None of the text in the arrows is in Genesis.
But once you continue to read Genesis 2 you will find your preconceived ideas on how the Earth looked in the beginning.
- There was no corruption and death.
- There was no decay.
- Everything was made from Energy.
- What we have now is the result of decay of Energy, and all living things was not as physical as we see today.
- We can see that in the description of the Bodies of Adam and Eve.
- They were immortal, and their bodies were light, like the body of God.
- The plants were light, as well as all animals.
- No Death, decay, ageing etc.
- And seing that God was in this creation on the Earth, He was the life giving force that supplied life to everything.
When Kant in 1755 said that there are many billions of galaxies in the Universe, and the oblong shaped Stars that they observed at that time was also Galaxies, no one would have predicted that Hubble will only observe this claim and confirm it was true. This was done only in 1925!
The result was that Hubble saw the Galaxies were moving further apart.
He concluded that the Universe originated from a single point in space.
Scientists concluded the Big Bang.
No one witnessed the Universe originating from a single point, or saw the Big Bang.
But they used common sense to conclude that the evidence at hand suggests that it did happen.
I gave you 2 pictures, and a description of what each step in the Genesis days says about the Origins of the Universe.
It is up to you so show me where I am wrong in my conclusions, since you denied that Kant got the Nebular theory from Genesis, you now have to answer to me.
I don’t have to answer to you.
It is enough to point out that Kant did not get his nebular theory from Genesis (he doesn’t even mention Genesis) and that Genesis does not contain anything about many of the topics of nebular theory (the plane of the solar system, gravitational forces in the solar system, the different densities of the planets, the eccentricity of planetary orbits, Saturn’s rings and other non-Terran orbiting bodies).
Roy, it is clear that you never read what Kant Said in his theory of the history of the heavens.
I studied it about 12 years ago, and I recollect that he does speak about the moons of the planets, Jupotor’s rings, etc.
He even suggested that there are other planets with rings which was not observable at his lifetime.
I can also recollect that he does speak about the densities of the Planets, and as for the planetary plane, he described that this Nebular Cloud started to turn on its axis as it condensed, and spread out on a plane as a huge disk where proto planets would form as they orbit around the Proto Sun.
I am a bit disappointed that you would pretend that you read Kant’s Universal Natural History and Theory of the Heavens, and then make claims about his Nebular Hypothesis that is untrue.
I will never, for instance, criticize Einstein’s Special Relativity theory, If I did not learn and studied his publications.
Now, lets recap. Show me where I was wrong about the Genesis description being in harmony with the Nebular Theory.
Lets take it one point at a time, and allow me to answer.
So far I dont see any constructive critisizm on any mistake I made in my observation.
Why should we take any notice of nebular theory?
also
Why do we need to harmonise Genesis 1 to any scientific theory?
Richard
I admit I haven’t. I’ve only skimmed the chapter summaries.
He does.
But Genesis does not mention these things, and Kant does not mention Genesis.
Therefore Kant’s theories are not based on Genesis.
I am not the slightest bit surprised that you are avoiding the main point by misrepresenting what I have said.
I have not pretended to have read Kant’s book, nor have I made any untrue claims about his nebular hypothesis. So please either support your accusation or retract it.
You said Genesis was the source of Kant’s nebular theory.
But Kant doesn’t mention Genesis, and the topics covered by Kant’s theory are not mentioned in Genesis.
So Genesis was not Kant’s source. That is where you are wrong.
1 Like
Somewhere, if it has not been lost in moves and accidents, I have a brochure claiming to provide science insights from the Quran. Like many popular approaches to the Bible, it takes a quote out of context and claims that reveals advanced science before humans discovered it, rather than seriously paying attention to the meaning of the text or to what knowledge was available to an ordinary observer a few thousand years ago. (The Quranic pamphlet also has the problem that several of the citations are plagiarized from the Bible, thus not being great indicators of the Quran’s inspiration.).
For example, although Maury [not to be confused with Carlotta J. Maury, a relative who was a paleontologist] was inspired by the biblical text, Psalm 8 doesn’t actually say that there are ocean currents. The text refers to fish swimming the paths of the sea, sounding more like routes of animal travel than currents. Maury was aware of the existence of currents before meditating on the verse. Currents had been noticed since ancient times; Ben Franklin recognized the existence of the Gulf Stream. The verse inspired him to investigate currents more extensively. But he had to go out and investigate the data; he could not create a map of currents just by reading the Bible. The biblical text simply has a poetic reference, with no science beyond what David could readily have been aware of.
While no one thinks that Jesus had leaves, treating equally figurative passages as selectively containing science is quite common, often in association with young-earth claims. The description of Leviathan in Job says his face has doors, that he breathes fire, and has metal bones. Those, like many other components of the description, are clearly metaphorical, yet some people insist on claiming that it must be describing a dinosaur, usually under the delusion that such a description would support a young earth. Similar claims to find a spherical earth in Job are equally unfounded.
