Integrate science and the bible

I don’t think it’s his last post. There is a lot there. Perhaps respond in small bites.

1 Like

As @AllenWitmerMiller already pointed out, this phrase is doing a lot of heavy lifting for you. Why even bother trying to claim that the order of creation is consistent with the fossil record if you’re just doing to hand-wave away the contradictions?

green plants; sea life; birds; land animals; insects; and finally humans.

Genesis 1 doesn’t talk about “green plants”, it specifically mentions grass, herbs that produce seeds, and trees that produce fruits.
Birds and sea life were created on the same day.
Then came the land animals, for example cattle and “creeping things”, generally thought to mean insects, and finally humans.

So the order in Genesis is:
Grass and trees, sea life and birds, land animals and insects, humans.

According to science, the order of appearance of these specific groups would be:
Sea life, insects, grass, land animals, trees, birds, humans.

1234567 became 3615247. Not a great match.
This is even without considering that several large clades of sea life appeared long after the evolution of the first land animals, cetaceans being an obvious one.

4 Likes

The Hebrew word in question can indeed be translated “green plants” or “vegetation” or “green plants”. In fact, while the KJV Bible translates the word as “grass”, most modern English Bible translation render it as “vegetation” in Genesis 1:11. “Green plants” may not be the most popular translation of the word but I can’t think of a reason to object to it.

To say the least!

Excellent point, @evograd.

2 Likes

Fair enough, but even if we substitute “grass” with “vegetation”, trees are clearly still problematic.

2 Likes

Yes, indeed. Angiosperms were my first thoughts as I read @jknbt’s claims.

1 Like

@evograd, have your studies in evolutionary biology brought you any insights which might address the question I posed about accessory muscles and atavisms in this post on Patrick’s thread?

Vestigial limb muscles in human embryos show common ancestry—for the

2 Likes

I’ve never heard such a claim as this. Do you have a source that says that A&E were blue-eyed? Interesting.

1 Like

Not just humans and lemurs - also macaques and spider monkeys, and that’s just the primates! Many other animals can also have blue eyes.
http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/on-biology/2018/01/15/variability-of-eye-coloration-in-humans-and-animals/

In fact the genetic change that resulted in blue eyes in humans doesn’t seem to be present in these other primates.

No idea where you’re getting the idea that Adam and Eve must have been the first blue-eyed humans though.

2 Likes

Not quite true. Grass would be second to last, after birds. And whether insects or land animals come first would depend on what you mean by “insect” and “land animal”; insects are land animals, right? They’re animals, and they (well, most of them) live on land. If, on the other hand, you mean tetrapods when you say “land animals”, that part would be right.

Doesn’t matter. Green plants, depending on the group would come at various times, all of them after sea life. The only way to put any green plants before sea life would be to redefine the term “plant” to include cyanobacteria.

I have a cat with blue eyes.

1 Like

First, it’s not so simple as saying all the large fauna of the Americas and Australia died out while those from Europe, Asia, and Africa survived. All continents lost a significant number of megafaunal species at the end of Pleistocene - Europe, Asia, and Africa weren’t spared. To quote wikipedia:

In Subsaharan Africa, 8 of 50 (16%) genera of mammalian megafauna were driven to extinction.
In Asia, 24 of 46 (52%)
In Europe, 23 of 39 (59%)
In Australasia, 19 of 27 (71%)
In North America, 45 of 61 (74%)
In South America, 58 of 71 (82%)

Second, despite what you claim palaeontologists certainly can give explanations for all this - it boils down to a complex combination of climatic and human factors.

And that is exactly what I said in my post at #5 of this thread where I disagreed with @jknbt’s claims.

Thanks for the correction, I don’t know how I missed that.

thanks to all for the lively responses… working on something else today, I will get back with you…

1 Like

[#4] The order of creation of living forms follows or predicts the order of the appearance of life on earth: green plants; sea life; birds; land animals; insects; and finally humans.

Putting aside for the moment the question of whether Genesis 1 and 2 were meant to describe a chronological order of events (after all, order of presentation and order of occurrence are not at all the same thing in every genre of literature), “the contradictions between the bible and what the biologists are teaching goes away” is not at all true. For example, the Genesis 1 account describes flowering plants (in the form of fruit trees) before fish, birds, and mammals—but biologists and the paleontologists who are familiar with the fossil record teach that flowering plants came after those animals.

