Hacker News Reader

Comment by elwell | Hacker News Reader

Another instance of the scientific community converging to a consensus congruent with the Genesis account of creation. Genesis 2:5-6 "the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth ... but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground."

Two other notable instances: the universe had a beginning (a Big Bang) and evolution occurred generally in the order described in Genesis 1 (nothing, plants, water creatures, avians, land animals, humans).

An old story not transgressing truth (truths that are being progressively discovered in more detail) should not be easily ignored. Though it is indeed a story for a spiritual purpose, not one meant to match the contemporaneous description of observations. If it were, it would be outdated (or too ahead of the times to be understandable or acceptable at all).

View on HN

The vagueness of the text and selection bias seem like more reasonable explanations of your observations, independently of the spiritual or ethical value of that particular work.

Why does the book get all the points for the things it gets right without getting points detracted for what it gets wrong?

Twice a day my clock is not only right, it is, in fact, the most accurate clock ever created.

We need to understand. We search for patterns.

Not knowing is an ache that forces some to look and convinces others to stop looking.

Certainly, the search for meaning is the most fundamental human attribute after survival.

However, we tend to be fine for the search for bullshit.

What do you think it gets wrong?

Scientists used to assume the bible was a historical document that told the truth. They (generally) stopped believing because a close examination of reality kept contradicting it.

What specifically can be observed that contradicts the Bible?

Of the top of my head:

Global flood covering all the land (no evidence, but it would leave evidence if it happened); the number of species that actually exist versus the described size of Noah’s Ark (ever been to a zoo? The bible describes the Ark as about the size of Berlin Zoo’s bird house); Luke chapter 2 says the census that makes Mary and Joseph go to Bethlehem was when Quirinus was governor of Syria and Herod was king of Judea, but Herod died 9 years before Quirinus took the job (also the Romans didn’t require people to return to the place of their birth for a census, because that’s a really dumb thing to do); and the total lack of evidence for the events in Exodus, when they should’ve been really obvious in the records and graveyards.

There are others, but I’m not a biblical scholar and don’t care enough to look closer.

The Big Bang is not the beginning of the universe.

Exactly.

What's so wrong about using the word 'universe' in that way?

Here's the first example I found from a quick Google search:

> The Big Bang Theory is the leading explanation about how the universe began.

https://www.space.com/25126-big-bang-theory.html

Reply on news.ycombinator.com