Can a Genesis God be Explained from a Science Perspective? (part 1)

[BlaznFattyz]

i would say yes.. science fails on two main points. #1 the big bang or the beginning - in science, you cannot create something from nothing. so that points to a higher power making something happen #2 the statistics against a planet giving life such as to the level of humans - in science the statistics are staggering, they had to create alternate universes to come up with more infinite rolling of the dice. God created humans for a reason and everything for us to enjoy, look after, and discover. #3 For science proving there is a God there is intelligent design that shows there is an artist, a poet, a mathematician, engineer, an all knowing God that created the universe and left his initials on all of creation such as an artist signs a painting. There is intelligent design to everything created, that is not random, but rather it is purposely, intricately, and thoughtfully created.

 

[Ouroboros]

...an all knowing God that created the universe and left his initials on all of creation such as an artist signs a painting. ...

He did? Cool! Can you show me his signature? I'd like to see what name he goes by.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

i would say yes.. science fails on two main points. #1 the big bang or the beginning - in science, you cannot create something from nothing. so that points to a higher power making something happen #2 the statistics against a planet giving life such as to the level of humans - in science the statistics are staggering, they had to create alternate universes to come up with more infinite rolling of the dice. God created humans for a reason and everything for us to enjoy, look after, and discover. #3 For science proving there is a God there is intelligent design that shows there is an artist, a poet, a mathematician, engineer, an all knowing God that created the universe and left his initials on all of creation such as an artist signs a painting. There is intelligent design to everything created, that is not random, but rather it is purposely, intricately, and thoughtfully created.

Even the Big Bang itself was once mocked by atheists as 'religious pseudoscience'. The more we learn of the intricate design of the universe, life, humanity, the more difficult it has become to make a case for blind chance. Atheists, including Dawkins, increasingly admit the possibility of ID to solve these problems, though it must still comply with their rules: anything-but-God, and be credited to an alien civilization of some sort.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

i would say yes.. science fails on two main points. #1 the big bang or the beginning - in science, you cannot create something from nothing. so that points to a higher power making something happen

How, exactly?

#2 the statistics against a planet giving life such as to the level of humans - in science the statistics are staggering, they had to create alternate universes to come up with more infinite rolling of the dice. God created humans for a reason and everything for us to enjoy, look after, and discover.

Where are these statistics? What are they based on?

#3 For science proving there is a God there is intelligent design that shows there is an artist, a poet, a mathematician, engineer, an all knowing God that created the universe and left his initials on all of creation such as an artist signs a painting. There is intelligent design to everything created, that is not random, but rather it is purposely, intricately, and thoughtfully created.

Where is the evidence of this?

 

[McBell]

i would say yes.. science fails on two main points. #1 the big bang or the beginning - in science, you cannot create something from nothing. so that points to a higher power making something happen

Who is making the claim of something from nothing?
Oh yeah, that would actually be theists, not science....

#2 the statistics against a planet giving life such as to the level of humans - in science the statistics are staggering, they had to create alternate universes to come up with more infinite rolling of the dice. God created humans for a reason and everything for us to enjoy, look after, and discover.

Please show your math.
You did calculate your alleged statistics, right?

#3 For science proving there is a God there is intelligent design that shows there is an artist, a poet, a mathematician, engineer, an all knowing God that created the universe and left his initials on all of creation such as an artist signs a painting. There is intelligent design to everything created, that is not random, but rather it is purposely, intricately, and thoughtfully created.

Bold empty claims.
Care to substantiate them with something other than more bold empty claims?

 

[Etritonakin]

Science can not presently accept Genesis as fact -because it involves things for which there is no direct evidence.
However, nothing in Genesis actually contradicts what is known by science.
As it involves beings capable of creating everything -essentially a being which is everything -and affecting cosmic events by will, science cannot simply accept it.
However, it cannot deny the possibility -even if it has proved false various assumptions about Genesis.
None can accept what is written if the absence of "God" is assumed. Proof of God's power over natural events (such as when God essentially stopped the rotation of the Earth for an hour -Joshua 10) would be necessary.

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
A general statement -no time frame given -that "God" is responsible for bringing the universe and Earth into existence.

Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
This concerns things which happened after the creation of the heavens and Earth. As the word "was" can mean "became" (H1961), at some point after the creation of the heavens and Earth, the Earth was/became formless and void waste and ruin.
What exactly that means is not specified. How it became so is not specified. It is not necessarily a complete absence of life -nor does it mean that what follows was the beginning of all life on Earth.
The "deep" was already there. God's spirit (that by which God acts by fiat) began to act upon that which was already there.
No time frame is given between the initial creation/completion of the earth and its becoming waste and ruin, and nothing is specified about the process by which the heavens and earth were initially created.

(Though not specified in Genesis, other scriptures suggest this particular situation at this particular time was caused by the angelic rebellion of Lucifer and the third of the angels he turned against God.
Such beings would also have power over cosmic events -and power to cause major damage to Earth -just as man may have when their mind is put within a different sore of body with a more direct interface and increased power -so it's not as though a "natural" explanation would suffice...
Php 3:21 Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.
Psa 8:5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.)

Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Gen 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
Not necessarily the initial creation of the sun. The light shone on one part of Earth -not the other.
It is not specified why darkness was upon the face of the deep. Possibilities.... something in the atmosphere blocking sunlight -something in space blocking sunlight -a darkened sun -who knows?

Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Technically, this describes rotation of the Earth in reference to the sun. Length of day/speed of rotation is not specified.

Gen 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
Gen 1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
Gen 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
Essentially causing clouds/affecting atmosphere, etc... which does occur by evaporation of water by sunlight.

Gen 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
Gen 1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
Separation of land from sea. Water vapor was apparently not in the atmosphere before Gen 1:6, and water was generally evenly spread. To what degree water covered land is not specified.
Changing the topography of the land as well as causing ice caps, drawing water beneath the land, etc. might be involved.

Gen 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
Not necessarily the initial creation of plant life. God said "Let the earth bring forth" -which could mean the sprouting of seeds which were already there, and required that which preceded that day to do so.

Gen 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
Gen 1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
Gen 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
Gen 1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
Only here are interrelationships/timing between heavenly bodies specified/ordered -and this is not necessarily the initial creation of any of these things.
It is possible that days after this day were of a different duration -as a day is defined by speed of rotation.

Gen 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
Gen 1:23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
The above is not necessarily the beginning of all animal life on Earth -but that which God caused to be at this point.
Large fauna would not leave seeds as plants would -and would be more vulnerable to calamity than smaller species which might survive an extinction event of some kind.
The events thus far are in preparation for man being made in the image and likeness of God -which could affect which species God might allow at this point.

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
Gen 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
Again -not necessarily the first humanoids on Earth, but -specifically -the first to be made in the image and likeness of God -with the potential to become immortal.
("Adam" is the word translated "man" -and refers to all mankind (including females) after the individual one named "Adam". Both words are exactly the same -though when used individually and collectively they were given different Strong's numbers.)
Adam was apparently directly created -and Eve from his material -but that has nothing to do with any humanoids which existed on the Earth prior -or even at that time.
Humanoids not of Adam's line might technically be included in the living creatures of previous verses.
There were apparently other humanoids east of Eden -where Cain found a mate after leaving Eden (Gen 4:16-17).

The "6,000 years" idea is based on the genealogies (the "begats" most usually skip over) given in the bible -which date the beginning of the life of the specific man called Adam at about that time. It was only assumed that the entire Earth was also created at that time.

One question would be whether all prior humanoid life was wiped out before the Earth was renewed -and God caused both other humanoids and Adam's line afterward (Adam: mankind generally -and then Adam: the individual specifically) -or some humanoids survived whatever happened to the Earth (I don't think man could last long without sunlight on the Earth -so the darkness would have had to have been rather short, etc.).
Another issue is evidence of such. Finding evidence in DNA might prove tricky, as the DNA of a directly-created humanoid or animal at that point could be identical to the DNA of those already dead -depending on whether or not God used available DNA "blueprints", etc... (similar to cloned sheep, etc.)

Anyway.... without God, Genesis could not have happened -and science cannot simply assume God exists. The miraculous would not necessarily be readily apparent in the otherwise "natural". The super-natural powers wielded and the relatively short space of time involved would not necessarily leave a noticeable blip on a chart spanning billions of years.

