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.

[theophile]

It's a neat little sidestep to get off how science says the world came to be and it wasn't as Genesis says and instead get onto the problems we have and blame science for that and somehow make out that this validates the Bible. It's a long time since we fell for that one, though it does work when you get two believers both agreeing with each other.

Pretty sure we didn't take anything to the extreme you suggested here. Or at least I didn't. i.e., blaming science or validating anything in the bible.

But yes, it is a neat little sidestep. We should all follow suit.

[DaveD49]

Dave, I don't think you appreciate the situation with the Wald quote. Not only is it out of context (Wald was speaking to spontaneous generation, not abiogenesis), it's also 68 years old! Do you understand what that means? It means the "here we are" part was specifically made in the context of the state of the science as it existed well over half a century ago.

Do you think origins research has advanced a bit since then?

Further, are you aware of the "God of the Gaps" fallacy?

Also, have you ever debated a Muslim about the Quran? I ask because I wonder if you're aware that they make the same basic argument ("Our holy book says X, which science has confirmed, which proves it is divine").

Sorry, I missed this one. Please explain... does not both spontaneous generation and abiogenesis rely on life from non-life? Spontaneous Generation was explained away essentially by putting a screen on the sample so a fly couldn't get at it. The concept of spontaneous generation had a lead on abiogenesis in that in most cases the original testing sample was former living matter. Abiogenesis is still life from non-life, not former living matter, and although most scientists still consider it impossible, and none can credibly explain how it could have happened. But they still cling to it because they do not want to acknowledge the possible existence of God (which is also a viable option).

You say that another half century+ has gone by since Wald said what he did implying that science has already proven abiogenesis. When did that happen? And as I said, showing that RNA could be produced in a laboratory may be an advance in scientific knowledge, but RNA is not DNA and DNA is not life. One again you have to rely on the "eventually" science will prove it.

Your so-called "God of the Gaps" fallacy is an invented atheistic put down to make fun of the theistic position. It has no merit to it al all. IF God is in fact real then most certainly He could the source and thus could indeed fill the gaps in our scientific knowledge.

Your comment about the Muslims and the Quran is just a distraction. We are not talking about what it says in the Quran, we are talking about the Bible. And while, yes I have heard of Muslim claims about the Quran matching science, if it does, Great! But it has nothing to do with our discussion.

If you are going to talk about scientific advancements then cite the actually discoveries.

[brunumb]

Abiogenesis is still life from non-life, not former living matter, and although most scientists still consider it impossible, and none can credibly explain how it could have happened. But they still cling to it because they do not want to acknowledge the possible existence of God (which is also a viable option).

Actually, it is your claim that lacks credibility. I doubt that you can support the claim that "most scientists still consider it impossible". If you can, please supply some evidence. I do not consider it impossible. All matter that is incorporated into living organisms is what may be classified as non-living matter. One of the defining criteria for living things is that they are able to reproduce. All that essentially requires is self-replicating molecules. It may be hard to see how they emerged over time, but they exist and reproduce without assistance. The notion that scientists who acknowledge abiogenesis are doing so "because they do not want to acknowledge the possible existence of God" is really too silly to warrant consideration. Just desperate clutching at straws.

[Jose Fly]

Please explain... does not both spontaneous generation and abiogenesis rely on life from non-life?

Only in the same way that a serial killer and jaywalker are both criminals. In both cases there are very important distinctions.

Spontaneous Generation was explained away essentially by putting a screen on the sample so a fly couldn't get at it. The concept of spontaneous generation had a lead on abiogenesis in that in most cases the original testing sample was former living matter.

You're talking about an idea that arose when science was in a relatively primitive state and was disproved over a century and a half ago. It's not at all comparable to modern hypotheses about the origin of the first life forms.

Abiogenesis is still life from non-life, not former living matter, and although most scientists still consider it impossible, and none can credibly explain how it could have happened.

Citation please (for "most scientists still consider it impossible").

But they still cling to it because they do not want to acknowledge the possible existence of God (which is also a viable option).

And your evidence for this claim is..........?

