The Unacknowledged Accuracy of Genesis 1

quote:

---

Q: What is more scientifically vindicated: complexity from random, or complexity from a greater complexity?

---

There is one major fallacy in your question. You are proposing two possible answers. Both are scientifically unacceptable.The scientific principle of evolution does state that complex lifeforms evolved form simple lifeforms, but this evolution is definitely not random. The eventual outcome of evolution may not be known in advance and can be influenced by a large number of factors, so it may seem random to the layperson. However if you look closely you will notice that evolution is guided by a strict set of principles. Those principles are still observable today and can also be tested by looking at the fossil record.The second answer may sound logical and in certain parts of science it may even be a valid assumption. But regarding the origins of life the notion of complexity from a greater complexity is untenable. A major scientific obstacle is that it is completely untestable. Let’s call things by their names. We have no instances in the fossil record that can only be explained by an instant creation by a creator God. An even bigger problem is that there is no scientific reason to assume a creator God even exists. Granted, there is also no proof that one does not exist, but that does not even remotely make the probability that one exists come close to being 50-50.So, my answer to your question: Neither

quote:

---

Disagree. It is random from all views. You are assuming here that different impacting external conditions determine which way evolution turns: this is a subjective random - namely the subject is controlled by external, objective factors, thereby rendering it superfluous or at best - conduitive only, not controlling.

---

You are once again trying to make evolution into something that it is not. Like I said before, it may look random to the uninformed. And in part you are right; the mutations are indeed random. The process that determines which mutation is successful is anything but random and entirely depends on principles described in the theory of evolution.Let’s assume that 10 mutations happen in the exact same environment and that those mutations are all unfavourable. For example a seagull is born with only one wing. That mutation will almost certainly not be passed on because the seagull has no chance to survive in its natural environment. The next nine times that mutation occurs will have the same predictable result . the mutated genes will not be passed on. If evolution were random we would have to expect that some of these mutated genes would be passed on and thrive just as the unmutated genes.No, evolution is not random. It is governed by predictable principles.

quote:

---

The other premise which makes darwin's evolution random, is its ultimate, potential source - not even addressed by darwin: we have no complexity governing any contrived actions at the foundations - this also makes it absolutely and totally random.

---

First you tell us that it must be random because it isn’t governed by a creator god. Then you tell us that as a rule it can’t be random, so there must be a creator . Please . That is circular reasoning at best.

quote:

---

Disagree. You have not considered this position. Firstly, even if there was proof of a Creator, this could not be borne out voluntarilly by us humans: what size lab, or what criteria would we use for its verification? - the Creator must be - at least - transcendent of anything within creator.

---

I did consider this position, but your original questions were based on science. Science deals with observable phenomenons. If something cannot be observed it is out of reach of science. I felt no need to include reasoning that falls outside of science in a question that was scientific in nature.

quote:

---

IOW, would you look for the potter inside the vase?

---

Vases are made by potters . where does that imply that a god created the universe?You are missing the obvious here. We know that vases are made by potters. If we visit a pottery we can even observe vases being made by potters. Therefore it is logical to assume that a certain vase is made by a potter. It’s a safe and reasonable conclusion. We do not have the same evidence for a creator god, so it is not logical to jump to the same conclusion - the universe is created by a god.

quote:

---

However, there are academic evidences here, and these are based on science itself: CAUSE & EFFECT (both factors require credible cause for the sited effect);

---

A discussion about cause and effect is completely irrelevant to evolution. The factors that cause evolution are known and specified in the theory of evolution.

quote:

---

A COMPLEXITY MUST BE BASED ON A HIGHER COMPLEXITY. IOW, one must nominate a cause which can satisfy the entire universe outcome - not just cross-specie, and also affirm 'intergration' of all the works and structures in the universe; and this cannot be done even as a mental exercise - outside of the genesis premise.

---

You can keep asserting that these are rules that cannot be broken, but are you aware that your reasoning also disproves the existence of the specific creator that you seem to believe in? Ask yourself the following questions:What is the cause of God?On what greater complexity is God based on?

quote:

---

The other issue of 'complexity' is again very wrongly applied by darwin's logic: it is the 'RESULTS', not the process, which determine this complexity - not the proposed links being impacted by external factors.

---

Sorry, but that is totally illogical. Evolution does not happen instantly. Evolution happens in small intermediate steps. The complexity of each step is limited. Each step adds to the complexity that already exists. You would just need to have a lot of intermediate steps to achieve a large difference in complexity between the originating species and the end-result.

quote:

---

If the result is a car, for example, we cannot allocate its cause to metal being impacted by wind and heat: that is illogical; if the result evidences a complexity - then wind and heat become inapplicable - we have to come up with a MIND - because we know of no phenomenon which can effect a complexity via random - nothing outside of darwin's novella.

