The Genesis Account and Science

I think you'll find that's nearer three hundred feet. Same order of magnitude as eighty and well short of the top of Chomolungma.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Got to page 8, have a couple things to mention.

"Formless."
If I recall correctly, this can also be interpreted to be "without order." The ancient Israelites were obsessed with order. All their cleanliness laws (no pigs, no menstruating women, etc) were actually order laws. Some creatures exist in a state of disorder that doesn't agree well with the divine. These are dirty creatures, and so shouldn't be touched (but this raises the question- why did God create dirty/unorderd animals?). Before going before the divine presence, you must order yourself, or make yourself clean.

This concept of chaos and water in the beginning also agrees with other Canaanite and Sumerian creation stories where a divine figure slays disorder, seperates land from the water, and establishes order, or form. Note, however, that the Israelites had no divine antagonist to God. This is a polemic against the Babylonian captors of the Israelites- their God was so powerful he didn't need to slay Tiamat in order to create the world.


"Revelations"
Why did it take some 4000 years (even though most of the Pentateuch was put down in it's current form 800 BC, and later translated from the eponymous Greek translations) for God to tell his chosen people, "oh yeah, the talking snake? That was the devil."

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

In the story, God pulls back the firmament, the pillars that keep the water out of the land. Imagine the planet's one of those snow globes, and god starts poking holes in it. The flood was an act of uncreation- and a rather poor one at that.

In fact, it doesn't really make sense if one assigns Greek ideals to the Hebrew's god. The ancient Israelites weren't monotheists, they were monolatrous. They worshipped one god, but recognized that there were other ones out there. YHWH was very powerful, but not all powerful. This concept is a much later one, introduced under the influence of pagan Hellenism (which is ironic, really).

Anyway, why would God decide to uncreate creation for humans' wickedness, but preserve one family, some of every animal, then decide that it was a bad idea, be pleased by the smell of burnt offerings, realize that humans will always be wicked (duh you made us, Big Guy!), and promise to never flood the world again. Then later, God decides he'll sire himself to kill himself then bring himself back to life so we don't have to burn offerings for him, which unfortunately was what was keeping himself from destroying the earth, so then we get Revelations.

A shorter version:
When comparing what God revealed to the ancients, then to New Testament era authors, you find mighty discrepancies in God's omniscience because of 4000 years of mismatched agendas. If god's so perfect, why does he change his mind so frequently?

Which brings me to being able to know the deities will. Can we? No. Since that's the case, why bother using the bible as a tool for interpreting our world? Trying to determine events based off the unknowable doesn't seem very useful.

Furthermore, why is that when steps away from the bible and makes an observation that wildly contradicts everything we know (and happens to be writ in the bible), the churchy-types makes the loudest noise, until the incontravertible proof is revealed. At which point, they all scurry back to their bibles, reinterpet their passages and go "ohhh, it's so obvious! Clearly it's right there, so long as you literally interpret this line, ignore this word's second, thrid and fifth meaning, and loosely interpret the last two lines! We should have seen it!"

You should have, what with reading a divinely inspired scripture and all, yet Christians and bible interpretation continues to be generations behind science. Once the proof builds to be too great, you guys reinterpret. After the fact. You at first try to get reality to align with your book, but when your god given senses prevail, you inevitably alter the book to fit reality.

What sort of divinity is that?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's a very interesting essay Roman, but I would be delighted to learn how exactly it follows from the quotation of my words at the start of the post. Can you, will you, elucidate?

 

I'm satisfactory at basic math, yet no where close to exceptional. On numerous test I've taken and classes Its understanding word problems that relate to basic math that I have a large probelm solving...however when problems are placed in signs and numbers it's fare more easier for my understanding. This may be some form of...dislexia. I've often have had to study very hard on math.

As it seems I did solve the problem. I saw your post. The problem was relational equation and I have to a predisposed tendancy to solve those type of problems in relation in stead of in absolutes. Which is why I have problem with word problems.