You say that another half century+ has gone by since Wald said what he did implying that science has already proven abiogenesis.

No, I pointed out that Wald's quote was from well before the development of any of the current origins hypotheses, which makes it irrelevant to them. IOW, Wald couldn't have been speaking about today's ideas about origins since they didn't exist at the time.

And as I said, showing that RNA could be produced in a laboratory may be an advance in scientific knowledge, but RNA is not DNA and DNA is not life. One again you have to rely on the "eventually" science will prove it.

I don't have to rely on anything. I'm content to let the scientists do their work as they see fit. Whether or not they figure it out doesn't really matter to me much at all.

Your so-called "God of the Gaps" fallacy is an invented atheistic put down to make fun of the theistic position. It has no merit to it al all.

LOL...no, it's a very obvious fallacy. It's a variation of the Fallacy of Argument Via Ignorance.

IF God is in fact real then most certainly He could the source and thus could indeed fill the gaps in our scientific knowledge.

And if my dog could do math, she could help me do my taxes.

Your comment about the Muslims and the Quran is just a distraction. We are not talking about what it says in the Quran, we are talking about the Bible. And while, yes I have heard of Muslim claims about the Quran matching science, if it does, Great! But it has nothing to do with our discussion.

Just pointing out that if your argument is valid, then by the same token the Quran must also be divine.

If you are going to talk about scientific advancements then cite the actually discoveries.

Nah, I'm not really interested in expending time and energy showing science to another creationist whose only interest in it is to deny it. If you were truly interested, you'd find it on your own. And to be clear, the origin of the first life on earth is indeed an unsolved mystery. That's why we have science in the first place you know....to try and solve such mysteries.

[TRANSPONDER]

It's a neat little sidestep to get off how science says the world came to be and it wasn't as Genesis says and instead get onto the problems we have and blame science for that and somehow make out that this validates the Bible. It's a long time since we fell for that one, though it does work when you get two believers both agreeing with each other.

Pretty sure we didn't take anything to the extreme you suggested here. Or at least I didn't. i.e., blaming science or validating anything in the bible.

But yes, it is a neat little sidestep. We should all follow suit.

Pretty sure they do, regularly. Some deny the science; some try to get the Bible to fit Science and then try to claim the Bible is 'scientific'. If you don't, fine.

Dave, I don't think you appreciate the situation with the Wald quote. Not only is it out of context (Wald was speaking to spontaneous generation, not abiogenesis), it's also 68 years old! Do you understand what that means? It means the "here we are" part was specifically made in the context of the state of the science as it existed well over half a century ago.

Do you think origins research has advanced a bit since then?

Further, are you aware of the "God of the Gaps" fallacy?

Also, have you ever debated a Muslim about the Quran? I ask because I wonder if you're aware that they make the same basic argument ("Our holy book says X, which science has confirmed, which proves it is divine").

Sorry, I missed this one. Please explain... does not both spontaneous generation and abiogenesis rely on life from non-life? Spontaneous Generation was explained away essentially by putting a screen on the sample so a fly couldn't get at it. The concept of spontaneous generation had a lead on abiogenesis in that in most cases the original testing sample was former living matter. Abiogenesis is still life from non-life, not former living matter, and although most scientists still consider it impossible, and none can credibly explain how it could have happened. But they still cling to it because they do not want to acknowledge the possible existence of God (which is also a viable option).

You say that another half century+ has gone by since Wald said what he did implying that science has already proven abiogenesis. When did that happen? And as I said, showing that RNA could be produced in a laboratory may be an advance in scientific knowledge, but RNA is not DNA and DNA is not life. One again you have to rely on the "eventually" science will prove it.

Your so-called "God of the Gaps" fallacy is an invented atheistic put down to make fun of the theistic position. It has no merit to it al all. IF God is in fact real then most certainly He could the source and thus could indeed fill the gaps in our scientific knowledge.

Your comment about the Muslims and the Quran is just a distraction. We are not talking about what it says in the Quran, we are talking about the Bible. And while, yes I have heard of Muslim claims about the Quran matching science, if it does, Great! But it has nothing to do with our discussion.

