I agree. A science book would give scientific reasons for what happened.
Genesis is a history book.
Oldest Galaxies
- Thread starter bob b
- Start date
I agree. A science book would give scientific reasons for what happened.
Genesis is a history book.
noguru
Well-known member
For Europeans I think it happened around the time that is attributed to "The Beginning" by YECs. I think there are Asian writings that are dated prior to this. At any rate, it could be that the YEC concept of "The Beginning" might be attributed to when written history began. Or it might be that this actually was the beginning.
noguru
Well-known member
History books are not devoid of scientific reasoning. How do you seperate history and science Bob? Is origins a historic issue but not a scientific issue? How can a book dealing with origins that is proposed to make scientific statements be historically accurate if it is not scientifically accurate?
But you, of course, know what happens. I find that rich.
I agree with what use say in general, but consider, the people first hearing the stories well not literal thinkers, people from primitive cultures think allegorically, they have a poetic interpretation on past events, therefore they understood it better than those today who refuse to understand metaphors, they worry about what a day meant, about the sequence of time, all sorts of quirks that those who originally told the stories never pondered, and the first to write the stories never though anyone in the future would quibble about. The fist sin is pride and the Fall concerns this sin through metaphorical descriptions, not though code words and literal meanings.
Last edited:
You seem to be making a number of assumptions:
1) the ancients were primitive,
2) they thought allegorically,
3) Genesis is poetic and allegorical,
4) the first sin was pride, not disobedience,
5) that YECs treat all verses as "woodenly literal".
Have I left any of your assumptions out?
Letsargue
New member
PlastikBuddha
New member
OK, getting back to the topic, Bob- how long do you think it takes a star to go from coalescence to nova/netron star/black hole? Why do we see young stars and the remains of "dead" stars?
No, you got it and did a much better laying it out than I could do in my present condition. All but the last part, the assumption that only ‘young earth creationists’ take it too literally, I think most take it too literal, it is not a literal work, it is an allegorical story full of metaphor and very instructive, the sin of pride led to disobedience, just as coveting lead to murder in the Cain and Able story. As to coupling the word 'wooden' with literal, I think that is your way of describing it. I am saying it is not a text to be interpreted literally.
And I am saying that if something is scientifically possible then it may be premature to call the stories allegorical.
Pride is not always a sin, but thinking that one knows better than what God has inspired people to write down could well be.
I think I am on topic, isn’t the whole impetuous for the topic an argument about stellar time, pointed at a general literal interpretation of Genesis? If not, why not debate that on a science web?
Is there one piece of accepted scientific theory that does not say this sequence does not take billions of years, if not much longer. How is God’ s Word threatened by these scientific facts?
noguru
Well-known member
It is amazing that you say that. :think:
noguru
Well-known member
Too many people it does not threaten the word of God, Ktoyou. But there are some people who in taking a literal default position, inadvertantly place Genesis in the genre of historically and scientifically accurate text.
How does one determine the age of a star without making assumptions?
noguru
Well-known member
All assumptions are not equally well established, Bob. I am suprised you did not know that.
I am saying science has nothing to do with it. The text was considered as allegorical by Church fathers, such as St. Augustine long before the scientific thought was available.
It is quite understandable that the billions of years idea has caught on and been incorporated in all of the historical sciences such as evolution, geology and cosmology.
The basic reasons are because it would take a great deal of time to create a star or galaxy by gravitation forces acting on an intitially uniform distribution of matter, and in geology and evolution it would take a great deal of time to create different kinds of fossils forms via random mutation and natural selection.
However I have shown that if God stretched out the heavens rapidly, in less than a day, we could see distant stars in a young universe.
I have also made people aware of recent findings in evo-devo that explain how minor changes can activate "tool kits of genes" already present in the genome and thus create great variety in a short period of time. The "hooker" is then "when did the hoxdomains and "toolkits" arise. The current scientific thinking is that this must have happened prior in the Cambrian Explosion. Sounds like "In The Beginning" to me.
noguru
Well-known member
When you say it is understandable, do you mean that such an idea is not "absurd"? Because I am virtually certain that in other threads you have claimed that such an idea is "absurd".
So we should take your unqualified opinion over the opinion of the vast majority of professionals in these fields?
That is kind of like asking my auto mechanic to install a metal roof on my house.
These ideas were proposed 50 or more years ago when much less was known. In view of what has been learned since then, the ideas can now be seen in retrospect to have been absurd.
Professional scientists are limited by the "modern" definition of science to proposing "naturalistic" hypotheses.
I would trust him more to do that than a scientist.