 

Continuing the Fourth Day

An atmosphere initially rich in corbon dioxide may have caused an earthwide hot climate. But the lush growth of vegetation druing the third and fourth creative periods would absorb some of the heat-retaining blanket of carbon dioxide. The vegetation, in turn, would release oxygen, a requirement for animal life.

Now, had there been an earthly, he would be able to discern the sun, moon and stars, which would "server as signs and for season and for days and years." -Genesis 1:14

The moon would indicate the passing of lunar moths, and the sun the passing of solars years, the seasons that now "came to be" on this fourthe "day" would no doubt have been much milder than they became later on. -Genesis 1:15; 8:20-22

The Fifth "Day"

"Let the waters swarm forth a swarm of living souls and let flying creatures fly over the earth upon the face of the expanse of the heavens.' And God proceeded to creat the great sea monsters and every living soul that moves about, which the waters swarmed forth according to their kinds, and every winged flying creature according to it's kind."



Appropriately the bible show that the sun is required to have plant life and the oxygen of plants are required even for these large sea monsters that were created in the fifth day.

It's also of intrest to note that the nonhuman creatures with which the waters were to swarm are called "living souls" This term would salo apply to the flying creatures that fly over the earth upon the face of the expanse.

 

The bible makes no claims towards carbon dioxide or oxygen. You have made those claims through your own interpretation of the story.

Without a reference to Oxygen in the Bible, your claim of "Appropriately the bible show that the sun is required to have plant life and the oxygen of plants are required even for these large sea monsters that were created in the fifth day." remains unfounded.

I will agree that plants were listed as coming before sea creatures. That light came before plants. But I do not see any other link to the creation of Oxygen. The complete ignorance of bacteria, algea, mosses, and non-vascular plants that would have been the source of much of that oxygen, and would have existed prior to grasses, bushes and trees, suggests a real problem. Did God make a mistake? Did god think man so stupid that dividing plants as a group from grasses as a subsection of that group was not important?

That the fossil record shows the existence of animals and plants in much simpler forms long before the appearence of "grass", breaks this passage as being in any way accurate to modern scientific theory.

Also, the creation of flying creatures now (prior to the advent of land animals) disagrees with what both the fossil record and basic logic suggests. Given lung fish, whales, amphibians, etc, etc.

 

Not at all.

I'm making no speculations just as I said in the outset observing the bible's perspective of the progress life and creation. I never implyed that the bible says oxygen but the order of events reflect reality.

That's been my sole purpose for the thread. This gives you a better perspective why I do put faith in the bible on other issues as well. It does and incredible job in so many facets of life that my ear is used to being inclined toward it. Not because I'm biased toward it but because it has proven it'self.

 

Oh, it's not your interpretation? Which verse mentions oxygen or carbon dioxide?

thanks

 

You're welcome,

The Sixth "Day"

"Let the earth put forth living souls according to their kinds, domestic animal and moving animal and wild beast of the earth according to it's kind.' And it cme to be so." Genesis1:24

Thus on the sixth "day", land animal characterized as wild and domestic appeard. But this final "day" was not over. One last thing occured.

"And God went on to say: "Let us a make man in our image, according to our likeness, and let them have in subjection the fisth of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and the domestic animals and all the earth and every moving animal that is moving upon the earth.' And God proceeded to create the man in his image, in God's image he created them; and male and female he created them-Genesis 1:26, 27

You guys find this hard to believe. That the Genesis account is drawn from the creation myths of ancient peoples, primarily those from ancient Babylon. However as one Bible dictionary noted: "no myth has yet been found which explicitly refers to the creation of the universe" and the myths "are marked by polytheism and the struggles of deites for supremacy in marked contrast to the Heb[rew] monotheism of Genesis"

Regarding Babylonian creation legends the trustees of the British Museum stated:

"The fundamental conceptions of the Babylonian and Hebrew accounts are essentially different."

This was in refrence to the creation accounts not there flood accounts which may have a common conception.

