The Unacknowledged Accuracy of Genesis 1

quote:

---

gigwats
Also, you wrote: "If you truly believe the Bible is the Word of God, it is time to stop preaching the lies that are Biblical Creationism." - I'm sorry, but if I truly believe the Bible is the word of God (which I do), how could anything "Biblical" (from the Bible...word of God) be lies? If I accepted a religion where it's common knowledge that my one and only God lies on a regular basis, I'd be an idiot.

---

If I can apply my 2 cents here: I present the OT in debates in its scientific and historical context only, and don't get into 'miracles' (stated in the text as miracles, and thus not provable). I believe a theology must pass the test of truth and verifiability in all its historical and science oriented components. I see the OT as the most vindicated document in existence, by period of time, volume of data and by impact: almost everything has been either proven or evidenced of its historicity, and its science oriented statutes are standing up to the best of sciences today. IOW, this document is unique, with nothing like it anyplace I've looked.

quote:

---

jaderis
Yes and the OT deals with a mythical Hebraic deity, your point?

---

Not really. The hebrew God is never described or compared with anything within creation or the universe (logically, a Creator must be transcendent of his Creation), and presented as the Creator of all Creation. Creationism is not a mythical factor - but a legit, and only viable counter to anything else. In fact, non-creationist theories are myth: they have never been proven in any of its postulations - namely a theory, which is inclined in myth. Evolution as per darwin is myth; as per genesis it is vindicated and without dispute that a 'seed' follows its kind. It does not get any more unscientific to present a complexity emerging out of a random: its like imaginative book-keeping, and an unproven even as a theory.

quote:

---

and is not older than the OT

​

Dead Sea Scrolls dated to no earlier than the second century BCE

---

The scrolls represent a recent find and regarded the oldest alphabetical books. But these are backed by much earlier datings from other archeological finds, including the Tel Dan find - which makes king david a real 3000 year figure, who wrote the psalms. The psalms contain numerous mentions of Moses and direct lift-off verses from the OT. aligning with its entire narratives.There is also an egyptian manuscript which mentions Israel, dated over 3000 years. With regard archeological finds, I can post 100s of evidences continually unearthed in Palestine, including artifacts from the first and second temple period. There is no greater historically verifiable document any place. What was your point here?

quote:

---

gigawatts

​

I agree to everything you wrote here except the first sentence. The creation of the universe in Genesis was never labeled as a miracle. Many occurences that we would label as supernatural were not specified as "miracles." Regardless, do you not believe in the "miracles" of the Bible (OT and NT, doesn't matter)? Or do you just not present them in debates? I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from.

---

I was'nt refering to genesis creation chapter as myth - this is presented with great science and logic, and I do agree with it as having no alternative. By miracles I meant the sea splitting and Noah's flood - even though there are cross-reference, independent evidences of it: the point is these are not provable items, and don't belong in a science or history debate. The provables evidence the OT, and there are literally millions of such provable states in the OT.

quote:

---

anglard
IIRC the OP concerned the accuracy of Genesis 1. If you are making the argument that the Bible or even the book of the Bible called Genesis in its entirety taken as a literal, as opposed to a metaphorical statement, is validated by science, then there are many threads here which are more appropriate.

---

Genesis 1 is not mythical, nor is Creationism: what's the alternative - the BBT culminates in a never-ending array of brick walls? Also, what would you deem a more vindicated explanation - the 'seed' or 'nature' for repro? - and cross-specie or within specie grads - I mean, which are absolutely, indisputably vindicated?

quote:

---

ringo
Again, that's not the question. I'm asking: How can you know it's accurate to 100,000 years when the longest it's been tested for is 6000 years? What you're saying is equivalent to saying that a gun that's sighted at 6000 yards is accurate to 100,000 yards.

---

No contradiction here. Once you know the workings of velosity and impact, a gun's operation can be deduced for any measurements. This is how we can figure out a sunset tomorrow or the next 10K years - I posted links which 'sell' calendars containing the exact sunset times for any period.

quote:

---

Again, you haven't shown where any of those fluctuations or inclinations are mentioned in Genesis.

---

But I did state, the genesis calendar accurately predicts sunsets, sunrises, and harvest seasons, which are vested in actual, mandated commandments in the OT - such details are subsequent to no other factors than the inclinations and fluctuations of the spacial bodies and their impacting movements.

quote:

---

The calendar is common knowledge. The details in Genesis are not. Show them.

​

but not the billion second demand: seconds were not discovered yet, remember?

​

You made the claim in Message 136:

---

The details are not in declared constants - same with historical dates and places mentioned: this is upto mankind to verify. The billion second claim, although referred to in some links - are exemplary of unequalled accuracy.

quote:

---

The discussion isn't about the accuracy of our calendar and it isn't about any connection between our calendar and that of the ancient Hebrews. The discussion is about the knowledge they had.

