Does Science disprove the Genesis description of Creation?

[Polymath257]

And early Earth's climate is thought to have been overcast cloudy 24/7/365 for on the order of a billion or more years, and likely well after the beginning of early life on Earth, so the stars/moon/sun only becoming visible on day 4 of the vision makes sense even.

But certainly not to the point where flowering plants came about (which are said to have been made on the third day).

 

[stvdv]

Now, please advise how I can show the Atheist their accusations they are making is incorrect,

My advice (as you asked for it): stick to your proof, without using words (see below) describing Atheists. You gave some good proofs already, the red words don't improve the point you are making.

My Master told us "speak your truth, how you feel inside, and don't hold back. And its a form of weakness to defend yourself; if you know you're right, why defend yourself". He also said to never belittle or demean others. So most safe to speak about yourself, and don't let others drag you into the pitfall of pointing at others, what and how they feel (unless they ask you, even then I usually tell them "you know best what's good for you, not for me to tell you")

I find that they usually take some very silly, superficial, and even made-up opinions[/QUOTE]

 

[halbhh]

But certainly not to the point where flowering plants came about (which are said to have been made on the third day).

Well, while I never worried to take a figurative poem too literally, and instead became interested that there were any significant congruences (at all!)....still, this one isn't so clear to me. We know it's routine that plants grow on cloudy days. When did Earth begin to routinely have mostly clear days on most days (as some locations do in the more recent era, but not all locations) -- is an interesting question, but beside the point there for plant growth.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Assuming there *is* a time before. That is not at all clear.

And assuming also, that time is linear. Which I think is also not clear? At least according to Carlo Rovelli

 

[halbhh]

Yeah, but what’s 9.5 billion years, in the context of eternity?

Just so. If God, then time isn't over Him, but instead He'd be able to move through it as if you or I could walk from one room to another, effortlessly. A being in contrast that would be subject to time would be under nature, subject to nature, instead of being able to alter nature -- so that kind of being (subject to nature and not able to alter it) would not be the god of the common bible who by definition is the originator of nature.

 

[Heyo]

Every time I see a new thread opened by the atheist on this topic, I can only shake my head in disbelief.

When was the last time you saw an atheist open a thread on the topic?

Usually it's believers who try to discredit science who open these threads and the scientists have to defend their position. Scientists and atheists can usually live well with NoMa, it's the believers who have to tread on science's turf.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

“How did the Earth look like on the morning of Day 3?”

I'll answer this, and then if you don't mind... that is, if it isn't too much trouble.. might you answer some questions I would posit about the Genesis account?

My answer to how the Earth would look on Genesis morning, day 3, would be that it was a "formless" mass of water with some sort of sky above it, within which would be a light of some sort (not the sun, apparently) shining during what was called "day" and apparently not shining during what was called "night."

Now, as for my questions:

And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day...
And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day...
And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day...
And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night... And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

Given that it states that the sun was not placed in the sky until the 4th day, and given that the concept "evening" and "morning" do not mean anything at all without a perspective on the effects of the sun (specifically) with respect to an Earthly "horizon" (specifically), how does this account make any sense at all given the concepts being involved? Does God have some different things he is calling "day" and "night" here that don't involve the Sun? Do "evening" and "morning" here have to do with some other light he has created being obscured by a horizon from His vantage point sitting above the waters of the Earth?

God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.

Completely ignoring the fact that the sun, the very light that makes the conditions "day" and "night" from the perspective of the surface of Earth (which is the only perspective from which these words/concepts of "day" and "night" make sense), wasn't even put into place until the 4th day - why does it state something about a "separation" given that the state of our reality as it presents itself shows us clearly that there is no such "separation" at all. It is literally "day" for some on the Earth at all times, just as it is literally "night" for some on the Earth at all times.

Not only this but darkness is a sort of default "attribute" (or lack thereof perhaps) of the conduit through which light travels - they are, therefore, inseparable in this regard. All one needs imagine to verify this is what it "looks" like to witness light rays passing by you at a perpendicular to your vision, while staring into the darkness of space. Do you know what one "sees" of such light rays? Nothing. There is only the darkness given that scenario. Why would the Genesis account mention this "separation" between day and night as such? What is the context that sees this making sense given the actual conditions of our Earth and the nature of light itself?

Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.

This is naming the void of space as a form of "water" or even just something "like water." The void of space is mostly just that... a void. Empty space - no liquid, no gas except in specific areas/bodies of concentration. How can these words be reconciled to a knowledge of what actually exists beyond the Earth's "sky?" Given that it may very well have been assumed that there were "waters" on the "outside" of the sky (because of real world phenomena like rain and snow), does it not seem more likely that the people writing this were simply ignorant of the actual workings, and therefore made incredible assumptions?

 

[Heyo]

This is how the first light in the universe was born, about 380,000 years after the Big Bang.

Nope. Light (photons) were there from the beginning. Matter and Anti-Matter annihilate each other while emitting light. But that light didn't get very far. The universe was very dense and as it was a continuous plasma, it was opaque. That only changed when the universe was cold enough to allow atoms to form. (about 380,000 years after the start of the expansion)
And that is the kernel of truth in your statement: The oldest light we can see today is indeed the CMB, emitted about 13.4 billion years ago.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Some ancients believed a version. Some other ancients had a slightly different version.

We want to unit all these people. What to do, what to do? Oh, Wait, said one wise man, let's put both in there and keep everyone happy.


Let's not forget, the Gospels have similar problems.

I understand the concept. Such as the combining of the myths of the Babylonians and Akkadians when the Babylonians conquered the Akkadians. The Marduk and Tiamat myths combine so that Marduk becomes king of both peoples when he dominates Tiamat.

The purpose of uniting religions was to unite specifically the gods of both groups under one religion, as the gods were local gods that empowered the people and who people worshipped and followed. By uniting the gods, authority was given to the conquering nation and the conquered nation's god would be subservient to the conquerors gods, meaning that the purpose of this religious unity was to use the gods as symbols showing that the conquered now belong to the conquerors.

The similarity that the Genesis account has with this practice is that Genesis 1 refers to god as Elohim and in Genesis 2 it then uses the name YHWH, which could mean that it was uniting worshippers of the Canaanite god El with those who followed Yahweh. But this is speculation because El in Hebrew is a generic term and not used for a specific god.

So, in order for you to suggest such a thing you have to show us where each version of the Genesis account came from and when it was compiled and by which group of people. Who were these two groups of people that they wanted to unite.

Also, if you want to unite people, why not combine the two stories into a single cohesive story? In Babylon and Egypt, the combination of different local religions into one cohesive narrative was done gradually but didn't need both conflicting narratives preserved, but for a whole new narrative with the important symbols attached. So why then in Genesis are there two seemingly conflicting accounts rather than making the story cohesive?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If I, as a Bible believing Christian, listen to the Bible hating, atheist, and non-Christian speaker, I find that they usually take some very silly, superficial, and even made-up opinions on what Genesis says concerning the creation of the Universe, and push it as the true and correct narrative. These people are really either, too comfortable and lazy to go and read the Bible for themselves, or due to their poor investigative methods, unable to grasp the simplest of explanations from the Bible.

Time for another hateful post explaining how hateful atheists are as they answer you politely and intelligently while you continue to attack? You're unwittingly making the opposite case - it is the theist who is hateful. Your book has nothing to offer the secular humanist, who has no use for its internal contradiction, failed prophecies, errors in science and history, failed ethics (especially regarding its deity, which believers never seem to realize depicts a monster), and the like.

Comprehending that Bible is child's play. Believer like to pretend that those who reject because they understand it better than the believer just don't understand it.

give me time and see what I say.

I've already given you enough time and you have said nothing of value.

To stay on the vanguard, in case some slight of hand from the Christian will damage the facevalue of Atheism.

We don't depend on your approval for validation. Being correct does that. What value do you think the rejection of atheism from a faith-based thinker has? As I explained here recently using the example of faith in addition (2+2=5 kind of faith), nothing derived from a faith-based premise can be sound.

