Genesis vs. Science

Discussion in 'Creation vs. Evolution' started by Administrator2, Dec 27, 2002.

  1. Administrator2

    Administrator2
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    NETCURTAINS3
    It seems to me some science is beginning to co-inside with Genesis.

    1) Creation.
    Science is coming round to the view of cosmic events and other dimensions.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/paralleluni.shtml

    2) Adam & Eve.
    Science is beginng to accept that there might well have been one Adam and one Eve (although they might not have lived at the same time).
    Eve: 150,000 years ago (all women have same gene).
    Adam: 60,000 years ago (all men have same Y Chromosomal).
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/genes/dna_detectives/adam_and_eve.shtml

    3) The Fall.
    When people became more intelligent child birth became more painful because of big headed children. We turned to farming the land which was back-breaking work. The climate changed for the worse (Ice Age).
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/parents/story/0,3605,802752,00.html

    4) The Flood & Nephilim
    It is possible that some Neandertal inter-bred with human-beings (but not likely):
    http://www.geocities.com/acgyles/nean.html
    What angels told Neandertal to leave flowers on their graves?

    5) A flood did occur:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/923400.stm

    KEITH M
    Even though there are 5 topics in your post, not a single one of them includes God. As a matter of fact, topic 2, which speaks of Adam and Eve, is a direct contradiction of the Bible's narrative. Eve didn't come first - she was created from Adam. And if women were around 90 million years before men, how did they reproduce? Nowhere does the Bible say anything about women reproducing without men except in the case of Mary and the virgin birth of Jesus. Amazing what is labelled as "science" these days...

    NETCURTAINS3
    The Black Sea flood does not mention God but it was possibly an event worthy of being in the bible (if true). The story is that as the Ice Sheets melted (end of Ice age) the Mediterrean sea rose. The rising Med. broke through the small ridge and TEN THOUSAND Niagra Falls poured into the basin that was to become the Black Sea. The noise must have been heard for hundreds of miles. The seas of the entire globe would have to have fallen by 6 inches to create this new sea. The whole population of the area would have to move West (Greece) or South (Iran/India ). Greece and Iran both have flood stories similiar to Noah.

    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail/-/books/0312304005/reviews/qid=1040574062/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/103-9520162-0169438

    HELEN
    1. Creation: secular science will NEVER admit to creation by the God of the Bible. There are a number of reasons for this, however the primary one is that funding is from evolutionary sources and if you go against evolution most of your possible funding and publication rights are terminated. This has happened to a number of solid and qualified scientists. However what is happening is that the admission of a sudden beginning and a possible greater intelligence is and always has been flirted with -- however this 'greater intelligence' is 'whatever you believe it to be' and incorporates any pantheistic or deistic ideas anyone would like to offer. This is far more in tune with pagan religions than anything else.

    In the meantime, your link regarding thoughts about parallel universes is founded soley upon imagination and the need to present something -- plausible or not -- which would explain the unliklihood (read 'statistical impossibility') of life as we know it simply happening. This particular link only shows that some scientists are willing to allow any idea, impossible or without data or not, rather than the concept of a Creator to enter their thinking.

    2. Mitochondrial Eve, fine, but the rates of mutations in the mitochondria are highly variable, contrary to earlier beliefs, and so the idea of timing the advent of the human race evolutionarily by such is nonsense. In addition, you will note your referenced article stated that other women were alive at the time, which is certainly not the case in Genesis. Think, if you will, in addition to this, what kind of odds the evolutionists are playing with to state that NONE of the other women living at the time of 'mitochondrial Eve' left any progeny! That is absurd.

    3. Many Neandertals had larger heads than modern man. In addition, man has not become more intelligent. God created the best and we have fallen from there.

    Farming was in operation from the first, as was animal husbandry -- Cain and Abel.

    There was an Ice Age following the division of the continents in Peleg's time, as witnessed (literally) by Job, as we can read in the book of that name. By that time, the first cities had already been destroyed by the Flood and man was working on recovery from the series of disasters of which the Flood was only the first.

    4. When something called 'hot spots' in the human genome are accounted for (areas where mutations happen most rapidly, but in a 'back and forth' way, thus providing additional variation to the human race), the DNA of Neandertal and of modern man are almost identical. They were just another version of us, in the same way that pygmies and Zulus are all humans, too.

    5. The Flood of Noah was most certainly world-wide and not just the flooding of the Black Sea. Keep in mind that God warned Noah a hundred years in advance and that animals were brought to the Ark by God Himself. If the Flood had been only local, all Noah would have had to do was move his stock to higher ground! It should also be noted that there are world-flood stories all around the world in a variety of cultures -- they are not confined to the Middle East. And in each of these stories, one family is saved in a wooden vessel and animals are involved.

    What we are seeing in a lot of the science articles today is an attempt to compromise with Christian beliefs while still contradicting the Bible point for point regarding Genesis. It is very important to read Genesis completely and realize that God knows how to communicate clearly with us and that is exactly what He has done in the creation account.