The Babylonian creation myth that is claimed by som to be a basis for the Genesis creation account..

The god Apsu and the goddes Tiamat made other gods.

Later Apsu became distressed with these gods and tried to kill them, but instead he was killed by the god Ea.

Tiamat sought revenge and tried to kill Ea, but instead she was killed by Ea's son Marduk.

Marduck split her body in half, and from one half he made the sky and from the other half he made the earth.

Then Marduk, with Ea's aid, made mankind from the blood of another god, Kingu- Ibid pp.392-393

Does it seem to you that this type of tale bears any similarity to the Genesis creation narrative?

 

Oh, it's not your interpretation? Which verse mentions oxygen or carbon dioxide?

thanks

Yes why not its simply much shorter first heaven and earth then the living things.
According to the logic you have used thus far this is scientific since the progression of what the myth says is correct. The longer version in genisis is simply the embellishment or fleshing out of this skeletal creation myth.

 

Again, land animals after flying animals??

 

is that defying and unspoken rule?

 

No, but it is in direct disagreement with modern science. The point of the thread was to show the coorelations. I am not even claiming one as correct here; just pointing out yet another divergence.

 

Clearly, in just the first four days, the Genesis myth of creation and the scientific understanding of how the universe came to be are not in agreement.

There is a different order on many things that Saquist has failed to resolve. Some things are subject only to his personal assumptions of what "should be" or what "might have been," but there is little doubt that the Genesis account in no way describes "creation" in any scientific terms.

I see no reason for you to continue, Saquist, until you resolve the inconsistencies to date. I'll list a couple that come to mind and, if others will also, I'll update this post later to keep them together:

1. Light existed before the sun (the sun is a star).
2. Angiosperms were created before other, much earlier organisms.
3. The world was not "formless" -it had a definite form: roughly spherical and dense because, by time the water was introduced (mentioned in the myth) there were mountains and continents. Obviously Genesis isn't referring to the pre-condensed, proto-planet since there's no reason to expect that Bronze Age nomads would have considered this; and even if they could, the myth mentions water, which wasn't degassed until the planet had definite form.
4. The universe is created after the Earth (stars, etc. introduced on day four). The age of the Earth is far less than that of the stars -contradicting science.
5. Plant life (including angiosperms!) are introduced before the sun. Obviously not possible since science shows us that photosynthesis is required by plantlife.
6. Flying animals created after land animals -not scientifically sound

I'm sure there are others I missed. If I mis-typed one of these above (I'm going off of memory), I'm sure someone will correct me.

The true point of this thread is obviously an apologetic discourse by someone deluded by a religious superstition (or, more accurately, a set of religious superstitions) in an attempt to prevent the house of cards called Christian mythology from collapsing. The sad fact, as I said in another thread, is that this house collapsed long ago and it is only delusion that keeps the erection of it in their minds.

 

so what does that mean? "modern science"
It would seem you're suggesting that modern science should be taken as fact.

What you might mean to say is that it defies evolutionary theory which you consider a fact. Is that not true.

Clearly it doesn't agree completely with scientific theory. Correct.
Is that equal to Unscientific. No...disagreements are frequent in theory.

The order needs no resolution is if it isn't in compliance to Scientific Theory. You know that. You're stating your standards as Fact and they are not.

I think suffieciently that where you could possiblie missunderstand Skinwalker you have done just so. I suggest rereading. You seem to adding creation points where the bible does not state them.

 

It means, science that is modern. Not antiquated.

Why wouldn't science be taken as fact? In so much as facts are provisional truths based on tested hypotheses, science is all about facts.

Evolution is, indeed, a fact. Only the ignorant and under-educated are unable to see this. The use of the word "theory" may throw you off, since in colloquial and non-academic terms, "theory" includes any wild speculation. But in science, theories are facts that are based on tested hypotheses. Evolution is a tested hypothesis (actually it's an entire set of tested hypotheses), which may not be apparent if you are ignorant or under-educated, but is publicly available knowledge. An education in evolution is available to you elsewhere and, if you aren't too lazy or disinterested, you can educate yourself for free. This may be a harsh criticism, but since you're bothering to deride evolutionary fact without an education, its a criticism that is well-placed.