I simply love how the Atheists NEEDS everything to be soooo surgically correct.

Yes, we value being correct over comforting ourselves with ideas that are less challenging than the truth, because we understand that in being, we'll end up both more comfortable for being more correct. Consider the people who had faith in Trump and stormed the Capitol. Reasonable people rejected Trump long ago, but not these people who believed what they wanted to be true, many throwing their lives away and earning years if not decades of prison time. That early comfort led to prolonged suffering.

Look at how much more bothered you are than those disagreeing with you. You're vexed by our rejection of your beliefs, which you can only grasp as "Bible hating." You take it personally, and view it as an attack. You need to call us lazy, unable to grasp your simple myths and parables. And you feel an urge to start thread after thread describing how dissatisfied you are with us for simply being uninterested in your religion or its book. Here's hoping that you can find the peace of a secular humanist some day.

I was a total Atheist and wanted some evidence that the Bible is a joke

There's nothing funny about your scriptures. They're just uninteresting to the rational skeptic. There's no value there. We're looking for evidence that the Bible was written by a transcendent, superhuman mind, not jokes. Not much interested in basing my life on it if it's not.

What atheist feels any need to prove the Bible wrong to himself? No

Lee Strobel is a Christian apologist that makes a living telling people that he was once an atheist that tried so hard to prove the Bible wrong that he eventually became a believer? That's not credible. It's a gimmick. He's created a niche pretending to be bowled over by scripture upon reading it. I have read it cover to cover three times, and was never impressed by it. Nothing there convinced me that it was correct or of divine origin.

Sorry if these opinions drive you to distraction.

 

[halbhh]

When was the last time you saw an atheist open a thread on the topic?

Usually it's believers who try to discredit science who open these threads and the scientists have to defend their position. Scientists and atheists can usually live well with NoMa, it's the believers who have to tread on science's turf.

To me most often the YEC preachers seem to be a competing religion, where Christ is deemphasized or even never mentioned, either of which makes them unlike my church or any church I've been in among 8 denominations.

Believe it or not, out of perhaps 1200-1500 sermons in at least 40 churches and 8 denominations and also including the internet or radio, I've never heard YEC preached even one time I can remember, past one wacky sounding instance about age 12-14 on the radio once, and I insisted we "turn that dumb person off" since he was a "very poor preacher" or such, I think I said.

And it's the kind of thing that I would have remembered very well, as I knew it was wrong from an early age. So when I say it's alien or a competing religion, that's the main basis. It's not familiar from any first hand hearing to me. It's on the internet.

It's very much like a conspiracy theory actually.

 

[Heyo]

It's very much like a conspiracy theory actually.

YEC is a conspiracy theory. I think I made that claim successfully in Thesis: YEC are Conspiracy Theorists

 

[ecco]

if Atheists would be really interested to know spiritual truth/wisdom, they would not ask others, but investigate themselves.

You seem to be under the impression that atheists have never bothered to see if there is such a thing as spiritual truth/wisdom. That's patently wrong. Most atheists were raised in religious homes and were taught about God. It was only later on that most came to realize that "spiritual truth/wisdom" is an oxymoron. Truth and wisdom are found in rational thinking, not in wishful wishing.

If they don't then they have no real interest, which is fine with me, as I don't have interest to know other things.

Speaking for myself, I do have a real interest in finding truth and wisdom. That's why I came to realize that gods are the creation of man's imaginings.

But you will never understand this. As you wrote, you "don't have interest to know other things". So, who is being closed-minded?

 

[ecco]

To me most often the YEC preachers seem to be a competing religion
...
And it's the kind of thing that I would have remembered very well, as I knew it was wrong from an early age. So when I say it's alien or a competing religion, that's the main basis. It's not familiar from any first hand hearing to me. It's on the internet.
...
It's very much like a conspiracy theory actually.

Answers in Genesis disagrees with you...

