A new perspective on Genesis 1

[Wingnut]

6 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

The rule is this:  To understand the respectability of science one must understand the scientific process.

Why?  When you understand scientific process you understand the  boundaries and limitations of science.  In addition, you have the knowledge to evaluate whether or not a hypothesis has been properly tested and whether the conclusions reached by that testing are consistent with the scientific method. 

Nice reply.

There is some science we CAN trust since it is empirical, and other science we cannot trust since it is opinional. 

Good science can and has taught us a lot.  That is why we have all the benefits of this modern world.

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Science, to include empirical, represents an opinion of a tested hypothesis.  That opinion may be grounded in the evidence.  But it does remain an opinion and therefore is subject to review and change based upon new evidence.  So, in one aspect, all science, to include what you have called good science, has an element of opinion.

NOTE:  Yes, some is considered to be so well grounded in tested hypothesis that it cannot in its fundamental aspects by overturned.  But, new aspects may be discovered.

 

[Wingnut]

On 06 December 2015 at 6:02 PM, Wingnut said:

I feel it is important to respect some science and disrespect "science" which is not true science.

So how can one tell when science is respectable or not?

What rule is there for determining the respectability of science?

 

We live in times which encourage everyone to have and express their opinions.  And people actually believe that their opinion has value, even though they have no training or expertise in the field they are rendering their opinion on.  Twitter is a Medusa of public opinions, where every opinion is equal, whether one is an expert or not.  

Because we live in egalitarian times, every Tom Dick and Harry thinks he has all the answers to life, the universe and everything.

Because we live in egalitarian times, every Tom Dick and Donald Trump thinks he has the answers to all political questions.

Because we live in egalitarian times, every Tom Dick and Harry thinks his opinion on Theology and the afterlife is as valid as anyone else's. 

Because we live in egalitarian times, every Tom Dick and Harry thinks he knows who will win the Super Bowl.

And we encourage our children to have an opinion on what they want for supper tonight.  In my day it was "Eat your soup or go to bed".

Because we live in egalitarian times, every Jane, Jill and June thinks she knows exactly what the Bold and The Beautiful cast members need to do to solve their personal problems.

Because we live in egalitarian times, every Tom Dick and Harry thinks he knows whether justice has been served in any particular court cases which is in the popular press.

Because we live in egalitarian times, every Tom Dick and Harry thinks he knows whether we should bomb Syria or not.

Because we live in egalitarian times, every Tom Dick and Harry has a right to be suspicious when Monsanto praises Roundup as being perfectly safe.

Because we live in egalitarian times, every Tom Dick and Harry has a right to express alarm at fracking, especially when they are doing it on his own back lawn.

Because we live in egalitarian times, every Tom Dick and Harry thinks he has a right to express his opinion on matters of "soft science" such as global warming and whether it is worth saving the Polar Bear and Maldives.

Because we live in egalitarian times, every Tom Dick and Harry thinks he can design the San Francisco Bridge or could send a space probe to Pluto, or measure gravitational waves.  

Hold on, that sounded wrong.  Most folks would not dare venture an opinion on these subjects.  Why?  Because they are science.  And true science does not suffer fools gladly.  True science has a way of making its opinion known.  It may tell you that rubber O-rings do not function below a certain temperature, all wishful thinking on the part of Nasa to the contrary.  Nuclear power stations will melt down if you ignore science.  People will die or become addicted if the FDA approves a drug against what the double-blind tests are saying.  

Because we live in egalitarian times, every Tom Dick and Harry thinks he has the answer to the age of the cosmos.

Because we live in egalitarian times, every Tom Dick and Harry thinks he knows whether evolution is a fact or not, because he considers this is a matter of "soft science".  We feel that our opinion is as good as the next uninformed one.  Or is this "hard science", where your opinion does not matter, Princess?

 

We live in a day and age where we despise the wisdom of our elders.  Everyone is an expert.  We have devalued the value of expert opinion to the point we value no opinion more highly than our own.

