Science AND Genesis

[DaveD49]

This is an offshoot from the "Science vs. Genesis" topic but it covers a different main premise. That topic suggested a conflict between the two. My topic shows where there is agreement. I think that everyone would agree that it would be extremely rare for any 4000 year old document, especially one that existed for thousands of years in oral form before it was written down, to agree with ANY modern scientific concept. The very first chapter of the first book of the Bible can be seen to agree with five of them. (Not only that, but the very first Hebrew word of the first chapter of the Bible reveals a stunning prophecy which came true 2000 years later, but that is another subject.) The five modern scientific concepts and theories are the concept of a slowly developing Earth, the concept of "super-continents" such as Pangea, abiogenesis, and evolution. None of these concepts were familiar to the people of the age when it was written.

Slowly forming Earth

Now the earth was formless and void, there was darkness over the deep, and God's spirit hovered over the water. God said 'Let there be light', and their was light.

(Gen1:2-3)

Imagine for a minute that you were sitting on the planet at the time it was first developing from slowly settling dust, moisture and stone. You would be able to see nothing, because the dust and moisture in the sky would block out all to sun's rays. Over a loooong period of time eventually as more dust settled the light of the sun could be seen even though you still could not see the sun itself. I have read where scientists have said that during this period of time it rained for over 10,000 years. We are in what the Bible calls the first day. The sun and the moon do not become visible until the fourth day. (BTW the Hebrew word interpreted as "day" can also be interpreted as "age" or "eon". Look it up.)

Super-Continents

God said, 'Let the waters under the heavens come together in a single mass and let dry land appear'. And so it was. God called the dry land 'earth' the the mass of waters 'seas'

(Gen1:9-10)

As more dust settled, dry land appeared starting in one place with one land mass.

Abiogenesis

This is a discredited scientific theory about the origins of life from the primordial goo, or "dirt", but it seems that the Bible agrees with it.

God said, 'Let the earth produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants, and fruit trees...

(Gen 1:11)

God said, Let the waters teem with living creatures, and let birds fly about the earth within the vault of heaven.

(Gen 1:20)

God said, Let the earth produce every kind of living creature: cattle, reptiles, and every kind of wild beast.

Gen 1:24

Note that in each case it does not say that God "zapped" them into being, but rather caused the EARTH or the WATERS to produce them. Note also the Bible also states

Evolution

Note please that in general the order of appearance of various living things corresponds to an evolutionary line-up. Simple plants, sea life, "great sea monsters", reptiles, mammals and man.

[Difflugia]

I think that everyone would agree that it would be extremely rare for any 4000 year old document, especially one that existed for thousands of years in oral form before it was written down, to agree with ANY modern scientific concept.

That rather depends on how willing you are to seek out tenuous metaphors and read them into the text. I mean, it would be extremely rare for some rando website's horoscope to exactly and precisely match this exact day in my exact life unless astrology's true, right?



Incredible. It's like the horoscope is staring through this exact moment into my beautiful, beautiful soul. What are the odds? Chew on that, others!

Not only that, but the very first Hebrew word of the first chapter of the Bible reveals a stunning prophecy which came true 2000 years later, but that is another subject.

What will the twelfth-century C.E. bear do in the woods?

בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית

Yep. Checks out.

BTW the Hebrew word interpreted as "day" can also be interpreted as "age" or "eon". Look it up.

Because ambiguity makes finding vague metaphor less likely? Amazing.

[DaveD49]

What will the twelfth-century C.E. bear do in the woods?

בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית

Yep. Checks out.

I was wondering if anyone would take that low road. I guess this board is not immune childish antics. For those who don't understand, the first Hebrew word of the Bible is "Bereshite" which means "In the Beginning". Difflugia has chosen to make the similarity of a twisted pronunciation to resemble something that a bear does in the woods. I will make a post on the prophesy contained in that word in a later post. The allusion of a horoscope is misplaced as well.

[brunumb]

This is a discredited scientific theory about the origins of life from the primordial goo, or "dirt", but it seems that the Bible agrees with it.

Not discredited at all and still very much on the table. At least biochemistry offers some sort of plausible mechanism that is lacking in a magical being just poofing living things into existence.

Exactly what is the question for debate?

