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.

[DaveD49]

[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.

Not what I was doing. Muslims claim that science confirms the Quran and thus it must be truth. And, yes I have read a number of their claims and they did seem foolish. I was saying that the modern scientific concepts "can be seen" in Genesis 1 even though it was written by people of the day with only the knowledge of the day.

There is a book from God and that is science itself. Science can only show us HOW God did what He did.

No, that won't do. Science refutes what Genesis says. Even if one denies the Babylonian snowdome - cosmos and "Interpreted" the Bible to "Really Mean" a round earth covered in cloud, and the dry land is supposed to mean the original super - continent; the errors in the order of creation ignored and the few right guesses counted as hits, '7 days' explained as 14+ billion years divided into 7 and the less said about morning and evening the better, you are still fiddling what the Bible says into what you would like it to mean (at least you don't just deny the science) and that only serves to excuse your faith. It does not provide evidence that Genesis is supported by science, it explains away the evidence that science doesn't support Genesis. Bottom line; it may suit you fine to wangle the Bible support your Faith but it is never an argument that will wash with atheists, and for good evidence - based reasons, not just because we're atheists.

"You don't have to be an evolutionist to be an atheist - but it helps".

I would agree that science SHOULD be able to refute a story written about the beginning of everything from 3500 years ago., and it does so when you look at Genesis through the eyes of a fundamentalist. But if you look at the story in a different way and with an open mind you can see agreement as I pointed out. There is no way in the world that the people of the day could have come up with these as there thinking was rooted in, as Aquinas pointed out, the "snow globe" which was the Babylonian concept of the universe so prevalent to the people of the day. The Bible can easily be seen to agree with this ancient concept. But behind this, hidden in wording, is a tacit agreement with modern science which cannot be ignored once you see it.

Just look at the points:

• 1. the universe had a beginning, This was not found to be true until the 20th Century.
  2. In its beginning the Earth was unformed. Again a 19th or 20th Century realization
  3. In the early stages of Earth's development no light could be seen. Science speaks about volcanic eruptions everywhere, not even mentioning the debris from Earth's collision with Theia, the protoplanet that crashed into Earth resulting in the formation of the Moon. These were dark times.
  4. Later when Earth cooled down to allow for rain the world became a water-world or ice-world. Science says that during this stage it rained for up to 200,000 years.
  5. Volcanic activity/debris settling created dry land. Science speaks about Vaalbaria (?) as the first "super continent" but it was quite small.
  6. Life from lifelessness. Note that Bible says that the EARTH produced life. Science says this is true, even if they still haven't yet figured that one out.
  7. More complex life including mammals. In a cosmically extremely short time during the early period of the Cambrian Explosion (about 50 million years and more than 3 billion years after life first appeared), multicellular life and animals with complex organs designed for specific tasks appeared. Mammals came much later after numerous near-extinction events.

[DaveD49]

[Replying to DaveD49 in post #79]

Did you read my post where I show how each one is easily accountable for by knowledge at the time and what they most likely believed by the words? And how some of them are just wrong, such as plants being before water life. Evolution shows us that water life comes before land plants. In fact, water plants existed then later land plants.

Yes, and I agree that the writer had no knowledge of any of these concepts at all, and was writing about just what he thought was true. Once again, you are treating what I said as if I were proclaiming a new dogma. You are trying to treat what I said as a fundamentalist would, that every word has to be taken literally. I was not talking about an exact rendition of evolution being present in Genesis. I was talking about HINTS at it. Again what I said is that it "can be seen" not "proven to be there". Read one of my replies above... I listed actually 7 modern concepts that can be seen in Genesis 1. So my point is that because these things can be seen hinted at despite the lack of knowledge of the writer is one of the earmarks of inspiration. The fact that these are all in the very first chapter of the Bible rather than spread throughout it is another earmark of inspiration. The writer did not have to understand all the implications of what he wrote or even be aware of them.

[brunumb]

Whether you think that Genesis has science facts beyond the author's time or not, I pointed out how five of them could be seen in the very first chapter. If you look at it closely you will see it for yourself. When you do see it then you may be willing to realize that your thinking needs adjustment. Even the very first Hebrew word of the Bible can be seen to contain a prediction (non-scientific) far beyond its time.

Those five things you pointed out require a lot of distortion to connect the biblical account with our accepted view of reality. Any similarities are based on primitive guesswork where the people are essentially observing common factors like earth, water, sky and so on, then spinning a yarn based on those observations. This retrofitting of current knowledge into primitive writing is turning into quite an art, but it is no more than a desperate attempt to prop up dodgy beliefs.

[brunumb]

Just look at the points:
1. the universe had a beginning, This was not found to be true until the 20th Century.
Wow. Couldn't possibly consider that without the help of a god.

2. In its beginning the Earth was unformed. Again a 19th or 20th Century realization
Not a big stretch if you are making up a creation story.

