• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Science in Genesis

Thief

Rogue Theologian
I'm posting here as someone else has failed to see.....the science

anyone else ?...failing to see Genesis as an experiment
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I'm posting here as someone else has failed to see.....the science

anyone else ?...failing to see Genesis as an experiment
What do you mean by Genesis?

It's kind of vague. Biblical Genesis? The natural emergence of life?
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Science and the Genesis Account


Many people claim that science disproves the Bible’s account of creation. However, the real contradiction is, not between science and the Bible, but between science and the opinions of Christian Fundamentalists. Some of these groups falsely assert that according to the Bible, all physical creation was produced in six 24-hour days approximately 10,000 years ago.

The Bible, however, does not support such a conclusion. If it did, then many scientific discoveries over the past one hundred years would indeed discredit the Bible. A careful study of the Bible text reveals no conflict with established scientific facts. For that reason, Jehovah’s Witnesses disagree with Christian Fundamentalists and many creationists. The following shows what the Bible really teaches.

Genesis does not teach that the earth and the universe were created in six 24-hour days just a few thousand years ago

When Was “the Beginning”?
The Genesis account opens with the simple, powerful statement: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1) A number of Bible scholars agree that this statement describes an action separate from the creative days recounted from verse 3 onward. The implication is profound. According to the Bible’s opening words, the universe, including our planet, Earth, was in existence for an indefinite time before the creative days began.

Geologists estimate that the earth is 4 billion years old, and astronomers calculate that the universe may be as much as 15 billion years old. Do these findings—or their potential future refinements—contradict Genesis 1:1? No. The Bible does not specify the actual age of “the heavens and the earth.” Science is not at odds with the Biblical text.

How Long Were the Creative Days?
What about the length of the creative days? Were they literally 24 hours long? Some claim that because Moses—the writer of Genesis—later referred to the day that followed the six creative days as a model for the weekly Sabbath, each of the creative days must be literally 24 hours long. (Exodus 20:11) Does the wording of Genesis support this conclusion?

No, it does not. The fact is that the Hebrew word translated “day” can mean various lengths of time, not just a 24-hour period. For example, when summarizing God’s creative work, Moses refers to all six creative days as one day. (Genesis 2:4) In addition, on the first creative day, “God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night.” (Genesis 1:5) Here, only a portion of a 24-hour period is defined by the term “day.” Certainly, there is no basis in Scripture for arbitrarily stating that each creative day was 24 hours long.

How long, then, were the creative days? The Bible does not say; however, the wording of Genesis chapters 1 and 2 indicates that considerable lengths of time were involved.

Six Creative Periods
Moses wrote his account in Hebrew, and he wrote it from the perspective of a person standing on the surface of the earth. These two facts combined with the knowledge that the universe existed before the beginning of the creative periods, or days, help to defuse much of the controversy surrounding the creation account. How so?
Events starting during one “day” continued into one or more of the following “days”

A careful consideration of the Genesis account reveals that events starting during one “day” continued into one or more of the following “days.” For example, before the first creative “day” started, light from the already existing sun was somehow prevented from reaching the earth’s surface, possibly by thick clouds. (Job 38:9) During the first “day,” this barrier began to clear, allowing diffused light to penetrate the atmosphere.*

On the second “day,” the atmosphere evidently continued to clear, creating a space between the thick clouds above and the ocean below. On the fourth “day,” the atmosphere gradually cleared to such an extent that the sun and the moon were made to appear “in the expanse of the heavens.” (Genesis 1:14-16) In other words, from the perspective of a person on earth, the sun and moon began to be discernible. These events happened gradually.

The Genesis account also relates that as the atmosphere continued to clear, flying creatures—including insects and membrane-winged creatures—started to appear on the fifth “day.”

The Bible’s narrative allows for the possibility that some major events during each day, or creative period, occurred gradually rather than instantly, perhaps some of them even lasting into the following creative days.*

According to Their Kinds
Does this progressive appearance of plants and animals imply that God used evolution to produce the vast diversity of living things? No. The record clearly states that God created all the basic “kinds” of plant and animal life. (Genesis 1:11, 12, 20-25) Were these original “kinds” of plants and animals programmed with the ability to adapt to changing environmental conditions? What defines the boundary of a “kind”? The Bible does not say. However, it does state that living creatures “swarmed forth according to their kinds.” (Genesis 1:21) This statement implies that there is a limit to the amount of variation that can occur within a “kind.” Both the fossil record and modern research support the idea that the fundamental categories of plants and animals have changed little over vast periods of time.
Modern research confirms that all living things reproduce “according to their kinds”

Contrary to the claims of some religious fundamentalists, Genesis does not teach that the universe, including the earth and all living things on it, was created in a short period of time in the relatively recent past. Rather, aspects of the description in Genesis of the creation of the universe and the appearance of life on earth harmonize with recent scientific discoveries.
Because of their philosophical beliefs, many scientists reject the Bible’s declaration that God created all things. Interestingly, however, in the ancient Bible book of Genesis, Moses wrote that the universe had a beginning and that life appeared in stages, progressively, over periods of time. How could Moses gain access to such scientifically accurate information some 3,500 years ago? There is one logical explanation. The One with the power and wisdom to create the heavens and the earth could certainly give Moses such advanced knowledge. This gives weight to the Bible’s claim that it is “inspired of God.”*2 Timothy 3:16.

