might try practicing a little of that science you are preaching, provided you actually have any idea what science is.

Originally Posted by ajg624

in the absence of science or in the age of science, all religions were and always will be a cultural myth. nothing more and nothing less. rants won't change the fact there is truly nothing here to debate.

A more candid admission of having lost the argument I have yet to see.

Originally Posted by ajg624

in the absence of science or in the age of science, all religions were and always will be a cultural myth. nothing more and nothing less. rants won't change the fact there is truly nothing here to debate.

Another limited viewpoint. :?