3. In the early stages of Earth's development no light could be seen. Science speaks about volcanic eruptions everywhere, not even mentioning the debris from Earth's collision with Theia, the protoplanet that crashed into Earth resulting in the formation of the Moon. These were dark times.
No light could be seen by who? At what stage of the real formation of Earth was there no light reaching the surface? Why no mention of that planetary collision in the biblical story? No correlation at all here.

4. Later when Earth cooled down to allow for rain the world became a water-world or ice-world. Science says that during this stage it rained for up to 200,000 years.
There was no water for a very long time. Science says it arrived through millions of years of bombardment by icy comets and meteors. Hardly concordant with anything in the Bible.

5. Volcanic activity/debris settling created dry land. Science speaks about Vaalbaria (?) as the first "super continent" but it was quite small.
Dry land existed from the beginning.

6. Life from lifelessness. Note that Bible says that the EARTH produced life. Science says this is true, even if they still haven't yet figured that one out.
Conflict with Bible which says God created life. Quite different from how science reveals life became established.

7. More complex life including mammals. In a cosmically extremely short time during the early period of the Cambrian Explosion (about 50 million years and more than 3 billion years after life first appeared), multicellular life and animals with complex organs designed for specific tasks appeared. Mammals came much later after numerous near-extinction events.
Evolution. Conflict with Bible which says God created life, although the sequence is all wrong.

[DaveD49]

Whether you think that Genesis has science facts beyond the author's time or not, I pointed out how five of them could be seen in the very first chapter. If you look at it closely you will see it for yourself. When you do see it then you may be willing to realize that your thinking needs adjustment. Even the very first Hebrew word of the Bible can be seen to contain a prediction (non-scientific) far beyond its time.

Those five things you pointed out require a lot of distortion to connect the biblical account with our accepted view of reality. Any similarities are based on primitive guesswork where the people are essentially observing common factors like earth, water, sky and so on, then spinning a yarn based on those observations. This retrofitting of current knowledge into primitive writing is turning into quite an art, but it is no more than a desperate attempt to prop up dodgy beliefs.

Actually as I pointed out in post #91 there were seven congruences in Genesis 1 to modern science, and no distortion is necessary to see them. All that is necessary is just the knowledge that what science teaches today actually happened in the time periods in question. And we are speaking about many periods of time on timeline that extends from the very beginning of the universe to the arrival of human beings. Do you doubt any of the science I mentioned as being real? Do you doubt that the universe had a beginning? That it took a long while for Earth to form from space debris? That during the early formation light would not have been visible because of the debris? Once you accept the science then seeing their reflection in the wording of Genesis is pretty easy. When you are talking about the universe does it make a difference if you say "In the beginning..." or "The universe had a beginning"? One is said by Genesis and the other by science but aren't they both saying the same thing? There is nothing dodgy here, I just recognize what is actually written. Everything is right there to read. Yes, the writers were talking about their ancient concept of the universe and had only the knowledge prevalent at that time, but at the same time they unwittingly made comments that can be see to agree with modern science. You can accept it as mere happenstance that seven reflections of modern science can be found in the very first page of the Bible, but I think that is a long stretch of the imagination, and it is the point that the concept of inspiration is brought into play.

[DaveD49]

Just look at the points:
1. the universe had a beginning, This was not found to be true until the 20th Century.
Wow. Couldn't possibly consider that without the help of a god.

Dave: Actually you are right. I couldn't possibly consider an ordered universe coming from happenstance. There must have been an intelligence behind it.

2. In its beginning the Earth was unformed. Again a 19th or 20th Century realization
Not a big stretch if you are making up a creation story.


Dave: Sorry, but I did not make up the story. It was written about 3500 years ago and existed for hundreds of years before that in oral traditions. I just pointed to what the story says.

3. In the early stages of Earth's development no light could be seen. Science speaks about volcanic eruptions everywhere, not even mentioning the debris from Earth's collision with Theia, the protoplanet that crashed into Earth resulting in the formation of the Moon. These were dark times.
No light could be seen by who? At what stage of the real formation of Earth was there no light reaching the surface? Why no mention of that planetary collision in the biblical story? No correlation at all here.

Dave: Wow. Please open a book. There were several periods of Earth's history when cloud cover prevented the sun's light from hitting the Earth.

4. Later when Earth cooled down to allow for rain the world became a water-world or ice-world. Science says that during this stage it rained for up to 200,000 years.
There was no water for a very long time. Science says it arrived through millions of years of bombardment by icy comets and meteors. Hardly concordant with anything in the Bible.

Dave: Correct. At first there was no water except what was trapped in the upper atmosphere. The Earth had to cool down substantially for that to drop to the lower atmosphere and rain. Science theorizes that water arrived beginning with collision with Theia. From Wikipedia "Theia (planet) "Additional evidence published in 2019 suggests that Theia might have formed in the outer Solar System rather than the inner Solar System, and that much of Earth's water originated on Theia."[4]

5. Volcanic activity/debris settling created dry land. Science speaks about Vaalbaria (?) as the first "super continent" but it was quite small.
Dry land existed from the beginning.