You may wonder, though, does it really matter whether you believe the Bible’s account of creation? Consider some compelling reasons why the answer does matter.

In the description of what happened on the first “day,” the Hebrew word used for light is ’ohr, light in a general sense, but concerning the fourth “day,” the word used is ma·’ohrʹ, which refers to the source of light.

For example, during the sixth creative day, God decreed that humans “become many and fill the earth.” (Genesis 1:28, 31) Yet, this event did not even begin to occur until the following “day.”—Genesis 2:2.

Posting walls of plagiarized text is against forum rules. Hell, posting any plagiarized material is against forum rules.


.


.
 
Last edited:

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
But where is the 'science' in Genesis? Science, as a methodology, wasn't to be invented for 2,000 years.

Genesis is folklore, and you're being apophenic. You can always find some true statements, or statements that can be interpreted to refer to some later scientific discovery, in folklore. There's no mysterious insight here.
 
Last edited:

Axe Elf

Prophet
The serpent proposed an experiment: Try the forbidden fruit and see if it makes you like God yourself. Adam and Eve performed the experiment, and failed to disprove the null hypothesis. It really wasn't very good science (there were no double blind controls for the effects of permitted fruits, for instance), but it was science, nonetheless.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The serpent proposed an experiment: Try the forbidden fruit and see if it makes you like God yourself. Adam and Eve performed the experiment, and failed to disprove the null hypothesis. It really wasn't very good science (there were no double blind controls for the effects of permitted fruits, for instance), but it was science, nonetheless.
Serpent? Fruit? Are you basing this apology on folklore?
Experiment? What hypothesis had been proposed for testing?

Making choices and experiencing the results isn't science, it's just life. My cat does it all the time, but I wouldn't call her a scientist.
 

danieldemol

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
The serpent proposed an experiment: Try the forbidden fruit and see if it makes you like God yourself. Adam and Eve performed the experiment, and failed to disprove the null hypothesis. It really wasn't very good science (there were no double blind controls for the effects of permitted fruits, for instance), but it was science, nonetheless.
There is nothing scientific about people with physical bodies which live forever, nothing scientific about talking snakes, and nothing scientific about apples changing the laws of physics such that suddenly physical creatures go from being immortal to ageing decaying and dying.
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
Genesis is not about a literal formation of the universe. Rather it is about the evolution of modern human consciousness, and how that new consciousness perceived the universe. Let there be light is about the dawning of a new type of human consciousness. Consciousness is symbolized by light.

As an analogy, the former planet Pluto was discovered in 1930. Pluto always existed, but it was not part of human awareness until 1930. There is no mention of Pluto until 1930, so in the sense it was not there until then. Genesis reflects the dawning of a new human awareness in terms of questions about the universe, life and consciousness that began about 6000 year ago.

According to science, 6000 years go coordinates with an important invention, which was the invention of writing. This invention was critical to the development of the modern human mind. Genesis was the first published theory of cosmology and evolution. It became the foundation of science.

Before the invention of written language, the human mind stayed in a natural flux. As an analogy, consider going to school where there is no written materials. Everything is done word of mouth and memory, but with no materials to learn, read and study. The problem with this is memory atrophies with time and different people remember the same thing differently. The natural human brain stays in flux and nothing remains permanent. Even if someone came up with a theory of cosmology, it would change or be forgotten after a generation or two.

The invention of writing changed the natural brain, since it allowed things to be carved into stone, so one had a tool to refresh memory and study things in a consistent way, for good or bad. Writing caused a type of repression and damming of the human brain. This increased the potential of the brain and stimulated the imagination as a way to release the tension. Genesis is mostly about changes that occur as humans gain willpower and lose their natural natures.

The Tree of knowledge of good and evil is law. Law and writing were a combinations of things that alters the human mind in a way that caused humans to depart from natural; original sin. The natural brain would forget and modify, but writing caused bad ideas to outlive themselves thereby adding repression to the natural brain. The sacred texts of the bible places the brain in a different time so we can witness the changes and use this as a foundation for furthering change.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
But where is the 'science' in Genesis? Science, as a methodology, wasn't to be invented for 2,000 years.