---

I am sorry to say this, but this the dumbest example I’ve heard so far. Cars are inanimate objects. They are assembled by man. They do not live and procreate. You cannot disprove evolution by using an example that obviously does not evolve. You are comparing oranges with apples.

quote:

---

The sound premise rules, when proof is not available either way. And here, genesis wins from all perspectives.

---

Wrong. If there is really no proof either way, then both the assumptions are considered to be false - at least until one of them is proven. Genesis is not an exception to this.Fortunately there is enough evidence for evolution and Genesis has been proven wrong and thus excluded as a possible explanation.

quote:

---

There is enough evidence to prove micro evolution.
There is not enough evidence to prove macro evolution as it has never been observed or duplicated under laboratory conditions.

---

I think the distinction between macro en micro evolution is a bit silly. These two are not separate mechanisms that have nothing to do with each other. No, macro evolution is little more that the effect of micro evolution over larger periods of time.I’m sorry to say, but the idea that you can only prove something by reproducing it under laboratory conditions is a childish notion. Science isn’t about being able to reproduce something. It’s about looking at the evidence and formulating a theory based on the evidence at hand. And every time you discover new evidence you look at it closely and see if your operating theory still works. If it doesn’t you change the theory or even throw it out and start over. In science nothing is proven conclusively and everything is subject to new ideas.There is more than enough evidence that supports evolution - both micro and macro. The theory of evolution isn’t just a fantasy of a single man. It is the result of careful looking at the evidence and formulating a theory based on the observations. The theory of evolution exists solely because evidence points us in that direction.Not only do we have direct evidence for macro evolution - fossils of intermediate species, scientist have also been testing and correcting the theory of evolution ever since Darwin made it popular. Remember, Darwin coined his theory of evolution before the discovery of genetics. If evolution was just a figment of Darwin’s imagination, it would surely have been falsified by genetics. It wasn’t. On the contrary, genetics provided the missing information on how evolution works in practice.Evolution may never be proven conclusively. The same applies to gravity. But that doesn’t prevent you from falling down if you trip. The theory of gravity is a perfect explanation for our current observations. The same applies to evolution; it just fits with the observations we have. If new evidence turns up that falsifies the current theory of evolution, I’m sure that scientist will applaud any alternative theory that fits perfectly with the then current observations. It’s happened before that scientists were wrong and had to change their ideas. It will happen again in the future. That is the nature of science. However, I doubt that future scientists will take Genesis any more serious as today. Of course unless they see a big pointy finger coming out of the sky and new species magically appear out of thin air.

quote:

---

As far as proving Genesis 1:1 wrong I wish you lots of luck.
To do so you have to prove God does not exist.
Do you have proof Genesis 1:1 is false?

---

Genesis 1:1 states that God “created the heavens and the earth”. One can assume from this passage that God exists. Disproving Genesis 1:1 is about disprove the existence of God and that he created everything. This is based on false logic. There is no need to disprove the existence of God to disprove the creation myth in Genesis. Nor is there need to disprove that God created life to disprove Genesis.Think of it like this: If we have a story about Henry Ford producing orange Model Ts and want to prove this story is wrong we only have to prove that he didn’t produce orange Model Ts. In this case not that difficult, because we have a statement from Henry Ford that “any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants so long as it is black”. In any case, we do not have to prove that Henry Ford never existed or prove that he never created Model Ts.Let’s assume that God did create the heavens and the earth and all life that inhabits earth. We attribute God with omnipotent powers. An omnipotent God could have created life in an immeasurable number of ways and certainly isn’t limited to the way creation is described in Genesis. Disproving the creation account in Genesis has nothing to do with disproving God or creation. Disproving Genesis is about disproving that creation happened in the way it is described in Genesis.There is no proof that God does not exist. Nor is there proof that God didn’t create everything. However there is more than enough evidence to suggest that the way creation is described in Genesis is nothing more than a myth. It may have theological truths buried in it, but that is different discussion. The Genesis creation myth as an accurate historical account has been falsified by astronomy, geology, biology, genetics and evolution.I don’t understand the obsession that creationists seem to have with the inability to disprove God. To claim that the likelihood that God exists is the same as that he doesn’t exist simply because we cannot prove either way, is entirely based on faulty logic. Sure, God either exists or he doesn’t, but that does not mean the probability is 50%. We cannot disprove the tooth fairy either, but that does not mean we should seriously consider its existence as fact.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Evolution may never be proven conclusively.