Dave: Not during the stage of Earth's development when it was a water-world.

6. Life from lifelessness. Note that Bible says that the EARTH produced life. Science says this is true, even if they still haven't yet figured that one out.
Conflict with Bible which says God created life. Quite different from how science reveals life became established.

Dave: As I pointed out, Genesis 1 states clearly that God ordered to Earth and the seas to produce it just as science theorizes it became established.

7. More complex life including mammals. In a cosmically extremely short time during the early period of the Cambrian Explosion (about 50 million years and more than 3 billion years after life first appeared), multicellular life and animals with complex organs designed for specific tasks appeared. Mammals came much later after numerous near-extinction events.
Evolution. Conflict with Bible which says God created life, although the sequence is all wrong.

Dave: Wrong again. See the comment above.

[brunumb]

[Replying to DaveD49 in post #86]

You are taking different scenarios from Earth's billions of years of existence and trying to shoe-horn them into Genesis 1. Epic fail.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to DaveD49 in post #79]

Did you read my post where I show how each one is easily accountable for by knowledge at the time and what they most likely believed by the words? And how some of them are just wrong, such as plants being before water life. Evolution shows us that water life comes before land plants. In fact, water plants existed then later land plants.

Yes, and I agree that the writer had no knowledge of any of these concepts at all, and was writing about just what he thought was true. Once again, you are treating what I said as if I were proclaiming a new dogma. You are trying to treat what I said as a fundamentalist would, that every word has to be taken literally. I was not talking about an exact rendition of evolution being present in Genesis. I was talking about HINTS at it. Again what I said is that it "can be seen" not "proven to be there". Read one of my replies above... I listed actually 7 modern concepts that can be seen in Genesis 1. So my point is that because these things can be seen hinted at despite the lack of knowledge of the writer is one of the earmarks of inspiration. The fact that these are all in the very first chapter of the Bible rather than spread throughout it is another earmark of inspiration. The writer did not have to understand all the implications of what he wrote or even be aware of them.

Okay, that is fair enough, but some of things he still got wrong, even in a generalized way, such as I said of land plants being before water life. But also, I find it more believable that he wrote these things for the reason I stated before. Everything he says fits into the views at the time. But maybe you agree with that and are looking at perhaps a secondary reason for the ordering of information.

But if God were trying to offer a secondary ordering, wouldn't that secondary set of information be correct? I know you think it is, but look up in evolutionary theory how water life comes before land plants.

[DaveD49]

[Replying to DaveD49 in post #86]

You are taking different scenarios from Earth's billions of years of existence and trying to shoe-horn them into Genesis 1. Epic fail.

How can it be an epic fail if you cannot give a logical response to it?

[DaveD49]

[Replying to DaveD49 in post #79]

Did you read my post where I show how each one is easily accountable for by knowledge at the time and what they most likely believed by the words? And how some of them are just wrong, such as plants being before water life. Evolution shows us that water life comes before land plants. In fact, water plants existed then later land plants.

Yes, and I agree that the writer had no knowledge of any of these concepts at all, and was writing about just what he thought was true. Once again, you are treating what I said as if I were proclaiming a new dogma. You are trying to treat what I said as a fundamentalist would, that every word has to be taken literally. I was not talking about an exact rendition of evolution being present in Genesis. I was talking about HINTS at it. Again what I said is that it "can be seen" not "proven to be there". Read one of my replies above... I listed actually 7 modern concepts that can be seen in Genesis 1. So my point is that because these things can be seen hinted at despite the lack of knowledge of the writer is one of the earmarks of inspiration. The fact that these are all in the very first chapter of the Bible rather than spread throughout it is another earmark of inspiration. The writer did not have to understand all the implications of what he wrote or even be aware of them.

Okay, that is fair enough, but some of things he still got wrong, even in a generalized way, such as I said of land plants being before water life. But also, I find it more believable that he wrote these things for the reason I stated before. Everything he says fits into the views at the time. But maybe you agree with that and are looking at perhaps a secondary reason for the ordering of information.

But if God were trying to offer a secondary ordering, wouldn't that secondary set of information be correct? I know you think it is, but look up in evolutionary theory how water life comes before land plants.

I do agree with that. The writer had absolutely no knowledge of any of these future discoveries, nor do I believe he had a vision of God which told him to "write these words". I think that inspiration works more subtly than that. The writer was speaking about the ancient concept of the universe with absolutely no idea of any others. But I find it extremely interesting that despite that, despite the 3500 years that have passed since it was first written down, despite the hundreds of years the story existed as oral tradition, hints at modern science can be easily seen. It doesn't need to be the exactly correct order but just the general concept.