Is this not a fulfilment of  2 Timothy 3:2 "For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy?

  

[Gregory Matthews]

I will suggest that something other than egalitarian time in in play.  We live in the information age where information is instantly global and available everywhere--almost.

With this information available we think that we can obtain enough information to formulate an  opinion.

[Wingnut]

What is “Good Science”?

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/buzz/dinoscience.html

"Disclaimer: This is a gross generalization of what science is about; science is actually much more complex than how it is described here, but this will give you a basic background if you need it.

1) Science is a human endeavor. Scientists are all human, with the typical faults and foibles that non-scientists have. Sociology, politics, psychology, and similar aspects of human nature all have a profound influence on how science is conducted.

2) Science follows certain rules and guidelines. Exactly what these rules and guidelines are depends on what area of science a specific scientific procedure falls within. The scientific method (i.e. hypotheses are formulated from observations, and theories develop from these hypotheses), sometimes cited as the one and only way that science is conducted, is not the paradigm that scientific inquiry must always follow, but it often is the best objective procedure. Science is not so monolithic and mechanical; it defies simple explanations, just like many other human endeavors.

3) Facts versus opinions. An important distinction to make clear when science is an issue is the difference between fact and opinion. "Fact" in a scientific context is a generally accepted reality (but still open to scientific inquiry, as opposed to an absolute truth, which is not, and hence not a part of science). Hypotheses and theories are generally based on objective inferences, unlike opinions, which are generally based on subjective influences. For example, "I am a humorous person" is certainly an opinion, whereas "if I drop this glass, it will break" could best be called a hypothesis, while "the Earth orbits the Sun," or "evolution occurs over time," or "gravity exists" are all today considered to be both facts and theories (and could possibly turn out to be wrong).

Opinions are neither fact nor theory; they are not officially the domain of science (but don't go thinking that scientists don't have opinions — they are only human, and opinions often help to guide their research). Thus, science cannot directly address such issues as whether God exists or whether people are good or bad.

4) Science generally uses the formulation of falsifiable hypotheses developed via systematic empiricism. Hypotheses that cannot ever be disproven are not real science. Hypotheses are generally formed by observing whatever it is you are studying, with the objective of understanding the nature of the subject (this is systematic empiricism). Many scientists hold the belief that a hypothesis cannot ever be proven, only disproven. This especially holds in historical sciences like paleontology, where a time machine would be the only true way to prove a hypothesis.

5) Acceptance of scientific ideas is based on a process of publication and peer review. To become a legitimate theory (but still not established fact), a hypothesis must be subjected to the approval of a scientist's peers and published in an accredited scientific journal. This process keeps the charlatans out of science (well, it is supposed to, at least, ha ha). Most significantly, this helps to maintain science as a process rather than a gradual accumulation of facts, ever creeping forward towards omniscience. Theories tend to persist until a better theory is proposed and gains broad acceptance, rather than new theories being proposed for every tiny fact that is deduced. This fact and the influence of human nature on science are running themes throughout this section of the UCMP on-line museum.

6) Replication is also vital to good science — for the scientific community to accept a finding, other investigators must be able to duplicate the original investigator's findings. Thus, you cannot make up your data; other scientists must be able to follow the same methods you used (whether experimentation, mathematical calculations, formulating major concepts, measuring data, or whatever) and come up with the same results.

Even among paleontologists studying dinosaurs, these principles are sometimes violated. A prime example, pervasive throughout evolutionary thought, is the adaptive story. Adaptive stories take a mysterious feature whose origin is not well understood, and propose an unfalsifiable hypothesis to explain it. For example: We do not yet understand why feathers were evolved somewhere along the non-avian theropod to bird transition. An adaptive story to explain it would be that the feathers were evolved to catch insects with, and then were "co-opted" for flight. Sounds convincing (as many such stories do), but still just a story. The sad truth is that many such problems are essentially unsolvable; we will never know exactly how or why feathers evolved. "Why" questions are some of the most difficult questions to answer when referring to evolution; evolution does not ask why. That is the frustrating reality that makes paleontology hard work.