    NETCURTAINS3
    In the meantime, your link regarding thoughts about parallel universes is founded soley upon imagination and the need to present something…

    Super-string theory is old - The 11th Dimension is just an additional variant of this. Christianity beleives in a spiritual Dimension (perhaps inches away from us), a dimension where the Angels and God dwell. Islam believes in "The Jinn" - beings who come from "another dimension".

    Of course science will not (and MUST NOT!!!) use god to explain anything at all - NOTHING - thats the whole point of science.

    I think most people would be up in arms if a doctor said the best cure for your broken arm is not plaster but prayer and a trip to Lourdes. The two are seperate in Western culture - I think this is for the best. However, the Archbishop of Canterbury in his Christmas speech today did say "The Wisemen" sparked the murder of the babies. Wise men of the world and science are not wise to the evil in mens hearts.
     
  2. Administrator2

    Administrator2
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    DEACON

    Netcurtains3 initially wrote:
    The modern view that science and theology are separate magisteria and are in a battle with each other is erroneous. It wasn’t always so. Much of early science was a search by men of faith to explain the world around them. People on both sides of the “Young earth/Old earth” debates agree that Science and Genesis will eventually coincide; they were formed by the same God! Our problems develop in the process of interpretation. This is where the real battle lies!

    Regarding point #1- I’m not a physicist (far from it) but I read the current popular articles on the various topics that may relate to my job and to the Creation/Evolution debates.

    I see the parallel universe theory as an “evolutionary” development of Quantum theory by physicists and philosophers (metaphysicists). Quantum theory is certainly an enigma. (No, don’t even try to explain Q.T. to me! This too is a mystery that will only be explained to me when I reach eternity). Using elements of Quantum Theory some scientists claim that the universe created itself, and therefore they can “scientifically” exclude God.

    From my limited perception, the parallel universe theory could be an atheistic response to the problems associated with the Grand Evolutionary Theory. The Grand Evolutionary Theory has some very basic inherent weaknesses, chief of which is the lack of time needed for the great amount of change needed. In response to this, the parallel universe theory contends that in some of these parallel universes life (or its elements) would not be possible, and in others it would be more possible. According to this theory, our universe was “juuust right” and so life “evolved” along a predetermined pathway that was directed by the characteristics of our particular universe bubble. Sort of a theistic evolution sans God; their new god is “Chance”.

    Further while it’s interesting to ponder the Quantum possibilities, the possibilities are beyond the Bible’s scope, which center on Christ and His work.

    The Intelligent Design movement attempts to explore the boundaries of theism and science and has developed some interesting ideas regarding their interaction. For beginners interested in the topic, I would suggest J.P. Morgan’s book called “The Creation Hypothesis” (IVP, 1994). Its a well-written albeit technical book on the topic.

    Regarding point #2- Adam & Eve: Currently, scientific research on the origins of man is “all over the place”; with each discovery the major theories of man’s evolutionary development change in major ways. I would suggest remaining silent (or expressing strong reservations) about how any anthropoid discoveries supposedly agree with the Bible. Time will tell.

    The fall, the flood… too many topics to cover for one thread. Scores or books have been written covering the topic and only few people have been convinced to change their position or even listen respectfully to the other side.
     
  3. Administrator2

    Administrator2
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    PAUL OF EUGENE

    What is science? There are many definitions. One would be that science is the systemization of accumulating knowledge. This is prophesied in Daniel, as we know.

    I'd just like to help clarify what the scientists have been saying on these subjects as it relates to the Bible. Many of us in the faith community have little or no idea of what scientists are saying on these subjects and we lack the background to appreciate what they are trying to say.

    The idea of parallel universes has been around since the 1930's, as a result of quantum mechanics. In quantum mechanics, a situation arises in which a given state may go two seperate ways. For example, a particular radioactive atom might spontaneously "decay" or it might not - yet. The usual interpretation is that it does one or the other, but you can't tell which until somebody observes the change. Lots of metaphysical nonsense has been generated by the concept of "observing" the change, including the new-age idea that we control of the whole universe merely by observing it.

    An alternative view is that it does both, and ever after there are two universes, one where the atom decayed, the other where it didn't. This stops all the metaphysical nonsense. But all those millions and millions of extra universes, perhaps an infinity of them, seems to some minds to be an equally upsetting point of view.

    Nobody has ever thought of any way to experimentally tell the difference between these two views yet, so you will keep on hearing about alternative universes as a speculation until they invent an experiment to tell the two ways of thinking apart. Any suggestions out there?

    Quantum Mechanical considerations interface with theology in the area of free will. People interested in whether or not there is such a thing as free will should really try to figure out quantum mechanics. Unfortunately, to do it right, takes higher math. In any case, anyone who analysis the idea of free will without taking quantum mechanics into account is doing an incomplete analysis.



    Be very aware that the scientists are not proposing there was ever a time when there was only one woman and only one man. Instead, scientists view evolution as occuring over a span of time for a whole population. The scenario would be a pre-human poplutation evolved as a whole to become human. There would be a dawn period in which the transition to our species is such that it is unclear whether to say it had finally happened. (Just as today there is a time when it is unclear as to whether a child has become an adult). The mitochondria are, indeed, transmitted through the mother only; so all our mitochondria are traced back to a single woman of 150,000 years ago. But that woman was not the only woman alive at that time and furthermore, the genes from the other women are still around in other parts of our genetic structure, even if they didn't make it into the mitochondria.