If you are going to talk about scientific advancements then cite the actually discoveries.

The thing is that it's a bit of a Rhetorical trick to call Abiogensis 'spontaneous creation'. The apparent similarities are obvious, but that one was found to be mistaken does not mean that Abiogenesis is impossible. Bear in mind that alchemy - transmuting lead into gold - was discredited, but since alteration of nuclear structure, it is possible (though not economically worthwhile) to do it.

The point is that using discredited old beliefs to smear new ones is just rhetoric, not a valid argument. And I recall that Wald was quoted out of context. He may have said that Life from non - life was hard to credit in the normal way, and so it is; but he thought that had to be the answer, and so do I. And that you deny it does not make it impossible, nor does your rhetorical smear of Abiogenesis as 'spontaneous creation'.

[DaveD49]

It's a neat little sidestep to get off how science says the world came to be and it wasn't as Genesis says and instead get onto the problems we have and blame science for that and somehow make out that this validates the Bible. It's a long time since we fell for that one, though it does work when you get two believers both agreeing with each other.

Pretty sure we didn't take anything to the extreme you suggested here. Or at least I didn't. i.e., blaming science or validating anything in the bible.

But yes, it is a neat little sidestep. We should all follow suit.

Pretty sure they do, regularly. Some deny the science; some try to get the Bible to fit Science and then try to claim the Bible is 'scientific'. If you don't, fine.

Dave, I don't think you appreciate the situation with the Wald quote. Not only is it out of context (Wald was speaking to spontaneous generation, not abiogenesis), it's also 68 years old! Do you understand what that means? It means the "here we are" part was specifically made in the context of the state of the science as it existed well over half a century ago.

Do you think origins research has advanced a bit since then?

Further, are you aware of the "God of the Gaps" fallacy?

Also, have you ever debated a Muslim about the Quran? I ask because I wonder if you're aware that they make the same basic argument ("Our holy book says X, which science has confirmed, which proves it is divine").

Sorry, I missed this one. Please explain... does not both spontaneous generation and abiogenesis rely on life from non-life? Spontaneous Generation was explained away essentially by putting a screen on the sample so a fly couldn't get at it. The concept of spontaneous generation had a lead on abiogenesis in that in most cases the original testing sample was former living matter. Abiogenesis is still life from non-life, not former living matter, and although most scientists still consider it impossible, and none can credibly explain how it could have happened. But they still cling to it because they do not want to acknowledge the possible existence of God (which is also a viable option).

You say that another half century+ has gone by since Wald said what he did implying that science has already proven abiogenesis. When did that happen? And as I said, showing that RNA could be produced in a laboratory may be an advance in scientific knowledge, but RNA is not DNA and DNA is not life. One again you have to rely on the "eventually" science will prove it.

Your so-called "God of the Gaps" fallacy is an invented atheistic put down to make fun of the theistic position. It has no merit to it al all. IF God is in fact real then most certainly He could the source and thus could indeed fill the gaps in our scientific knowledge.

Your comment about the Muslims and the Quran is just a distraction. We are not talking about what it says in the Quran, we are talking about the Bible. And while, yes I have heard of Muslim claims about the Quran matching science, if it does, Great! But it has nothing to do with our discussion.

If you are going to talk about scientific advancements then cite the actually discoveries.

The thing is that it's a bit of a Rhetorical trick to call Abiogensis 'spontaneous creation'. The apparent similarities are obvious, but that one was found to be mistaken does not mean that Abiogenesis is impossible. Bear in mind that alchemy - transmuting lead into gold - was discredited, but since alteration of nuclear structure, it is possible (though not economically worthwhile) to do it.

The point is that using discredited old beliefs to smear new ones is just rhetoric, not a valid argument. And I recall that Wald was quoted out of context. He may have said that Life from non - life was hard to credit in the normal way, and so it is; but he thought that had to be the answer, and so do I. And that you deny it does not make it impossible, nor does your rhetorical smear of Abiogenesis as 'spontaneous creation'.