Another brief example of non-science is the unpublished hypothesis. Wild, controversial hypotheses (often in the form of television "sound bites") are hungrily accepted by the public (who cannot be blamed for not knowing better). For ideas to become accepted in the scientific community, ideas must be published (undergoing the process of peer review) to separate the good science from the bad science. Even still, some not-so-good science still leaks into publications, so scientists must think critically when reviewing other's work.

Drawings of reconstructed dinosaurs and other depictions of them in the media are not pure science, but a blending of inference from scientific data with a dose of imagination and speculation. We don't know if some non-avian dinosaurs had feathers, but some artists do choose to illustrate them so. Science cannot say whether they did have feathers or not unless it has evidence."

[Wingnut]

In science it is considered an essential mindset to retain an open mind, to examine new hypotheses, to test these hypotheses, to reject the wrong ones and retain the proven ones. This is exactly what Paul says in 1 Thessalonians 5:21"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." I update my religion beliefs, and science beliefs all the time. So I am pleased to hear you have not stopped proving all things.

In theological circles it is seen as a sign of weakness or lack of faith to retain an open mind on issues of doctrine. Dogmatism is prised in the religious community. 

When scientists argue with young-earth proponents like Gish or Hovind, these scientists give up because they recognise that Gish and Hovind lack the fundamental scientific approach of keeping an open mind, they recognise that lay members of the audience will be fooled by Gish and Hovins's arguments, but that an audience of scientists would not be, so they give up because it is not worth the energy trying to teach Gish and Hovind science 101. And science 101 is "entertain your hypothesis as "THE TRUTH" but always be open to new hypotheses which may come along". This kind of flexibility is anathema to most religious folks like Gish and Hovind. I love to listen to Gish, Hovind, Carl Baugh and other one-theme speakers because I consider it a game to spot the bad science in their rehearsed arguments. 

I believe it is good practice in both science and in theology to recognise that everything you believe s just a working hypothesis, which may be proven to be wrong when more evidence comes to light.  We all see through a glass darkly.  

The theologically and scientifically correct thing is to keep an open mind.   Only then will the Spirit continue to lead one to all truth.  If you have not changed any belief for years, then Houston, we have a problem.

John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
 

[Gregory Matthews]

Excellent.

My personal relation to the Bible and Theology:

1) The Bible teaches truth, but to a limited extent, in part due to  my humanity and inability to fully understand the issues. 

2) My understanding of what the Bible teaches may be faulty and therefore should be subject to correction.

 

[pnattmbtc]

Quote

Opinions are neither fact nor theory; they are not officially the domain of science (but don't go thinking that scientists don't have opinions — they are only human, and opinions often help to guide their research). Thus, science cannot directly address such issues as whether God exists or whether people are good or bad.

This looks to be arguing, or taking for granted might be more accurate, that "God exists" and "good or bad" are opinions.

[pnattmbtc]

Regarding the questions of evolution vs. creation, or the age of the earth, these seem to me to fall squarely in the area of inference, as opposed to the scientific method.  There's a lot of areas where one's opinion impacts how one infers things, and often, while the data can be agreed upon, the interpretation of the data is not, and one side calls the other side not scientific (or a heretic, as the same thing happens in theology).

[JoeMo]

IMO, certain evolutionary theories are much more likely to be "proven" (or have already been "proven") through scientific method than are creation theories.  Evolutionary models can at least be tested in a laboratory, as experiments rely on reproducing feasible natural processes to test a theory.  Creation models will never be proven in laboratories, because creation relies on supernatural processes, which - by definition - cannot be reproduced in an earthly laboratory limited to simulating onlt natural processes.