---

How so - each generation's knowledge is ratio'd to their own spacetime. The view of a flat earth was correct at one spacetime, based on their available data and knowledge; what we know now can be similarly impacted in the future. It requires a big pic view: the constants declared in genesis are applicable for all generations of mankind. There is a mysterious statute in the OT which says the pig has a hidden biological attribute not shared by any other life form: this was only discovered recently - it could not have been known 200 or 3000 years ago.

quote:

---

The "billionth of a second" can not have any relevance to Genesis if they didn't even have seconds.

---

Disagree. In ancient times, seconds were not required or applicable. As I said previously, there were definitive other means of determining sunsets and harvest times without 'seconds' being considered.

Lets cut to the chase scene, before classifying all who see creationism without any alternatives as less than logical and unscientifically inclined. Two critical and fulcrum questions:Q: What do you find more credible and vindicated - transmissions of life repro and dna data via cross-specie, or via within-specie?Q: What is more scientifically vindicated: complexity from random, or complexity from a greater complexity?# Any unsubstantiated, unproven theories cannot be applied where actual vindication is not manifest. Go for it - Talibanic, dogmatic paranoia welcomed.

quote:

---

noseyned
I'm afraid you're going to have to formulate those questions much more clearly. It appears you are producing gibberish.
However, the question (however garbled) doesn't appear to be appropriate for this topic.

​

Maybe you can explain what you are asking and why you disagree with what you think the biological explanations are in a newly proposed topic.

---

Now that's strange. If one asks what is the most pivotal difference between darwin's and genesis' versions of evolution, I could'nt think of anything more relevent that cross-specie and within-specie grads, respectively. I'd be hard pressed to come up with a Q which better aligns with this thread's heading too!Why not cut to the chase scene - and deal with the Q posed - that would assist in which is more accurate - darwin or genesis?

quote:

---

noseyned

​

Genesis says that from the first week the animals we see now have been around.

​

We know that isn't the case. Once upon a time there were no animals (to use a not very precise term to mean everything from creepy crawlies to elephants ). A long time later there were fish but nothing that walked. Another long time later there were things on land but no mammals and no birds. We even have samples of how those things changed to be able to get onto land. And so it went. It is abundantly clear that the two stories are different and that Genesis has it wrong.

---

Nope. Your comprehension of an exacting text, written for all genrations of mankind, is the problem.Genesis lists the fundamental life forms (veg, fish, mammals, birds, animals, humans). They are not presented as occuring in a span of a 7 X 24 hour day week. These pre-calendar days are epochs of time, prior to the sun's luminosity appearing, making the 24-hour day out of the question. Note that this luminosity (as opposed the sun itself, which is given as created in the first verse of genesis) appears in the 4th cosmic day, which affirms these are not 24-hour days. The first 24-hour day begins after these cosmic days, when the calendar is given, after the advent of a personalised, dialogued human is addressed in the next chapters. The exacting texts requires a deliberation, which has been missing for the world mindset due to its transmissions via christianity and islam, which never followed or understood these texts - here, everything is aligned with their own preferrential end-point beliefs, while the OT is not based on 'belief'.

quote:

---

rakaz
So, my answer to your question: Neither

---

Based on your conclusion, which I placed on top, we do not have a winner - which says Genesis is of equal status. But - lets examine your reasonings:

quote:

---

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.

---

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. And we have not even considered as yet the vlidity and value of the external impacting factors in this scenario. 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.I put it to you that there is an absence of logic and credibility here when properly examined, and the constant that a complexity cannot result from a random at any stage, is being bypassed without any justification. It is ultimately wholly unscientific, both in its process and its conclusion. We accept this because of a fear of aligning with any theology, and without proper contemplation.

quote:

---

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.

---

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. IOW, would you look for the potter inside the vase? The 10 Commandments correctly gives the operative preamble here, negating and forbidding the comparisons of the Creator to anything within the universe, not on earth, in the oceans or the heavens: this is a 100% logical advocation.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 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.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. 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.The sound premise rules, when proof is not available either way. And here, genesis wins from all perspectives.

quote:

---

dr adequate

​

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 COMPLEXITY MUST BE BASED ON A HIGHER COMPLEXITY.

​

But this is not a scientific principle, it's just something creationists made up.

---

Nope. These are constants which cannot be violated. Darwin's evolution contrives around them - unsuccessfully when examined.

quote:

---

Actually, we know of lots of things beside a mind which can produce complexity. Evolution is one of them, but there are others. For example ...

