‘But Genesis is not a science textbook’

  • Thread starter Thread starter kmarinas86
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Science Textbook
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of Genesis as a text, particularly its classification as a science textbook. Participants explore the implications of unrepeatable events in both scientific and historical contexts, questioning the validity of using Genesis as a scientific reference.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that unrepeatable events are not scientific, suggesting that events like those described in Genesis fall outside the realm of scientific inquiry.
  • There is a claim that while scientists can study repeatable phenomena, historians deal with unrepeatable events, citing examples like the JFK assassination.
  • One participant questions the historical significance of events in 6BC, suggesting that the narratives surrounding them lack scientific or historical evidence and resemble conspiracy theories.
  • Another participant challenges the notion that non-repeatable events are unscientific, referencing ongoing studies of the Big Bang as an example of a non-repeatable event being scientifically examined.
  • Several participants express confusion regarding the initial claims and seek clarification on the specific Genesis being referenced.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not appear to reach a consensus, with multiple competing views on the scientific validity of unrepeatable events and the interpretation of Genesis.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include unclear definitions of what constitutes a scientific event versus a historical one, as well as unresolved questions about the specific Genesis text being discussed.

kmarinas86
Messages
974
Reaction score
1
Of course isn't. Unrepeatable events are as much away from science than any other unrepeating event. But if it has a tendency to repeat sooner, than scientists can understand it (F=ma, gravity, bending of light, etc.). Historians will have a ball with events that cannot possibly be repeated (ex. JFK assassination, 6BC, etc).
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
kmarinas86 said:
Of course isn't. Unrepeatable events are as much away from science than any other unrepeating event. But if it has a tendency to repeat sooner, than scientists can understand it (F=ma, gravity, bending of light, etc.). Historians will have a ball with events that cannot possibly be repeated (ex. JFK assassination, 6BC, etc).

There's no scientific OR historical evidence that anything remakable happened in 6BC (at least not in Gallili). There's a storybook about it, two in fact, and a whole lot of speculation by interested parties, but that doesn't amount to history, it's more like a conspiracy theory!
 
sorry, but, what genesis are you talking about?
 
I'm as lost as you are.

And when has non-repeatable events become unscientific? Last I heard, people are still studying the big bang.
 
Sorry dude, can't tell what you're trying to say here. Gotta try again.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
697
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
8K
Replies
5
Views
5K
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K