Genesis I Creation Myth Scientifically Refuted in at least 4 Ways

[LadyRose1985]

I have always wondered how people could possibly believe plants could survive without the heat of the sun. The earth's temperature would be about 3K (-270C). Plants cannot survive that.

[HonestTechnoAtheist]

People who take Genesis literally don't care much for science, then they take out their ipods....

[circusOFprecision]

@HonestTechnoAtheist

Gerald Schroeder, The Science Of God. Read it and you will see that your statement is nothing but a self indulgent plea of ignorance.

[HonestTechnoAtheist]

@circusOFprecision Since god is outside of the natural universe, or so philosophers like to say, then science cannot be used in tandem with god. Why not tell me what YOU have to say about it.

[circusOFprecision]

@HonestTechnoAtheist

I think you should read the book, it would at least give you the other side's perspective. Then, if you still disagree, you would be able to argue even more effectively. But I will say this, since you ask. Our mind, or experience, is technically outside of the natural universe too. Does that mean we can't do science? Nope. Does that mean we can't interact through intention with the material world? Nope. Will you say mind IS brain, or will you be more sophisticated?

[HonestTechnoAtheist]

@circusOFprecision No our minds are not outside of the natural universe, that is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Our thoughts can easily be boiled down to natural processes. Chemicals between neurons, things like that. The mind is just a label for the brain overall, like the personalitiy, likes and dislikes.

If you think the brain is outside of the natural world, you must first define WHAT that is, and then give evidence just HOW the brain is outside of it.

[circusOFprecision]

@HonestTechnoAtheist

I never said the brain is outside the natural universe. I said our minds were, technically, according to proper definitions of naturalism, which I believe you already know and readily accept. You can't detect my experience, synthesize it, reproduce it, reduce it, ect. All you can do is correlate aspects of it to the activity of the brain.

[HonestTechnoAtheist]

@circusOFprecision You will have to tell me what you mean by "mind".

By experience you mean learning things and aqquiring new skills? Of course I can detect that. Teachers can detect when their student progress in school.

[circusOFprecision]

@HonestTechnoAtheist

Mind is what you use to view reality. The "I" that reflects upon and has experiences uses it as a tool, memory, projection, psychology, that sort of thing.

Yes, you can infer that someone is having an experience because you have experiences and you know what it's like! But you can't have their experience or reproduce it. See what I'm saying? A bunch of stupid things perhaps?

[circusOFprecision]

@HonestTechnoAtheist

That being said, even if you don't accept it, can you understand how that relates to the larger issue of God? A mind so powerful as to be able to arrange matter for life. So saying God is outside of the universe is irrelevant. Interestingly, time as it is understood at the quantum level, is actually not an aspect of the physical universe either. It makes me wonder if time and consciousness are not intimately related. I suppose it all sounds stupid to you.

[HonestTechnoAtheist]

@circusOFprecision Yes time is part of the universe, if it began at the big bang, then there was no time before the universe began. So you have just refuted yourself.

Yes saying that time and conciousness are related sounds stupid to me. There was time LONG before any concious beings evolved.

[circusOFprecision]

@HonestTechnoAtheist

You should consider the following points. First, time is irrelevant to quantum mechanics. Second, space-time assumes that time is a dimension, but we already know it is relative and depends upon the observer. Those are two clues. Your point about conscious beings evolving is, in my opinion, sadly misguided. Consider the consciousness model of evolution. Also consider the proto-consciousness of genetic expression and bacteria, just as food for thought.

[jnoort]

Creationist reply: You say science shows X happened, then Y. If it conflicts with the bible, science is wrong. We have our own models to explain this. Your argument is basically "Your model doesn't work under my model", but that's because your paradigm is wrong.

Of course I don't agree with this, but that's in a nutshell what creationists keep on telling me. They do struggle with the fact the all the plants should have frozen to death in at least 1 day of freezing :). (I wonder what AiG says..)

[PrimeConsciousness]

Why waste your intellect refuting Old Testament nonsense when the astute atheist gets at the heart of the matter by rejecting the notion of perpetual mind? That's why I'm not atheist, becase they haven't enough salt to declare war on the notion of consciousness as any aspect of nature. There is no room for your essence in a dead and rotting corpse, so confront consciousness for what it truly is!...DO AS THOU WHILT TO THE SAND AND DO AS THOU WHILT TO THE DYNAMIC DUST THAT WALKETH UPON IT!

[TheScienceFoundation]

Great points, but sadly acceptance of genesis as a literal historical account is dependent on rejecting reality outright with zero consideration.