---

This is a reasonable response. We see incredible patterns on butterflies which would compete with any artist, architectural designs which would transcend the best of humans, and the same concerning awesome engineering works throughout the universe, on macro and micro levels. But even darwin never allocated this to a thing called evolution: butterflies show no self in-put in the designs of their wings - its totally involuntary, and what's more the complexity of the universe predates life and evolution. If anything, they attest as a proof only of Creationism.If a sited complexity is offered, as you have done - it has to be non-random based. Else it violates the constant:'A COMPLEXITY CANNOT RESULT FROM A RANDOM' - Prof Roger Penfold/author MV.

quote:

---

jar

​

No one but Biblical Creationists claims that a critter of one species gives birth to a critter of another species. In addition, with a few well known exceptions, most DNA transfer is within species.

---

This is not how the world at large reads it, and they are correct. In fact darwin depends on cross-specie, to the extent he is saying nothing aside from it. It is the stand-out controversy, with notions of puddles in the mountains being ecosystems where varieties of plant and animal life struggle to survive against each other; species have been seen to morph in the span of weeks to survive in controlled environment.

quote:

---

But none of that has anything to do with the Creation Myth found in Genesis 1.

---

Except that genesis specifically forbids cross-specie, and also gives the reason why it is superflous with reproduction, adaptation and hereditary data (dna) transfer! The scientific community which ahderes to cross-specie (no grants or career advancement if you don't), have come up with the most imaginative explanations of evidencing cross-specie where it really is myth, followed by mythical proportions of million year life forms having any connection to today's life forms by siting digits of a finger bone fossil reconstructed to whatever form which meets their preference. The myth is with cross-specie, not with genesis.

quote:

---

paul
If you investigate, 37 is the maximum possible age allowed by the story.

---

The 37 value is derived from its intergration with other stats in the OT.

quote:

---

jar
Are you saying that "kind" as found in Genesis 1 is the same as "Species"?

---

The term specie is new and in much debate - many of the evidences for cross-specie is subject to special interpretations of the term specie. My reading of 'kind' in genesis would be, as a minimum, the species sited in genesis (veg, fish, mammals, birds, animals, humans). From this perspective, genesis is vindicated - namely, if we read it as animals from animals (genesis). This makes the numerous sub-divisions listed as species within the animal kingdom, derived from darwin, open to a different criteria - it is possible that all animals are one specie (or 'kind') according to genesis, but not so with darwin. I am unsure of this distinction, while one reading makes genesis correct, with the potential to make darwin's conclusion as incorrect: a graduation within animals need not necessarilly be condusive to cross-specia of fish and birds, for example.

quote:

---

equinox

​

There is nothing in the story that specifies Isaac’s age, yet you seem to know it is 37 and not 36 or such. Elements in the story suggest that he’s a little boy, like 8 (see how he interacts with his father), but when it comes down to it, I don’t see any number from the text itself.

---

The texts include Isaac requesting his father to bind him securely so he won't move of fear, which is not condusive to a child but an adult mind aware of the situation at hand. The 37 is derived from calcs of the entire calendar and intergrated dates.

quote:

---

I mean, I certainly agree with you that the text has been changed over the centuries and is unreliable, but on this point I'm wondering where you see 37.

---

There is no document subject to more scrutiny than the OT, and this has been seen as very reliable. I mean, there is no document in existence which is unchanged for 2300 years (scrolls), except stone etchings carved on the pyramids. The Septuagint greek edition of the OT (300 BCE) is an independent cross reference of the scrolls affirmation. This makes the OT the least distorted document by period of time.

quote:

---

'A COMPLEXITY CANNOT RESULT FROM A RANDOM' - Prof Roger Penfold/author MV.

​

Also, can you explain a bit more about this? It sounds like either Prof Penfold was quoted out of context (quotemining), or that he’s not a professor but rather a creationist poser.

---

Penholds is the author of MultiVerse and other works of science. To paraphrase him in his interviews and essays, he states that in the foundation of a complex system, there has to be an equavalent structure of complexity which justifies it - basically he negates random to complex.

quote:

---

As others have pointed out, random processes give rise to order on a regular basis, in your own experience. One example you can try is putting a pan of water on the stove - it’s hard to get simpler than a pan of water, yet it will form orderly convection currents when heated. Similarly, hurricane Katrina was very complex and very well ordered to move energy (and arose out of simplicity)- Katrina must have been intelligently designed? It’s well established in the natural world that order can arise from simplicity - so that quote is probably either a hoax, out of context, or from a non-scientist - that’s my guess at least, thanks for showing me where it came from.

---

Its poor science. Water levels are subject to a constant of all matter seeks its own levels, including heat and energy levels. This does not condone random to complex: this requires separate evidence that matter, aside from its determined constants, results in a specie becoming another, or a car appearing randomly. The connection is contrived and not seen by itself or in a manifest form.

quote:

---

jar
Like I said, the post is simply stupid and shows you are just playing kiddie games with made up definitions here just as in all your other posts.

---

How so? I listed actual text context. Specie breakdowns within animals is new (200 years). Genesis breaks down life forms in larger groupings, as per its texts - I made no additional amplifications.