Timeline for the Flood​

Table 1: Dates of biblical events from Creation​

Event/Person Passage Total Time from Creation (years)
God created everything. Genesis 1–2 0
Adam became the father of Seth at 130. Genesis 5:3 0 + 130 = 130
Seth became the father of Enosh at 105. Genesis 5:6 130 + 105 = 235
Enosh became the father of Kenan at 90. Genesis 5:9 235 + 90 = 325
Cainan became the father of Mahalalel at 70. Genesis 5:12 325 + 70 = 395
Mahalalel became the father of Jared at 65. Genesis 5:15 395 + 65 = 460
Jared became the father of Enoch at 162. Genesis 5:18 460 + 162 = 622
Enoch became the father of Methuselah at 65. Genesis 5:21 622 + 65 = 687
Methuselah became the father of Lamech at 187. Genesis 5:25 687 + 187 = 874
Lamech became the father of Noah at 182. Genesis 5:28 874 + 182 = 1056
The Flood started when Noah was 600. Genesis 7:6 1056 + 600 = 1656
As you can see from Table 1, the year in which the Flood came was 1656 AM1 (Anno Mundi – “year of the world”). From the rest of the Old Testament and other well-documented historical events we understand that creation, as calculated by Ussher, was about 4004 BC. So with a little more math we can calculate the second date.

Calculated BC date for creation: 4004
Calculated AM date for the Flood: - 1656
Calculated BC date for the Flood: 2348
Current Year (minus one2): + 2011
Number of years since beginning of Flood: 4359
Using the Bible, well-documented historical events, and some math, we find that the Flood began approximately 4,359 years ago in the year 1656 AM or 2348 BC. Some may look for an exact date (i.e., month and day), but we are not given that sort of precision in Scripture.​

Are you saying the Bible is wrong? Are you saying the Bible is the stuff of conspiracy theories??

 

[ecco]

Nope. Light (photons) were there from the beginning. Matter and Anti-Matter annihilate each other while emitting light. But that light didn't get very far. The universe was very dense and as it was a continuous plasma, it was opaque. That only changed when the universe was cold enough to allow atoms to form. (about 380,000 years after the start of the expansion)
And that is the kernel of truth in your statement: The oldest light we can see today is indeed the CMB, emitted about 13.4 billion years ago.

Did you come to that opinion before or after you read the article I quoted and linked?

In 2013, researchers on the Planck project announced they had found out how the earliest light must’ve formed. Right after the Big Bang, the universe was filled with subatomic particles, both matter and antimatter, bumping into each other at a balmy 2,700ºC (4,892ºF). So when an antimatter particle bumps into its opposite, both particles vanish. The going theory that there were slightly more matter particles than antimatter ones, which explains the absence of antimatter in the universeIn 2013, researchers on the Planck project announced they had found out how the earliest light must’ve formed. Right after the Big Bang, the universe was filled with subatomic particles, both matter and antimatter, bumping into each other at a balmy 2,700ºC (4,892ºF). So when an antimatter particle bumps into its opposite, both particles vanish. The going theory that there were slightly more matter particles than antimatter ones, which explains the absence of antimatter in the universe

Meanwhile, photons, protons, and electrons were all crashing into each other, too. When protons and electrons meet, they form hydrogen, releasing light. This is how the first light in the universe was born, about 380,000 years after the Big Bang. Soon, the universe went through a period of rapid expansion. This stretched out the first light’s wavelengths making it into microwaves, what is today called the CMB.​

If you disagree with the article, perhaps you can cite some differing science.

 

[ecco]

So, in order for you to suggest such a thing you have to show us where each version of the Genesis account came from and when it was compiled and by which group of people. Who were these two groups of people that they wanted to unite.

Nah. I am entitled to my opinion.

However, I haven't seen any better opinions to explain the two different versions.

Also, if you want to unite people, why not combine the two stories into a single cohesive story?
...
So why then in Genesis are there two seemingly conflicting accounts rather than making the story cohesive?

OK, you want some more opinion...
Because the writers/compilers couldn't agree on a compromised version.
Because the writers/compilers finally said "Screw It - We'll just put both in and let history decide who/which is correct.
Because the writers/compilers finally said "Hey let's put both in so that 3000 years from now Isreal Khan can make some really serious-sounding comments.