---

​

Then you are admitting to believing it by faith.

---

That is just silly and reeks of quote-mining. Last time I checked 'faith' is still defined as “believe without evidence” and in my last post I've explained multiple times that science is the exact opposite; science is believe based on evidence.

quote:

---

quote:

---

The theory of gravity is a perfect explanation for our current observations.

---

​

Gravity is gravity and has nothing to do with things changing over time.

---

Even though gravity itself seems pretty stable, our observations may change and in fact have changed over time. Instruments get more sensitive and allow us to observe things that we previously were unaware of. It is not unthinkable that we will observe phenomenon in the future that we cannot explain with the current law of gravity. Even the law of gravity cannot be proven conclusively and it is ridiculous to expect that our current understanding of gravity will explain all observations we make in the future.In case you are wondering what this has to do with evolution; evolution is as much reality as gravity is. Even though scientists can never conclusively prove either law or theory.

quote:

---

quote:

---

There is no need to disprove the existence of God to disprove the creation myth in Genesis.

---

​

Then prove Genesis 1:1 is a myth.

---

I'm not sure you properly read my post or understand my reasoning.
Perhaps I was not clear enough.We can safely ignore Genesis 1:1 while investigating the scientific accuracy of Genesis 1 because the existence of God is outside the realm of science. Genesis 1 as a whole is easily proven to be a myth because the story clearly contradicts evidence that we can observe.Genesis 1:1 is the first line from that myth. So Genesis 1:1 in context is a myth (as far as you can call a single line a myth). Even if there is a God and he did create life then this will not make Genesis 1 any less myth. It will just make Genesis 1:1 a single accurate part of larger myth. Nobody said that myths cannot contain small nuggets of accurate information.

quote:

---

quote:

---

The Genesis creation myth as an accurate historical account has been falsified by astronomy, geology, biology, genetics and evolution.

---

​

I did not say anything about what you or anyone else says about the accounts in Genesis 1:2-Genesis 2:3, or Genesis 2:4-Genesis 4:26.

​

I said Genesis 1:1.

​

Genesis 1:1 says in the beginning. Science says in the beginning.

​

Genesis says God did it. Science says singularity did it.

​

You cannot prove or disprove either.

​

Or would you like to try?

---

Like I said before; it is nonsensical to talk about proving or disproving the existence of God. Science cannot prove it either way, because science is about observations and something that cannot be observed by definition falls outside of the realm of science. Personally I also feel it falls outside of the realm of common sense, but that is a different story altogether.Creationists seem to believe that this the inability to disprove God supports their position that God does exists. This is flawed logic. Just because you cannot disprove something does not mean something is likely. The probability of the existence of God falls into the same category as the existence of the tooth fairy, the flying spaghetti monster and the celestial teapot. There is no evidence for any of those, yet it is impossible to disprove any one of them.If you compare this to any of the theories that scientists have come up with - how unlikely they are - they are more likely than the existence of God. Simply because some evidence is better than no evidence.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I did not argue from the translation. Although 37 would seem rather old to be called a "young man".

---

​

Not at this particular spacetime. Isaac was not yet married, and the texts allocate very long lifespans for almost all figures at this time.

---

This does not help your argument. If Jacob was both 37 and still a boy, you cannot argue that the story is less cruel because Jacob was already 37 years old. It's still as cruel as before because Jacob was a boy at the time.

quote:

---

All the laws the world follows is from the OT - exclusively; not a single law comes from any other religion, philosophy or advancement. Think about it.

---

In The Netherlands we have laws that permit abortion and euthanasia. Please open up your Bible and specify the name of the book and the numbers of the verses that these laws are based on. Or alternatively retract your claim.

quote:

---

You addressed what Genesis 1:1 says. Fine
You totally ignored what science says about the same subject.
What you believe happened is just as preposterous to me an is Genesis 1:1 to you.
I believe God did it.

---

First of all, I do not believe Genesis 1:1 is preposterous. I think it is highly unlikely and that it defies common sense to believe in something so unlikely. Even though I am very sceptical I am willing to keep an open mind and will change my position if somebody will present real proof that a God exists and created life. It would be preposterous of me to hold to a believe that is proven to be false.Secondly I did not ignore what science says about the subject. It is simply irrelevant to the discussion. Science is by definition based on evidence. Faith lacks evidence by definition. The logical conclusion is that the theory proposed by science is more likely, simply because any evidence is better than no evidence at all.