Interestingly, humanoids/man did begin to subdue the Earth at that point -much more so than before. It is also true that God -whether believed to be real or imaginary -had a major effect on world events -and something did cause drastic change shortly before about 6,000 years ago.
There are also quite recent extinction events.

 

[Shad]

Ad hoc rationalizations. Ifs, maybes, could be, are not valid in logic. Also in Gen 14 the source of light for the night is not itself a light source but reflected. This only shows an outdated idea that the Moon is a source of light. Gen 1-3 shows that the Earth existed before the Sun which contradicts what we know. So no Gen does not align with science at all.

 

[Etritonakin]

Ad hoc rationalizations. Ifs, maybes, could be, are not valid in logic. Also in Gen 14 the source of light for the night is not itself a light source but reflected. This only shows an outdated idea that the Moon is a source of light. Gen 1-3 shows that the Earth existed before the Sun which contradicts what we know. So no Gen does not align with science at all.

The moon is a light. Even if not a light source, it is an indirect source of light. Gen 1-2 says the heaven and earth existed before what followed. The Earth receiving no light need not have anything to do with the existence of the sun. You are superimposing your own ideas rather than considering what the language truly allows.

 

[Shad]

It is a light. Even if not a light source, it is an indirect source of light.

Then you can not define night and day around it. Your claim still has zero merit.

 

[Etritonakin]

Then you can not define night and day around it. Your claim still has zero merit.

Ummmm yah you can. I don't really understand what you are trying to say. Seeing the moon during the day sometimes has nothing to do with it giving indirect light at night. Believe what you will, but you are not making sense.

 

[Shad]

Ummmm yah you can. I don't really understand what you are trying to say. Seeing the moon during the day sometimes has nothing to do with it giving indirect light at night. Believe what you will, but you are not making sense.

Night and day are defined by the rotation of the Earth relative to the Sun. Without the Sun there is no day.

The Moon point is that it is treated as a source of light rather than what it does is reflect light from the Sun. Hence it is Gen is wrong as it claims it is a source of light.

I make perfect sense. Your comprehension is what is lacking.

 

[Etritonakin]

Night and day are defined by the rotation of the Earth relative to the Sun. Without the Sun there is no day.

The Moon point is that it is treated as a source of light rather than what it does is reflect light from the Sun. Hence it is Gen is wrong as it claims it is a source of light.

I make perfect sense. Your comprehension is what is lacking.

Nope. It claims it is a light. It is a light. Actually, it says it is a lesser light. Nowhere does it say source.

Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

H6996
קטן קטן
qâṭân qâṭôn
kaw-tawn', kaw-tone'
From H6962; abbreviated, that is, diminutive, literally (in quantity, size or number) or figuratively (in age or importance): - least, less (-ser), little (one), small (-est, one, quantity, thing), young (-er, -est).

If you really want to get picky, you could say that the stars weren't made in a day.
But, then, that's not actually what it says, either.

If you called me a jack-***, I would understand that what was meant would not necessarily be the same as how I may interpret it. You wouldn't literally be calling me a jack-*** -but you'd be correct, nonetheless.


Take the word "made" for example.... it can be all of the following....

H6213
עשׂה
‛âśâh
aw-saw'
A primitive root; to do or make, in the broadest sense and widest application: - accomplish, advance, appoint, apt, be at, become, bear, bestow, bring forth, bruise, be busy, X certainly, have the charge of, commit, deal (with), deck, + displease, do, (ready) dress (-ed), (put in) execute (-ion), exercise, fashion, + feast, [fight-] ing man, + finish, fit, fly, follow, fulfil, furnish, gather, get, go about, govern, grant, great, + hinder, hold ([a feast]), X indeed, + be industrious, + journey, keep, labour, maintain, make, be meet, observe, be occupied, offer, + officer, pare, bring (come) to pass, perform, practise, prepare, procure, provide, put, requite, X sacrifice, serve, set, shew, X sin, spend, X surely, take, X thoroughly, trim, X very, + vex, be [warr-] ior, work (-man), yield, use.

 

[Shad]

Nope. It claims it is a light. It is a light. Actually, it says it is a lesser light. Nowhere does it say source.