It is unscientific. To assert that it is otherwise forces the assertion to become pseudoscientific. You are creating a scientific-sounding premise and trying to apply mythology to it -thus: pseudoscience. Fake science.

The standards *are* indeed fact since the standards are based upon solid and unrefuted data. If you wish to refute the data by which the standards I'm using are based, then you're welcome to do so. It would require, however, that you educate yourself in them first.

No "rereading" is necessary. I understand perhaps better than you think. You're creating a psuedoscientific set of premises and attempting to apply them to a mythical tale. Attempting to show how Bronze Age mythology is 'scientifically sound' is a fool's errand since the authors of Genesis did not have the requisite understanding of science to adhere to. This isn't their fault as the knowledge and understanding required is one that had to be discovered over time as more and more people built upon acquired knowledge and tested hypotheses. The very process of discovery had yet to be defined.

In short, your thread is nonsense and one that seeks not to actually look at "The Genesis Account and Science" as it is titled, but to create a justification for the house of cards you call faith. A true scientific look at the Genesis mythology would include anthropological, psychological and other social science discussions.

 

Your failure to define must mean you're including theory. In any case I suspected as much.

theory? because it's guess work...we don't really know what happened. we have our best guess and then we have what some believe is an actuall account of events.

I'm sure it is for you. But here in this world we state facts as something that has been observered in it's entirely not a basic observation that we extrapolate an end product from....the end product of the facts available do not support evolution.

.

The Ignorant, only? No...the intelligent and educated see this aswell including skeptics of scientists' motivations. They seek control and domination. Threads that return us back to a time when the church wasn't question. The throne is the same...only the dictator has change.

,

I've looked the word up. I assure you I have no need to revise Webster and Merriam dictionary for the purpose of proving my point.

That would seem to describe evolution aptly...Darwin was wrong. The finches did not evolve...that is a scientific fact, not a theory, a fact.

Fortunantly for you I stand before you educated and curious about the world around me.

If you say so...I didn't mean attack your belief system, Skinwalker. You've obviously have been provoked. You are exhibiting the signs of fustration, anger, beligerence, and hostility that mark provocation.

If that is your perspective. It does not cause any significant impact on truth. I know who I am. With that I know that your tantrum is off topic and unsolicited.

That's not the definition of pseudoscience I saw. I believe that there is a difference in words you prefer to use. You revise words to fit your perspective. Hence I think that you view any religion as pseudo-science. A definition I did not see in the dictionary. Therefore what exceptioni is there if your use of terms do not match accepted meanings written and approved for all to see.

I'm preemptive.

and theory? is that not what you wish me to propperly consider. You wish me to consider accepted theory. However you wish to include mediums that bear no relation to the account in Genesis.

The Scientific direction want to take has been taken...you've shown your exception but without detail, with out emplicity. You made assumptions expecting me to draw direct links that aren't there. As you stated...on the mere and circumstantial data that is similar between there flood accounts.

you wish me to draw your conclusions.
I gave you facts on translation... you gave me speculation...

 

'In the beginning god created heaven and earth' <-- not scientific.

'the earth was a formless void with a divine wind sweeping over the waters <-- not scientific.

'god said; "let there be light"... he then divided darkness from light, calling one the day one the night' <-- not scientific.

Thats the first three sentences in the bible and they're all devoid of science. Need anyone continue?

god then divides the water into the water above heaven and the water below it <-- unscientific.

By the third day god creates light again, obviously so overworked he didn't realise he'd already done it once. So yet again he divides day from night yada yada.

He then, as stated already, creates flying birds before land animals <--- unscientific.

What else is there?

 

Oh yeah, you forgot the last piece to the puzzle, SnakeLord. Then, on the seventh day, God takes a nap because of all the hard work he did. Man, I can feel his pain.