All I see you doing is trying to discredit the entire notion of seeing science in Genesis by appealing to my apparent misquote of Wald. He wasn't the focus of my entire statement by any means. And you seem to forget, I am NOT saying that abiogenesis and evolution did not occur. I believe that both of theses DID occur, but I feel it would have been impossible without an intelligent guide to the processes. Abiogenesis IS built on life from lifelessness.

[TRANSPONDER]

It's a neat little sidestep to get off how science says the world came to be and it wasn't as Genesis says and instead get onto the problems we have and blame science for that and somehow make out that this validates the Bible. It's a long time since we fell for that one, though it does work when you get two believers both agreeing with each other.

Pretty sure we didn't take anything to the extreme you suggested here. Or at least I didn't. i.e., blaming science or validating anything in the bible.

But yes, it is a neat little sidestep. We should all follow suit.

Pretty sure they do, regularly. Some deny the science; some try to get the Bible to fit Science and then try to claim the Bible is 'scientific'. If you don't, fine.

Dave, I don't think you appreciate the situation with the Wald quote. Not only is it out of context (Wald was speaking to spontaneous generation, not abiogenesis), it's also 68 years old! Do you understand what that means? It means the "here we are" part was specifically made in the context of the state of the science as it existed well over half a century ago.

Do you think origins research has advanced a bit since then?

Further, are you aware of the "God of the Gaps" fallacy?

Also, have you ever debated a Muslim about the Quran? I ask because I wonder if you're aware that they make the same basic argument ("Our holy book says X, which science has confirmed, which proves it is divine").

Sorry, I missed this one. Please explain... does not both spontaneous generation and abiogenesis rely on life from non-life? Spontaneous Generation was explained away essentially by putting a screen on the sample so a fly couldn't get at it. The concept of spontaneous generation had a lead on abiogenesis in that in most cases the original testing sample was former living matter. Abiogenesis is still life from non-life, not former living matter, and although most scientists still consider it impossible, and none can credibly explain how it could have happened. But they still cling to it because they do not want to acknowledge the possible existence of God (which is also a viable option).

You say that another half century+ has gone by since Wald said what he did implying that science has already proven abiogenesis. When did that happen? And as I said, showing that RNA could be produced in a laboratory may be an advance in scientific knowledge, but RNA is not DNA and DNA is not life. One again you have to rely on the "eventually" science will prove it.

Your so-called "God of the Gaps" fallacy is an invented atheistic put down to make fun of the theistic position. It has no merit to it al all. IF God is in fact real then most certainly He could the source and thus could indeed fill the gaps in our scientific knowledge.

Your comment about the Muslims and the Quran is just a distraction. We are not talking about what it says in the Quran, we are talking about the Bible. And while, yes I have heard of Muslim claims about the Quran matching science, if it does, Great! But it has nothing to do with our discussion.

If you are going to talk about scientific advancements then cite the actually discoveries.

The thing is that it's a bit of a Rhetorical trick to call Abiogensis 'spontaneous creation'. The apparent similarities are obvious, but that one was found to be mistaken does not mean that Abiogenesis is impossible. Bear in mind that alchemy - transmuting lead into gold - was discredited, but since alteration of nuclear structure, it is possible (though not economically worthwhile) to do it.

The point is that using discredited old beliefs to smear new ones is just rhetoric, not a valid argument. And I recall that Wald was quoted out of context. He may have said that Life from non - life was hard to credit in the normal way, and so it is; but he thought that had to be the answer, and so do I. And that you deny it does not make it impossible, nor does your rhetorical smear of Abiogenesis as 'spontaneous creation'.

All I see you doing is trying to discredit the entire notion of seeing science in Genesis by appealing to my apparent misquote of Wald. He wasn't the focus of my entire statement by any means. And you seem to forget, I am NOT saying that abiogenesis and evolution did not occur. I believe that both of theses DID occur, but I feel it would have been impossible without an intelligent guide to the processes. Abiogenesis IS built on life from lifelessness.

Ok never mind about Wald, he's irrelevant; so is Spontaneous Creation. If that was connected here.