[pnattmbtc]

4 hours ago, JoeMo said:

IMO, certain evolutionary theories are much more likely to be "proven" (or have already been "proven") through scientific method than are creation theories.  Evolutionary models can at least be tested in a laboratory, as experiments rely on reproducing feasible natural processes to test a theory.  Creation models will never be proven in laboratories, because creation relies on supernatural processes, which - by definition - cannot be reproduced in an earthly laboratory limited to simulating onlt natural processes.

The "certain evolutionary theories" that can be "proven" are ones that creationists would agree with, aren't they?

[JoeMo]

2 minutes ago, pnattmbtc said:

The "certain evolutionary theories" that can be "proven" are ones that creationists would agree with, aren't they?

Not necessarily.  For example, although many would not call it "proof", the overwhelming preponderance of evidence indicates that we live on an old earth in an old universe - much older than 6,000 years.  There are many "faithful" creationists who would vehemently deny the preponderance of scientific evidence in favor of their Biblical interpretation of a young earth.

[Wingnut]

6 hours ago, JoeMo said:

Not necessarily.  For example, although many would not call it "proof", the overwhelming preponderance of evidence indicates that we live on an old earth in an old universe - much older than 6,000 years.  There are many "faithful" creationists who would vehemently deny the preponderance of scientific evidence in favor of their Biblical interpretation of a young earth.

Here I think Christians have missed a great opportunity, confusing evolution as being the same as an old earth.

I believe in an old earth and multiple creations after multiple mass extinctions.  And the fossil evidence totally supports this Creationist view.

For instance at the KT boundary, where dinosaurs suddenly go extinct and mammals suddenly appear.  Evolution has no answer for this.  In lower strata, all dinosaurs.  Next strata, all mammals.  To me this demonstrates a Creation event.  Thus I believe all empirical evidence supports Creationism far more than evolution.  But we entrenched ourselves in the young earth 6000 years only idea and missed a huge opportunity to PROVE the existence of God to palaeontologists and science in general.  If nobody can find missing links connecting Cretaceous and Tertiiary animals, THERE HAS TO BE A GOD.

[Wingnut]

There is nothing in the Bible or in Science which I fear, because I believe both sing from the same hymn sheet.

Both proclaim the glory of God, and both can be reconciled to each other.

If you want to go on a journey with me exploring the geologic time scale and record in the rocks, then welcome aboard.

This will not be for the faint hearted, so if you do not want to leave your comfort zone then stop reading now  

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notice the completely different biome change from Cretaceous to Tertiary.
PROOF OF A CREATION EVENT between the two.



YECs believe that mankind lived alongside all the animals on the above chart, 95%(??) of which are now extinct.
Imagine how crowded the pre-flood earth must have been.
But then YECs believe palaeontology fits into this category...
1 Timothy 6:20 
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

My belief is that it is not false science we should fear, but false theology.
 

Chart above from https://sepetjian.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/geologicscale.jpg 

[Wingnut]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism

"Between 1982 and 2014, successive surveys have found that between 40% and 47% of adults in the United States inclined to the view that "God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years" when Gallup asked for their views on the origin and development of human beings.[13] A 2011 Gallup survey reports that 30% of U.S. adults say they interpret the Bible literally.[14] These beliefs are often contradictory. A 2009 poll by Harris Interactive found that 39% of Americans agreed with the statement that "God created the universe, the earth, the sun, moon, stars, plants, animals, and the first two people within the past 10 000 years", yet only 18% of the Americans polled agreed with the statement "The earth is less than 10 000 years old".[15]

[8thdaypriest]

 We still HAVE some dinosaurs roaming the earth today.  Crocodiles, lizards, Komodo Dragons, etc. etc. etc.  

And many artifacts have been discovered depicting human WITH dinosaurs that were believed to have gone extinct long before man existed.  The Creation Evidence Museum has some on display.  I visited there recently, over at Glen Rose, Texas.  The LORD spoke to Job about Leviathan.  It must have been in existence at the time. 