[Diogenes]

This is an offshoot from the "Science vs. Genesis" topic but it covers a different main premise. That topic suggested a conflict between the two. My topic shows where there is agreement. I think that everyone would agree that it would be extremely rare for any 4000 year old document, especially one that existed for thousands of years in oral form before it was written down, to agree with ANY modern scientific concept. The very first chapter of the first book of the Bible can be seen to agree with five of them. (Not only that, but the very first Hebrew word of the first chapter of the Bible reveals a stunning prophecy which came true 2000 years later, but that is another subject.) The five modern scientific concepts and theories are the concept of a slowly developing Earth, the concept of "super-continents" such as Pangea, abiogenesis, and evolution. None of these concepts were familiar to the people of the age when it was written.

Of course these concepts were not "familiar to the people of the age when it was written." But the claim is that GOD inspired this unscientific, anti-factual mythic drivel. Thus the conclusion is obvious; no omniscient god inspired Genesis. It is the work of men unfamiliar with scientific reality.

[TRANSPONDER]

This is an offshoot from the "Science vs. Genesis" topic but it covers a different main premise. That topic suggested a conflict between the two. My topic shows where there is agreement. I think that everyone would agree that it would be extremely rare for any 4000 year old document, especially one that existed for thousands of years in oral form before it was written down, to agree with ANY modern scientific concept. The very first chapter of the first book of the Bible can be seen to agree with five of them. (Not only that, but the very first Hebrew word of the first chapter of the Bible reveals a stunning prophecy which came true 2000 years later, but that is another subject.) The five modern scientific concepts and theories are the concept of a slowly developing Earth, the concept of "super-continents" such as Pangea, abiogenesis, and evolution. None of these concepts were familiar to the people of the age when it was written.

Of course these concepts were not "familiar to the people of the age when it was written." But the claim is that GOD inspired this unscientific, anti-factual mythic drivel. Thus the conclusion is obvious; no omniscient god inspired Genesis. It is the work of men unfamiliar with scientific reality.

Of course; this is just part of the flip -flop excusing of Genesis. Some deny the science (and call that "Science"), some try to fit it to the science (divide the age of the universe into 7 and call that 'days', or take the 'circle of the earth' and claim that means 'sphere') or accept that it isn't factual or scientific at all, but then try to argue that we should still take it seriously ("Metaphorically true") or learn some life lessons from it.

The only lesson is that even today people believe ancient myths.

[theophile]

This is an offshoot from the "Science vs. Genesis" topic but it covers a different main premise. That topic suggested a conflict between the two. My topic shows where there is agreement. I think that everyone would agree that it would be extremely rare for any 4000 year old document, especially one that existed for thousands of years in oral form before it was written down, to agree with ANY modern scientific concept. The very first chapter of the first book of the Bible can be seen to agree with five of them.

For the record, I think we should stick to what you suggest here and dissociate Genesis from science. Otherwise we're going to have to squint real hard to make them look the same on points, and it's just going to open up attacks if we insist on any agreement.

That said, I would suggest one point of agreement, and that at a very high level, but it requires turning the conventional view on its head. That is, in the beginning, per Genesis 1:2, what we see is that the physical world already exists. God is hovering over the deep / waters, which are never created in Genesis 1 but which are rather the vast cosmic ocean within which the heavens and the earth are subsequently made.

This means that Genesis 1 is not about the creation from nothing of the universe and all that is, but is rather about the creation within a pre-existing physical world a contained space that can harbor life... (Genesis 1 is more a matter of terraforming than anything else.)

So the interesting point here, aside from turning the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo on its head and all the implications of that, is the fundamental nature of the physical world, i.e., it being a vast cosmic ocean according to Genesis 1, or a physical world in flux (as indicated by the fluid / watery nature of its contents).

I think that agrees pretty well (if at a highly simplified level) with what science would say. i.e., we do indeed find ourselves in a vast cosmic ocean, with contents that are fluid, and prone to escape our grasp or whatever form we put them in. Just look at quantum mechanics for instance, where at our lowest level of understanding we can't know anything for certain because of how fluid it is. Where the most fundamental particles have wave-like (/water-like) qualities and escape any definitive grasp..

That, IMO, is probably the strongest agreement we'll find between them.

[TRANSPONDER]

could be. It appears to be coming down to the basic 'something happened' and that within 'something was there' and the answer to whether it was put there or was always there is 'we don't know'. I guess that the science/material side and creation side can possibly find common ground there.

But then we get the First cause or 'kalam' argument which is a philosophical one that argues that an intelligence or act of will had to be the cause of that. 'Don't know' makes the argument moot and efforts to try to force a conclusion are faithbased and essentially without force. And that's without even considering 'which god', and Godfaith is of course what is pushing the Theist first -cause argument.