Thing is ...bottom lone...Genesis is a fair guess, as any other creation myth might do. But it's wrong enough to not be more than a good guess, AND if one doesn't try to wangle it to fit the science, the cosmology is wrong, too.
And you seem to be falling into the common apologetics error - "Odds against" which is wrong in assuming a planned outcome, impossible to be reached by chance.

I won't wrangle about your terms either, Abiogenesis, yes - but only if God does it Well it is a 'Gap for God' though a smallish one as Abiogenesis has a theoretical mecanism, and 'god' just makes a magic wish. Now, given that Abiogensis has more going for it than Goddunnit and even God waving a magic wand to make Life doesn't tell you which god, and even if you opt for Biblegod, you have to explain why we should either buy into the next rebrand of Abrahamism (Christanity), or Not buy the last one, Islam.

Chum, you really have no valid case for Theistic Life, and a lot more hurdles to get to where you are.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to DaveD49 in post #1]

It looks foolish when Muslims try to claim scientific miracles in the Quran and it looks equally foolish when we try to do the same with the bible.

The bible is clearly written from the point of view of humans. Humans trying to understand the world and reconcile their divine revelations with how they understood the world at the time.


If there were a book from God, it would be so spectacular that every atheist would be amazed. In the very least, they would say it was from aliens. No such book exists.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to DaveD49 in post #1]

This kind of fundamentalism is bad for Christianity, so I am going to go through each one of these.

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.)

First of all, it does not say on day 4 the sun and moon and stars became visible. It says on day 4 he PLACED the sun the moon and the stars in the firmament. The same firmament that birds fly in. BTW, people in Mesopotamia believed the whole universe was the shape of a snowglobe. The earth was the disk, and the heavens was the dome over it. Birds flew where stars are. This is why there are legends of some birds that could fly to the sun.

The person that wrote this verse would know that the absence of light is darkness, so if there was no light, since he believed God created light, then he would naturally describe the earth as being in a state of darkness. There is no reason to think he had modern-day understanding, which he clearly did not.

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.

Notice he thinks the dry land was made to appear after the waters came together. This is not how it happened scientifically. Also, this verse says nothing about continents. It says dry land as if there was just one of them. This would have been his view. They did not know there were other huge land masses, so they spoke of one land mass. Had he understood that Pangea broke apart into continents, he would have worded this differently. He makes no mention of one mass becoming many.

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

This was the view back then. They believed the earth produced plants. It was a simple observation. It rained, the sun beamed, then he earth produced plants. Why did it do that? God must have caused it. It doesn't say the waters produced fish, but let the water teem with living creatures. It doesn't say how the living creatures came to be but that they came to be in the water. People back then would have no clue how water creatures came to be, so if they believed in God, they would believe God caused them to be in the water.

Notice, that the creatures in the water began to exist in the water, which contradicts evolution.

He goes on to say the same with birds. They begin to exist in the sky. That is clearly not true. Also, I doubt he believed birds began to exist in the sky for they saw birds on the ground and in nests.

Where did land animals come from if water creatures began to exist in the water? They must have begun to exist on the earth.

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.

Not really. Genesis says plants day 3 and water life day 5. This is incorrect. Plants originated in the water according to evolution theory.

[Diogenes]

.... The very first chapter of the first book of the Bible can be seen to agree with five of them....
Slowly forming Earth

No. The Bible says the Earth was created in one day:
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.... And there was evening and there was morning, the first day (Genesis 1:1-5).

Super-Continents

Wrong again. Genesis claims the Earth is 6000 years old. It took millions of years for the super continent to become separated into the distinct continents of today.

Abiogenesis
This is a discredited scientific theory....

Wrong again. As others have pointed out, the theory of abiogenesis is not discredited.

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.

Wrong again; demonstrably wrong. Genesis has two separate creation stories that are in conflict about the order and neither is correct. Genesis 1:11-19 has vegetation before the Sun is created and is confused about when light begins, claiming in starts on the 1st day while the Sun isn't created until the 4th day.

Genesis is a hopelessly confused, contradictory, and anti science myth.