    The same would be true for the y chromosone of the man.


    Scientists do not postulate people becoming more intelligent within the last 10 thousand years. Rather, they postulate that problem with childbirth came for hominids in general as non-human hominids evolved into humans. The increase in intelligence occurred as part of the formation of our species, not after. Of course, maybe intelligence could increase with time, but I don't know how you'd be able to judge that was happening. Knowledge, of course, does increase with time.

    What makes you think angels said anything to anybody about flowers on graves? They never said anything to me about them! In fact, I've never had an angel tell me anything, as far as I know, although I have had some prayers answered.

    The only thing we can say about flowers on graves is: they are a hint the Neandertals could think on spiritual things as well as physical things. Were we the only species that could ever do that?
    Scientists don't prejudge that notion. They look for evidence and report what they find. The evidence is that Neandertals fit way outside the range of genetic variation found within our species today. See http://www.psu.edu/ur/NEWS/news/Neandertal.html and http://www.sciencenews.org/20000401/fob2.asp for two independent studies to that effect.
    Also check out http://www.mugu.com/pipermail/upstream-list/2001-August/002877.html

    Be aware this was not a world wide flood, just a big one. Geologists uniformly report there is no evidence of there ever being a single world wide flood at any time ever. The greenland ice fields, for example, show annual snow layers deposited over the past 100,000 years. Those layers would have been destroyed in a flood.

    [ December 31, 2002, 08:53 AM: Message edited by: Administrator ]
     
  4. Administrator2

    Administrator2
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    HELEN

    1. About alternative universes, I still maintain, as does my husband, that this is totally a product of the imaginations of those who refuse to accept the idea of an ex nihilo creation by God.

    2. Regarding mitochondrial DNA:

    Mitochondria can be inherited from both parents

    17:01 23 August 02

    NewScientist.com news service

    Mitochondria may not be inherited solely through the maternal line,
    according to new research that promises to overturn accepted biological wisdom.

    If confirmed by other researchers, the findings could have huge
    implications for evolutionary biology and biochemistry.

    Robert Sanders Williams, from Duke University Medical Center in North
    Carolina, says the findings are "remarkable and unanticipated. This is more
    than a mere curiosity. It asserts the principle that it can occur in
    humans. It could have significant implications for the study of human
    evolution and the migrations of populations," he says.

    For decades biologists have assumed that mitochondria - the cells' power
    stations - are inherited solely through the maternal line.

    Mitochondria in the sperm from the father were presumed to be destroyed
    immediately after conception, leaving behind only those from the mother.
    But Marianne Schwartz and John Vissing from the University Hospital
    Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen, have discovered that one of their patients
    inherited the majority of his mitochondria from his father.


    3. Paul then wrote:
    I am assuming, then, Paul, that you deny Genesis 4 as well as the first two chapters? Cain did NOT build a city? Tubal-Cain did not forge tools out of bronze and iron? Jubal was not the father of all who play the harp and flute?

    It seems to me that Genesis may well be indicating that we were created as a very intelligent sort of thing and may well have been going downhill since then.

    Nor can it be said that knowledge increases with time on the whole. How were the pyramids built? How did the Egyptians learn cranial surgery? I think we ignore an awful lot of what we have discovered because we want to think our knowledge has increased – but perhaps somewhere along the line we have lost an awful lot?

    4. Regarding the Neandertal, current evidence coming from the work of Dr. David DeWitt of Liberty University is zeroing in on the Neandertal DNA and it is his work I was reporting – that when the hotspots are accounted for, the Neandertal were just as H. sapien as you and I are. He and I have been in touch since I first heard his presentation at the Discontinuity Conference over a year ago. His research has become a major project now, as the conclusions of Neandertal being truly as human as we have only been strengthened by collecting more data.

    5. By denying a world-wide Flood, Paul you are now denying the clear meaning of Genesis 6-9. Where do you start taking the Bible seriously?

    In the meantime, there is CLEAR evidence of a world-wide flood geologically in the preCambrian. Such interpretations of evidence as the snow layers in the Greenland ice fields are based on a presumption of both gradualism and uniformitarianism – that everything has progressed exactly the way it does now – very slowly – for interminable amounts of time. This is not a good assumption. A rapid series of storms caused by a world in ecological turmoil, as we would expect after the Flood, after Babel, and after Peleg, would certainly have contributed mightily to a very rapid build-up of storm layers which alternate types just as the current seasonal build-ups do.

    By preferring current science explanations (and they do change yearly and occasionally hourly!) to what God has caused to be written in HIS Word is mighty insulting to the Creator, I think. God really does know what He is talking about! And He does know how to communicate with us clearly and concisely. If He did not put in all the details you would like, that is something you need to bring up with Him… :D
     

Share This Page

Loading...