[Wingnut]

8 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

 We still HAVE some dinosaurs roaming the earth today.  Crocodiles, lizards, Komodo Dragons, etc. etc. etc.  

And many artifacts have been discovered depicting human WITH dinosaurs that were believed to have gone extinct long before man existed.  The Creation Evidence Museum has some on display.  I visited there recently, over at Glen Rose, Texas.  The LORD spoke to Job about Leviathan.  It must have been in existence at the time. 

We have fossils from EVERY past geologic era since some survive multiple mass extinctions.

Shaman art like rock paintings are what shamans see in demon-inspired trances.  Why could they not be shown dinosaurs in trances?

People thousands of years in the future seeing Jurassic Park DVD's will think we lived with dinosaurs.

In every age people have known about dinosaurs from fossils, so why could they not have depicted themselves in art interacting with them like we do today in kiddie stories?

Hard science (the geologic strata) tells us that each era's fossils were buried together - but separate from each other era's fossils.

This laying of fossils with each era completely separate cannot be satisfactorily explained by YECs.  They propose weak ideas like hydrological sorting which no scientist would accept.

 

 

[whbae]

All these theories of creation besides what the Bible states are pure speculations.  Human knowledge and capabilities are limited.  God's are beyond our capability of understanding. I have no reason to believe or add more complicated theories to the 7 day creation stated in the Bible.

[phkrause]

3 hours ago, whbae said:

All these theories of creation besides what the Bible states are pure speculations.  Human knowledge and capabilities are limited.  God's are beyond our capability of understanding. I have no reason to believe or add more complicated theories to the 7 day creation stated in the Bible.

Exactly Won

[Wingnut]

God is a Creator.
Creators make new things.
God created the heavenly host first.
There are a great variety of them such as cherubim, seraphs, the "4 beasts" at the corner of His throne, the 7 spirits, the 24 elders, the angels of various ranks.

Scientists say that 99% of all animals which have ever lived are extinct.
So what we see around us on earth today represents 1% of all things God ever created.
The fossil record is a record of things God has created over time.
It is a testimony to the greatness and creativity of God.
Most Christians are as afraid of fossils and palaeontology as a vampire is afraid of light.  

I say that the fossil record, when correctly understood, is the Creationists friend, and the evolutionists enemy.
I am daring Christians to be a Daniel and to stare the lion down.  Confront your fear of the fossil record.

John 1:3 All things were made by him [Jesus]; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Thus T. rex and all ancient creatures were made by Jesus, not evolution.

The fossil record tells of multiple CREATION events and extinctions., 99% of past created species are now extinct.  
These extinct creatures too, were created by Jesus.

The Geologic Time Scale is the Christians friend, as I will point out in the next paragraph.

Life on earth is divided into 3 Eras separated by two mass extinctions.
95% of species on earth were destroyed at the end of the Palaeozoic Era (Permian period).  This left earth without form and void in what was called "The Great Dying".  So God replenished the earth (with dinosaurs), at the start of the Mesozoic Era (Triassic Period).  Please refer to the Geologic Time Scale diagram.

Chart taken from... https://sepetjian.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/geologicscale.jpg

At the end of the Mesozoic Era (Cretaceous Period) there was another mass extinction.  The earth again was without form and void.  And God replenished the earth with mammals, some of which are extinct today.  

Mammals and birds have been present anciently and recently.
Mammals were small and insignificant during the Era of the Dinosaurs.
Some "dinosaurs" such as crocodiles still live today.

Each of the little Periods is followed by a mini mass extinction. 
Thus each horizontal line on the chart represents an extinction event followed by a creation event by God, where new species replace old.

Thus at the end of the Tertiary Period (Pliocene Epoch) there was a mini mass extinction again leaving the earth without form and void.

It is here that the Genesis 1 story begins.
This is the beginning of Human History.  
So in 6 literal days, 6000 years ago, God [re]creates the heaven [sky], the earth and the sea, creating some new life forms such as man.  This is what palaeontology refers to as the Quaternary Period - Pleistocene Epock.