But science and Genesis is actually a different argument. Even if we agreed on a first cause and even a intelligent first cause, science says it didn't get done the way Genesis says. We know the apologetics, excuses and evasions;

Science is just wrong.
Science is right and Genesis was actually agreeing with it
Genesis is not factual but is right metaphorically.

Denial, excuses and evasions. It may suffice to keep the Faithful in Faith but I see no way that is going to persuade the doubters, not because they are closed -minded but because those arguments just aren't anything like good enough.

There are 'Christian Evolutionists who appear to accept that Genesis is wrong but the rest of the Bible is right. Trouble is that, if Genesis is wrong, shouldn't we doubt Exodus, too? And if that is wrong, it takes the whole sin - death doctrine down with it. I don't think that's the reason why Christian Fundamentalists fight so hard for Genesis, but it could have been.

[DaveD49]

Not discredited at all and still very much on the table. At least biochemistry offers some sort of plausible mechanism that is lacking in a magical being just poofing living things into existence.

Exactly what is the question for debate?

Actually, it is discredited by science. Not one shred of scientific evidence exists to support it and as a result it actually remains as a hypothesis rather than a theory. (Oh, and before you bring it up RNA which perhaps has been produced in a lab is not DNA.) Harvard professor, American scientist and atheist George Wald had this to say on the subject: “When it comes to the origin of life, we have only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility…Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved one hundred years ago by Louis Pasteur, Spellanzani, Reddy and others. That leads us scientifically to only one possible conclusion — that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God…I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution.” – Scientific American, August, 1954.

It seems likely to me that many atheists think the same as Wald.... they refuse to believe in God because they do not WANT to believe in Him, despite the evidence. Oh, and please note: I am NOT arguing against spontaneous generation or evolution. I, like Wald, actually accept both of them. But I recognize the impossibility of either of them occurring without the guidance of a vastly superior intelligence guiding the process... aka "God".

The question for debate is exactly as I stated... how Genesis can be seen to support modern scientific theories.

[TRANSPONDER]

Not discredited at all and still very much on the table. At least biochemistry offers some sort of plausible mechanism that is lacking in a magical being just poofing living things into existence.

Exactly what is the question for debate?

Actually, it is discredited by science. Not one shred of scientific evidence exists to support it and as a result it actually remains as a hypothesis rather than a theory. (Oh, and before you bring it up RNA which perhaps has been produced in a lab is not DNA.) Harvard professor, American scientist and atheist George Wald had this to say on the subject: “When it comes to the origin of life, we have only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility…Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved one hundred years ago by Louis Pasteur, Spellanzani, Reddy and others. That leads us scientifically to only one possible conclusion — that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God…I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution.” – Scientific American, August, 1954.

It seems likely to me that many atheists think the same as Wald.... they refuse to believe in God because they do not WANT to believe in Him, despite the evidence. Oh, and please note: I am NOT arguing against spontaneous generation or evolution. I, like Wald, actually accept both of them. But I recognize the impossibility of either of them occurring without the guidance of a vastly superior intelligence guiding the process... aka "God".

The question for debate is exactly as I stated... how Genesis can be seen to support modern scientific theories.

Well, the answer is, not. And we have your word for it, not ours. Just take your argument against abiogenesis; you say fair enough that it's a hypothesis rather than a 'theory' (that is, one proven to be fact). But there is the hypothetical mechanism of how it could happen. And we can do a lot better now than the declaration of 1954 which is none too brilliant.

So where is your hypothetical mechanism? Tell us how it happened if abiogenesis is wrong? And 'god did it' is not a hypothesis, but a faith - claim. We don't even need to look at the evidence that shows that, even if you could make a case for an intelligent creation of basic Life, Genesis is wrong after that.

You are making two mistakes here, the minor being to go to old quotes that have been superseded, even if they are not taken out of context. At one time, Instinct was not understood, then DNA explained it. It would be silly to go back to an article of 1970 (for instance) and claim that we do not know the mechanism of instinct today. The other fallacy is the very basic one of the wrong burden of proof. You think that Goddunnit is the default (for Life, the universe and Everything) and any other hypothesis (e.g evolution) has only to have some unexplained questions raised and it collapses leaving Goddunnit as the only theory.

Sorry, that is not how it works; evolution/materialism is validated and a natural origin to life the universe and everything is now the default and unanswered question are just details, not debunks as you so fondly imagine them to be. The burden of proof is on you to come up with an explanatory mechanism that fits the evidence better than the evolutionary ones. Hint, Goddunit is not an explanation. Nor is appeal to incredulity, theist - skewed odds against or appeal to complexity. Those are all non- starters as well as non explanations