Genesis is folklore, and you're being apophenic. You can always find some true statements, or statements that can be interpreted to refer to some later scientific discovery, in folklore. There's no mysterious insight here.
the mystery is in the telling of the story.....
picture yourself at campfire......sooooooo long ago

and the Old Man tells you that someone named Adam was laid to a deep sleep
and a rib cut from him

oh oh................and he did not die........????????

we know now that such a thing could happen

but how do you reconcile your belief?????
listening to an Old Man that has no proof
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
The serpent proposed an experiment: Try the forbidden fruit and see if it makes you like God yourself. Adam and Eve performed the experiment, and failed to disprove the null hypothesis. It really wasn't very good science (there were no double blind controls for the effects of permitted fruits, for instance), but it was science, nonetheless.
you're on to it.....but not quite

after altering the body and mind of the specimens......
a proving was needed

the alteration was intended to redirect the Course of Man
did that alteration take hold?

yes

Man would now be that creature....curious .....
even if death is the penalty and pending
 

Axe Elf

Prophet
Serpent? Fruit? Are you basing this apology on folklore?
Experiment? What hypothesis had been proposed for testing?

Making choices and experiencing the results isn't science, it's just life. My cat does it all the time, but I wouldn't call her a scientist.

There is nothing scientific about people with physical bodies which live forever, nothing scientific about talking snakes, and nothing scientific about apples changing the laws of physics such that suddenly physical creatures go from being immortal to ageing decaying and dying.

He argues from the assumption that the folklore is authoritative and correct.

I guess I thought Valjean was just playing along at first--but it appears that a lesson on science is in order.

Anytime someone tries something and observes the results, they are doing science (in its most rudimentary form). Rigorous science requires additional controls and replications, but at it's root, science is the practice of observing the effects of some action.

So Noah was doing science when he tested the hypothesis that he was one day going to need a really big boat. Cain was doing science when he tested the hypothesis that God would be more accepting of his sacrifice if he got rid of his competition (Abel). Eve was doing science when she tested the hypothesis proposed by the serpent; namely, that she would become like God if she ate the forbidden fruit. Lot's wife was doing science when she tested the hypothesis that she could defy God's command to not look back upon the destruction of Sodom and Gamorrah without something really bad happening. So there is all kinds of science in Genesis.

Whether these were real people and/or real events is irrelevant, since we're not talking about science in the real world, we're talking about science in Genesis. If we were talking about science in Cinderella, we could point to the prince testing the hypothesis that whoever's foot fit the golden slipper was the hottie-boom-bottie who made his night at the prom.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
I guess I thought Valjean was just playing along at first--but it appears that a lesson on science is in order.

Anytime someone tries something and observes the results, they are doing science (in its most rudimentary form). Rigorous science requires additional controls and replications, but at it's root, science is the practice of observing the effects of some action.

So Noah was doing science when he tested the hypothesis that he was one day going to need a really big boat. Cain was doing science when he tested the hypothesis that God would be more accepting of his sacrifice if he got rid of his competition (Abel). Eve was doing science when she tested the hypothesis proposed by the serpent; namely, that she would become like God if she ate the forbidden fruit. Lot's wife was doing science when she tested the hypothesis that she could defy God's command to not look back upon the destruction of Sodom and Gamorrah without something really bad happening. So there is all kinds of science in Genesis.

Whether these were real people and/or real events is irrelevant, since we're not talking about science in the real world, we're talking about science in Genesis. If we were talking about science in Cinderella, we could point to the prince testing the hypothesis that whoever's foot fit the golden slipper was the hottie-boom-bottie who made his night at the prom.

Deep
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
Anytime someone tries something and observes the results, they are doing science (in its most rudimentary form). Rigorous science requires additional controls and replications, but at it's root, science is the practice of observing the effects of some action.

That's pretty good! (I may use this in a public speech.)

All failed experiments, but they were 'testing'!
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Making choices and experiencing the results isn't science, it's just life. My cat does it all the time, but I wouldn't call her a scientist.
Oh, I wouldn’t be too sure of that.

Meet Doc Kit - the medical extraordinaire :sunglasses:

images


WOW!!! :eek:
Doc used his claws like scalpel, and will slice you up...and will slice you up good!

Ooooo... :flushed:

And if he can’t fix your liver, he’d just eat it.

*gasp* :screamcat:

His motto is “Use it, or lose it.”
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
So Noah was doing science when he tested the hypothesis that he was one day going to need a really big boat. Cain was doing science when he tested the hypothesis that God would be more accepting of his sacrifice if he got rid of his competition (Abel). Eve was doing science when she tested the hypothesis proposed by the serpent; namely, that she would become like God if she ate the forbidden fruit. Lot's wife was doing science when she tested the hypothesis that she could defy God's command to not look back upon the destruction of Sodom and Gamorrah without something really bad happening. So there is all kinds of science in Genesis.
I like science....I really do....

but this display is not science
it's just humans doing what humans do....and suffering the consequence for having done so

but of course....what happened to Adam would have science in it
selected specimen
ideal living conditions
anesthesia
surgery
cloning
genetic manipulation on the clone specimen to have a female

after that.....the experiment turns to testing of spirit
yes a test
but of mind and heart

then a release of the specimens into the environment

THEN the fun begins
 
Top