Even this is not the last mini mass extinction event, because 4400 years ago there was a Deluge, or Noah's flood.  This is the Younger Dryas event in Palaeontology, when Clovis culture in North America was destroyed by Noah's Flood.

And today we sit at a point just before another mass extinction known as the 2nd Coming of Christ.

And 1000+ years from now God promises to create new heavens and earth (2 Pet 3:10-13), which means another mass extinction of all the wicked humans left on earth together with plants and animals.

This "melting of the elements" is followed by another [re]creation of new plants and animals such as herbivorous lions, and snakes which eat humus like earthworms do (Is 65:25).

And God will go on creating forever, because that is what He does.

[Wingnut]

Image taken from http://palaeos.com/vertebrates/eutheria/images/cenozoic_mammals.jpg

These spindle diagrams are incredibly interesting.  Please do not be scared of them.  Creationists should rejoice at these, and evolutionists should tremble.

These scientific charts, drawn up by evolutionary scientists, testify to Creation rather than evolution.  Let me explain the chart and you will see why.

Notice how the Modern Era is divided into 6 Epochs.
After the huge mass extinction at the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary (KT) boundary, earth was left without form and void, and devoid of dinosaurs.  So God created the mammals.  Before this there were a few small mammals living alongside dinosaurs as well as birds.

Look at this spindle diagram which shows how God created mammals.
The dashed lines show no mammals, just presumed ones.  The thick solid lines of the spindle show how many and the type of mammal.  The mammal pictures on top tell us the type of mammal.  The past is at the bottom of the diagram, the present is at the top of the spindle.

Speaking generally, do you see how almost all mammals appear in the Eocene epoch, and then continue on to the present?

This means that the vast majority of mammal fossils appear out of nowhere, for the very first time in Eocene Epoch strata.  In strata above this, the same old mammals reoccur till the present. Some die out. 

The very name "Eocene" means "dawn of the recent".  Evolutionists admit this was where the vast majority of mammal fossils first appear, all of a sudden.  They do not keep "dawning" at an even rate through the other 5 epochs.  No, they more or less appear, all at once, together, in those strata of rock.

Reading the tale of the rocks, this speaks of Creationism, not evolution.  Read Genesis 1 where all modern life is [re]created all of a sudden in 6 literal days.  It was this type of creation which occurred in the Eocene.  And the evolutionists spindle charts unwittingly testify loud and clear to this fact.

The time scale of millions of years is fairly irrelevant.  Even scientists admit that the dating is iffy.  I will wait for scientists to get more accurate in their dating methods.  

Either way, their numbers of millions of years are irrelevant to me, since I can agree with whatever figure they give.  

The one thing they cannot explain by evolution is how all mammals suddenly originate together, appearing in Eocene strata, all fossilised together.  Evolutionists are welcome to believe this is a result of evolution.  To me it points far more to Creation.  

Either way it boils down to a belief since there were no CCTV cameras or National Geographic to film the origins of the mammals.  But to me, the weight of evidence is on the side of sudden Creation rather than slow and continuous evolution. 

[8thdaypriest]

I like the creationist film "Darwin's Dilemma" which highlights the "Cambrian Explosion".  The DVD is available on amazon.com.  

I have the 3 film set titled "The Intelligent Design Collection".  It's the best I've seen. 

[CoAspen]

Interesting thoughts Wingnut, although I am not viewing you as such!!!!

[Wingnut]

9 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

I like the creationist film "Darwin's Dilemma" which highlights the "Cambrian Explosion".  The DVD is available on amazon.com.  

I have the 3 film set titled "The Intelligent Design Collection".  It's the best I've seen. 

You are right Rachel.

I found it on Youtube and it is really worth watching.

[Wingnut]

6 hours ago, CoAspen said:

Interesting thoughts Wingnut, although I am not viewing you as such!!!!

Thanks