Certainly examining contrary positions is often neglected. But the context affects what contrary positions need to be addressed. In discussing where the boundary between lower and upper Waccamaw Formation falls within the Gelasian, I do not need to go into the debates that led to the recognition of the Gelasian as a global time unit nor the debates about whether it should be included in the Pliocene or the Pleistocene. Official decisions about where to draw the lines have been made, and my purpose is to describe the particular layer rather than to review the global time scale. Nor do I necessarily need to bring up ideas from the 1800’s about their ages (incorrect correlations with the European reference sections) that have been thoroughly addressed since then.
If a young-earth claim asserts that geology is wrong about something, it needs to accurately represent what geology actually claims, as well as accurately representing what the proposed young-earth model should produce. Such an assertion must consider other views because it is specifically claiming something about them.
Old-earth is NOT the same as evolutionary. It is a longstanding (at least since Price’s claims) lie that old-earth views were invented in support of evolution.
I have considered young-earth ideas plenty of times, but have never found them to be honest representations of the evidence of God’s creation.
Two problems with dating Jonah by the presence of Aramaisms should be fairly obvious. One is the scribal practice of updating vocabulary from time to time. Occasionally it is obvious (the note in I Sam 9:9). The other is that Jonah, being from Israel not Judah, may reflect a somewhat different dialect, likely to have more international influence than “standard” Jerusalem Hebrew. For both of these issues, we don’t have the data necessary to give a definitive answer.
1 Like
This makes me think of two quotes. The first is attributed to Mark Twain, although there is no evidence he said it: “It ain’t those parts of the Bible that I can’t understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand.” So insightful–we should focus more on what we do understand, and often want to ignore, than that which we don’t understand.
Next, Paul writes, 1 Corinthians 13:12, For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I will know fully, as I am fully known.
Won’t it be glorious to see clearly?–not with omniscience–we will not have that even in eternity–but we will understand with accuracy and clarity and without error. That should lead us to hold our positions on less clear grounds with humility and respect.
1 Like
Why do I say, being comparatively ignorant in science, that evolution is a weak theory"? It is primarily that natural selection does not have the explanatory power that is claimed for it.
A recent video by Dr Rob Stadler and Dr James Tour brings this out in a way that I understand. It uses high confidence studies as opposed to geology, cladistics and such. And it seems to add to what the scientists at ICR are researching in their Theory of Biological Design. which includes an organism designed and engineered for continuous environmental tracking.
Here is the video link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhLP-hqOnGw
Of course he does talk about both abiogenesis and evolution, as the above link demonstrates. A simple 5 minute search prior to posting would have shown that. I appreciate BioLogos and the openness to let people of various views to post. But making simple checks before posting would make our conversations more productive, informative, helpful and enjoyable.
1 Like
(post deleted by author)
For scientists, the evidence for natural selection is unavoidable.
The line and boxes in the track second from the top are the exons and introns of a gene. The track on the bottom is a measure of sequence conservation across 100 model vertebrate genomes. Notice how the sequence conservation spikes in the exons? That is the unmistakable action of natural selection selecting against deleterious mutations in exons while letting the vast majority of intron sequence accumulate mutations at a neutral rate.
Data like this is all over biology. If someone claims natural selection does not have the claimed explanatory power they are either lying about the evidence or ignorant of the evidence.
2 Likes
Not in the least. It show no such thing. You are imposing natural selection onto the data. There is no Natural selection present in the data. The “selection” if there is any could be due to anything.
You have not witnesses the process in this case. You are imposing it.
Richard
1 Like
Because
- It is incompatible with your religious views, and
- You believe what you are told by professional creationists.
A simple five minute search actually shows that James Tour’s criticisms are primarily about origin-of-life research, not about evolution.
Here, for example, is a Google AI response[1] to “james tour criticisms of evolution”:
Dr. James Tour, a renowned nanochemist, criticizes the scientific explanations for the origin of life (abiogenesis), arguing that “chance chemistry” fails to explain how life’s complex molecules and information arose, calling current origin-of-life (OOL) models “garbage” and “scams” due to unrealistic lab methods and overlooked chemical hurdles like chirality and molecule instability. While his critiques focus on abiogenesis, not evolutionary biology itself, he challenges scientists to provide mechanistic pathways for life’s emergence, highlighting failures in synthesizing complex molecules and assembling them, unlike the simpler processes claimed in research, says Quora users and Reddit users.
Key Criticisms by James Tour:
- Flawed OOL Experiments: He claims many OOL experiments use “cheating” methods, like purchasing complex precursors instead of synthesizing them or ignoring the loss of mass and lack of purification in multistep reactions, making them unrealistic for early Earth.
- Chirality Problem: Tour highlights the difficulty of producing homochiral (single-handed) molecules needed for life, a challenge often overlooked in OOL research, says Reddit users.
- Instability of Molecules: He argues biopolymers like RNA are too unstable to form and persist under early Earth conditions, challenging claims about their natural emergence, according to Science and Culture Today.
- Lack of Mechanistic Pathways: Tour emphasizes that scientists haven’t convincingly shown how simple starting materials could assemble into complex, coded biological information, calling the “storytelling” in some explanations insufficient.
- “Garbage” Science: He asserts that many published OOL results overstate their findings, creating a false impression that the origin of life is well understood, a sentiment echoed by Science and Culture Today, and cites this YouTube video.