By claim there is an object created as a light t is saying this object is the source of it. Your reading comprehension is lacking.

Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

H6996
קטן קטן
qâṭân qâṭôn
kaw-tawn', kaw-tone'
From H6962; abbreviated, that is, diminutive, literally (in quantity, size or number) or figuratively (in age or importance): - least, less (-ser), little (one), small (-est, one, quantity, thing), young (-er, -est).

Read your own source. Still a light hence is a source.

If you really want to get picky, you could say that the stars weren't made in a day.

Irrelevent red herring. It states there are two lights one for day and one for night. The Sun if obvious for day as the Moon is for night. Yet the moon is not a light.

But, then, that's not actually what it says, either.

Red herring and your lack of reading comprehension again.

If you called me a jack-***, I would understand that what was meant would not necessarily be the same as how I may interpret it. You wouldn't literally be calling me a jack-*** -but you'd be correct, nonetheless.

Irrelevant red herring

Take the word "made" for example.... it can be all of the following....

H6213
עשׂה
‛âśâh
aw-saw'
A primitive root; to do or make, in the broadest sense and widest application: - accomplish, advance, appoint, apt, be at, become, bear, bestow, bring forth, bruise, be busy, X certainly, have the charge of, commit, deal (with), deck, + displease, do, (ready) dress (-ed), (put in) execute (-ion), exercise, fashion, + feast, [fight-] ing man, + finish, fit, fly, follow, fulfil, furnish, gather, get, go about, govern, grant, great, + hinder, hold ([a feast]), X indeed, + be industrious, + journey, keep, labour, maintain, make, be meet, observe, be occupied, offer, + officer, pare, bring (come) to pass, perform, practise, prepare, procure, provide, put, requite, X sacrifice, serve, set, shew, X sin, spend, X surely, take, X thoroughly, trim, X very, + vex, be [warr-] ior, work (-man), yield, use.

Irrelevant

Your points still has zero merit.

 

[McBell]

Nope. It claims it is a light. It is a light. Actually, it says it is a lesser light. Nowhere does it say source.

Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

H6996
קטן קטן
qâṭân qâṭôn
kaw-tawn', kaw-tone'
From H6962; abbreviated, that is, diminutive, literally (in quantity, size or number) or figuratively (in age or importance): - least, less (-ser), little (one), small (-est, one, quantity, thing), young (-er, -est).

If you really want to get picky, you could say that the stars weren't made in a day.
But, then, that's not actually what it says, either.

If you called me a jack-***, I would understand that what was meant would not necessarily be the same as how I may interpret it. You wouldn't literally be calling me a jack-*** -but you'd be correct, nonetheless.


Take the word "made" for example.... it can be all of the following....

H6213
עשׂה
‛âśâh
aw-saw'
A primitive root; to do or make, in the broadest sense and widest application: - accomplish, advance, appoint, apt, be at, become, bear, bestow, bring forth, bruise, be busy, X certainly, have the charge of, commit, deal (with), deck, + displease, do, (ready) dress (-ed), (put in) execute (-ion), exercise, fashion, + feast, [fight-] ing man, + finish, fit, fly, follow, fulfil, furnish, gather, get, go about, govern, grant, great, + hinder, hold ([a feast]), X indeed, + be industrious, + journey, keep, labour, maintain, make, be meet, observe, be occupied, offer, + officer, pare, bring (come) to pass, perform, practise, prepare, procure, provide, put, requite, X sacrifice, serve, set, shew, X sin, spend, X surely, take, X thoroughly, trim, X very, + vex, be [warr-] ior, work (-man), yield, use.

I give it an 8 for effort, but only a 2 for convince-ability.

 

[viole]

The moon is a light. Even if not a light source, it is an indirect source of light. Gen 1-2 says the heaven and earth existed before what followed. The Earth receiving no light need not have anything to do with the existence of the sun. You are superimposing your own ideas rather than considering what the language truly allows.

The earth started existing about 9 billions years after the Big Bang. Much after the first stars formed. And all the heavy elements it is made of, including oxygen, originated inside pre-existing stars that exploded releasing these materials.

Ergo, it is not possible for the earth (1st day) or H2O (<= 2nd day) to have been formed before the stars (4th day).