 

[ecco]

Time for another hateful post explaining how hateful atheists are as they answer you politely and intelligently while you continue to attack?
...
Sorry if these opinions drive you to distraction.

That was a very good post.

 

[Polymath257]

Did you come to that opinion before or after you read the article I quoted and linked?

In 2013, researchers on the Planck project announced they had found out how the earliest light must’ve formed. Right after the Big Bang, the universe was filled with subatomic particles, both matter and antimatter, bumping into each other at a balmy 2,700ºC (4,892ºF). So when an antimatter particle bumps into its opposite, both particles vanish. The going theory that there were slightly more matter particles than antimatter ones, which explains the absence of antimatter in the universeIn 2013, researchers on the Planck project announced they had found out how the earliest light must’ve formed. Right after the Big Bang, the universe was filled with subatomic particles, both matter and antimatter, bumping into each other at a balmy 2,700ºC (4,892ºF). So when an antimatter particle bumps into its opposite, both particles vanish. The going theory that there were slightly more matter particles than antimatter ones, which explains the absence of antimatter in the universe

Meanwhile, photons, protons, and electrons were all crashing into each other, too. When protons and electrons meet, they form hydrogen, releasing light. This is how the first light in the universe was born, about 380,000 years after the Big Bang. Soon, the universe went through a period of rapid expansion. This stretched out the first light’s wavelengths making it into microwaves, what is today called the CMB.​

If you disagree with the article, perhaps you can cite some differing science.

Sorry, but this is a misreading of what the science actually says. The date of 380,000 years after the BB is when recombination happened, making the universe *transparent* to light for the first time.

But light existed far before that. The difference is that it collided with matter enough that it didn't flow freely. Sort of light the difference between light in a room and in wood. There *are* photons in wood. They are just absorbed very quickly and don't get to our eyes very easily.

In particular, there are always photons associated with any temperature (as long as there is matter). So when the temperature was in the millions of degrees, there were a LOT of gamma rays.

I don't blame you for this misinterpretation. It was probably an article written by a journalist and not by a scientist. Journalists often get the details wrong about science.

 

[blü 2]

“If the God of the Bible was unable to explain how He created the Universe, how can we trust anything else He said?”

I've never heard anyone say that the God of the bible was unable to explain [his] method of creation ─ only the obvious, that [he] was silent on the point. However, it's plain that [he] created light by magic words (more accurately, a magic command).

Considering the naivety of science when the bible was written, a magical explanation is hardly surprising. Magic is the mainspring of just about all creation myths.

1. How was it possible that God created the Earth before the Sun, Moon and stars if the Bible say they were created on the 4th day, when science today knows that the Sun and Stars are part of the Universe and was created before the Earth.

Surely we have to go back before this? What did God actually do "in the beginning"? Did [he] create matter and energy from pure nothing?

If so, what is God made of? And where and when was [he] before time and space existed?

Did [he] create the universe from [his] own substance? The bible makes no hint of that kind.

And whatever [he] did, if [he] didn't do it by magic, how then did [he] actually do it?

 

[Heyo]

Did you come to that opinion before or after you read the article I quoted and linked?

Let's put it this way: The article is in conflict with what I've learned about early cosmology before.

In 2013, researchers on the Planck project announced they had found out how the earliest light must’ve formed.
​

That formulation "earliest light" might be responsible for our misunderstanding. I guess the article meant to say "earliest light that we can still see" i.e. the CMB.

Meanwhile, photons, protons, and electrons were all crashing into each other, too. When protons and electrons meet, they form hydrogen, releasing light. This is how the first light in the universe was born, about 380,000 years after the Big Bang. Soon, the universe went through a period of rapid expansion. This stretched out the first light’s wavelengths making it into microwaves, what is today called the CMB.

Another hint that the article is about the CMB.

If you disagree with the article, perhaps you can cite some differing science.

Photon epoch - Wikipedia