Distinction from Evolution:
* Tour’s critiques primarily target abiogenesis, the origin of the first life, not evolution (how life changes over time), though his work is often used by creationists to challenge evolution.
- He clarifies he is not promoting Intelligent Design but demanding more rigorous scientific explanations for life’s beginnings, says Quora users, notes Peaceful Science users and another Quora users, and is cited in this YouTube video.
Note especially the section I have highlighted, which is headed “Distinct from Evolution”. Note also that I specifically asked about criticisms of evolution, and none were listed.
Perhaps Tour sometimes criticises evolution, but his main focus is definitely on abiogenesis, aka origin-of life research.
Then you should have done that.
P.S. I do not have time to watch a 2 hour video right now. But I may watch it later to see if you are accurately representing it. My expectation is that you are not, and Tour’s contribution will be about origin-of-life ‘issues’, which are his specialty, and not about evolution .
I like your thinking.
Let me give you some more info.
In 2005 a Muslim gave me a DVD about a debate between Zakir Naik and William Campbell. At that stage I regarded the Bible as a book of fairy tales and mythological stories. I did not care if there was a God or not, for me He did nothing I could not do for myself.
When I watched the DVD, I was impressed with Naik’s flamboyant antics, and just wanted the information he threw around to destroy the Bible. I watched the DVD a second time around, this time taking notes of the verses he quoted from the Bible and Quran.
When I cross referenced his claims about science in the Quran, I found nothing of the sort. I took time and decided to take one small insignificant scientific claim he quoted from the Quran, and to use it as a litmus test.
His claim was “The Quran describes the Moon as a reflector of Sunlight, and is not in error as the Bible in calling the Sun and Moon, “Greater and Lesser Lights”. He quoted a couple of verses from the Quran and everyone in the audience cheered to this amazing scientific description Nike got from the Quran.
Well, when I read the verse he quoted, as well as other verses quoted by Maurice Buchaille, I could not see any description about the Moon reflecting Sunlight. Q 25: 61, Q 71: 15-16, Q 78: 12-13, Q 10:5, Q 24:35.
I decided at that point to just discard religion in totality after I felt like I was lied too.
I think it was maybe 2 or 3 weeks later that I sat and thought about what I learned, and realized that I had evidence that the Quran does not demonstrate reflection of Sunlight from the Moon. But, I did not follow up on what the Bible says.
My reasoning was, If I am going to discard the Quran and Bible, but I only found the Quran in error, obviously I needed to see what the Bible says before I get caught out by some informed Christian later on.
At that stage I realised the Bible is a bit too bulky to try to read it to see what it says about reflecting light!
I downloaded the “Online Bible and started a quick search.
I was set in my place whan I found the following verses popping out of its pages.
on 3 places the Bible says that if the Sun gets covered with a (Space) cloud, the moon will not shine!!! (Ezekiel 32:7) (Mathew 24:29) (Isaiah13:10)
My mind was again running amok when I saw the Bible saying that the Sun Shines and the Moon Walks in Brightness….(Job 31:26)
But the one verse that stunned my preconceived ideas about the Bible was when I learned it say…
If you increase the light of the Sun 7 times, the Moon will shine as the Sun does now! (Isaiah 30:26)
This was the start off on my research on the Bible and Quran.
The next investigation was to find out if the Biblical narrative on the “Origins of the Universe” was in contradiction with science. Obviously I gave the Quran and the Bible the opportunity to explain in context what it claimed their Authors said about how they created everything.
From my non scientific education observation…
James Tour is an amazing scientist who did mega worked on Nano Microbiology, Graphene and hundreds more chemistry and biological scientific discoveries.
But best of all, he is a Thorn in the flesh of the Atheists who propagate Evolution.
He destroys their lies, and they run when he is closing in on their deceptive tactics.
He exposes their smoke and Mirror magic about creating life, and they can not reply to any of his facts against the origins of Life and Evolution. Together with Stephem Meyer, the Atheist Evolutionists have no answer, and as a casual observer of their You Tube videos, The Evolutionists look like preschool potty trainers.
Seriousle, if you listen to guys like Richard Dawkins, then at James Tour, you will realise that the Christian scientists are years ahead of Evolutionists.
Not because the Christian scientists became mysteriously intelligent, but because whilst the Evolutionist got stuck in the Primordial soup of origins, the Christian followed newly discovered science, and naturally advanced way past their caveman evolved scientists.
I spent 10 hours a week listening to bothe Evolutionists and Christian scientists, and I am astonished that there are still scientists who believe in Evolution.
It blown my mind to see the utter brainwashing that numbs the intelligent brain to disregard scientific discoveries because they might have to admit that the bible might contain the slightest truth.
Incredible.
I checked those verses. Ezekiel 32:7 is the only one that matches your claim, and even that is borderline. Isaiah 30:26 is a particularly bad interpretation, since it mentions the Moon first, and you have switched it round to mention the Sun first.
And when I shall put you out, I will cover the heaven, and make the stars thereof dark; I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon shall not give her light.
Cover the Sun with a cloud, and the Moon goes dark.
Matt 26:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light,
Isaiah 13:10 the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.