Answer:

the point I am making here is that this ordering is close enough to what the fossil records show that it should lend credibility to a belief in God actively creating life and also the inspiration of the Word. The Genesis account was written 3500 years ago at a time when non-hebrew world cosmologies taught pillars on the backs of turtles holding up the continents and the like. The close parallels between an inerrant reading of the bible and the fossil record should be cause for notice. Science is very exact. Modern English is very specific with one unique word for each limited shade of meaning, hence the large vocabulary count of English. The Hebrew of 3500 years ago had a small vocabulary. Each word had multiple simultaneous meanings. The same is true in English with words like “run”. You can run a foot race, run for office, have a run in nylon stockings, have a good run in the stock market, etc, etc. The dictionary lists as many as 60 possible uses for the word “run”. The core vocabulary of any language is only about 8000 words. You can be conversational in any language with only 4000 words and the necessary grammar. Similarly, the words in the Bible must be interpreted broadly, widely, and often generally. The sort of hair-splitting extreme form of biblical literalism & inerrancy used to point out all of these so-called contradictions is excessive. It is a modern invention in the last 150 years of people uncomfortable with what is implied in a literal reading of the bible. I am guessing that you mean by YEC “young earth creationism”? If so, no, I don’t believe the earth was created around 4000 b.c. I believe in what Hugh Ross and the Intelligent Design community teach when they defend old earth creationism. Yes, the universe is 13.8 B years old. Yes, the earth is approx. 4 billion years old. However, none of this happened by chance, odds, and probabilities. The clear hand of the Divine is in evidence in every major step or change. The heavens are declaring the glory of God (Ps. 19:1).

What makes you think 3652417 is “close enough” to 1234567?

3 Likes

Close? Really? You don’t need a Biblical account to justify your belief in God’s Creation. The Greeks reasoned it from first principles and Aquinas extended the reasoning further.

In any event, if you feel the need to prove God’s existence, then you don’t understand what faith is. Catholics, for example, believe doubt is not only unavoidable, but necessary to demonstrate the conviction of ones faith.

1 Like

I am admittedly a little out of my league here, but I always enjoy a lively discussion. It helps the digestion after a big dinner. For those of you who demand someone with doctoral credentials answering your questions, let me refer you to a few videos you may not be aware of…and no, I am not selling anything, let me say that up front. To answer your objections on a higher level than mine, you may choose in invest a few dollars in these teaching videos. At the very least, check out what is free up on YouTube. This seems more efficient that presenting my take on what is already available out there. Take a look at:
https://www.jashow.org/resources/product-category/video-series/science-1/
https://www.reasons.org/about/hugh-ross
https://www.reasons.org/about/creation-model-approach
https://shop.reasons.org/
YouTube Videos:



swamidass
S. Joshua Swamidass
Confessing Scientist
1d
Welcome @jknbt!

Can you tell us about yourself?

a student of the Word…biblical literalist, believe in an inspired, infallible, inerrant Word. This guarantees the accuracy of the Truths here. There is no guaranteed on anybody’s interpretation… Retired, enjoy blogs like this…try not to be too hard on me…just sit back and enjoy the lively discussions… we all might learn something here…

1 Like

You should never appeal to Stephen Meyer as an authority on the fossil record unless you are aiming for derisive laughter. He knows much less about it than various other people here, some of whom have Ph.D.s in biology and a couple of whom are actually paleontologists. You should also not appeal to “doctoral credentials”, for that matter. What counts is the depth of your knowledge, not a piece of paper. Again, Meyer lacks that knowledge, and the aforementioned various other people here (I modestly include myself) have it.

Anyway, the fossil record has no more than chance resemblance to Genesis 1. Anyone who tells you otherwise is grossly misinformed.

4 Likes

Sorry but those aren’t teaching videos. Stephen Meyer is not a scientist, he’s a religious philosopher. His Discovery Institute is not a science organization, it’s a religious one dedicated to getting the Christian religion forced back into public schools and public government.

Meyer’s “science” in those videos and his books has been thoroughly discredited by the actual scientific community. They’re exceptionally shoddy work by a scientifically unqualified layman only written as religious propaganda. All have been discussed to death at this site and many other pro-science sites across the web.

Welcome to Peaceful Science BTW. :slight_smile:

3 Likes