This is what modern science says.

Therefore, the Bible is not in harmony with science. It is just in harmony with the necessary ignorance about these things of the authors at that time.

Ciao

- viole

P.S. I always wondered why some theists attack only evolution, when the Bible contradicts, on its first pages, even the most basic findings of astrophisics.

 

[Ouroboros]

P.S. I always wondered why some theists attack only evolution, when the Bible contradicts, on its first pages, even the most basic findings of astrophisics.

Well, the church did attack astronomy for quite some time. It took 200+ years to convince the church that Earth wasn't the center of the universe or the planetary system. In a sense, astronomy was the science that really broke the ground for all science. The church lost this battle, but that was several hundred years ago. Evolution is too fresh still. In 300 years, we won't have these discussions anymore.

 

[viole]

Well, the church did attack astronomy for quite some time. It took 200+ years to convince the church that Earth wasn't the center of the universe or the planetary system. In a sense, astronomy was the science that really broke the ground for all science. The church lost this battle, but that was several hundred years ago. Evolution is too fresh still. In 300 years, we won't have these discussions anymore.

yes, and the standard algorithm for not losing face is always the same:

-> If you lose, turn to allegory.
-> else, keep literalism. But be ready to move to allegory soon



Ciao

- viole

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

In defense of the church, a lot of what they refused to change was because it went against knowledge that had been develop by some Greek philosophers, and in general lots more from the opinions of the public. The church's reaction to Galileo could also be related to the fact about a century or so ago the splinter of Protestantism from the Catholic Church made them fairly sensitive to anything that challenged them.

Not to mention today, the Catholic Church acknowledges scientific advancements and it's mostly the Protestant, or even more in depth the evangelicals that deny most of it.

 

[Etritonakin]

The earth started existing about 9 billions years after the Big Bang. Much after the first stars formed. And all the heavy elements it is made of, including oxygen, originated inside pre-existing stars that exploded releasing these materials.

Ergo, it is not possible for the earth (1st day) or H2O (<= 2nd day) to have been formed before the stars (4th day).

This is what modern science says.

Therefore, the Bible is not in harmony with science. It is just in harmony with the necessary ignorance about these things of the authors at that time.

Ciao

- viole

P.S. I always wondered why some theists attack only evolution, when the Bible contradicts, on its first pages, even the most basic findings of astrophisics.

Read it carefully. That is not what it says. It does not say the Earth was formed on the first day.
It says that God created the heaven (universe) and the Earth in the beginning.

Then it says the Earth -at some point -became waste and ruin.
H1961
היה
hâyâh
haw-yaw'
A primitive root (compare H1933); to exist, that is, be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary): - beacon, X altogether, be (-come, accomplished, committed, like), break, cause, come (to pass), continue, do, faint, fall, + follow, happen, X have, last, pertain, quit (one-) self, require, X use.


What follows is not the initial creation of the sun, moon and stars, etc... that has simply been an assumption.

When God "made" the firmament and divided the waters below from the waters above, it was by affecting/altering what was already there (allowing light to reach the waters) -so "made" does not necessarily mean initial creation.

Furthermore, there were "days" -rotations of the earth in relation to the sun -before it is stated that God "made" the greater and lesser lights. If one assumes this means initial creation, it certainly does not make sense. However it says that God made the two lights TO do something on that day -he did not make them on that day -he made them TO rule over the day and night.

If I make a light to shine on something -it does not necessarily mean I made that light then.

 

[Ouroboros]

In defense of the church, a lot of what they refused to change was because it went against knowledge that had been develop by some Greek philosophers, and in general lots more from the opinions of the public. The church's reaction to Galileo could also be related to the fact about a century or so ago the splinter of Protestantism from the Catholic Church made them fairly sensitive to anything that challenged them.

Not to mention today, the Catholic Church acknowledges scientific advancements and it's mostly the Protestant, or even more in depth the evangelicals that deny most of it.

It is a good defense, but it took a couple of hundred years to get over it, and so will it be with evolution. The catholic church today is amazing. I really like the new pope, however the church rejecting science today comprise mostly of evangelical Christians, and they don't have the same excuses though.

edit:

On another note, they didn't have the same excuses for killing Hypatia, 415 AD.