1. 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!

Featured Does Science disprove the Genesis description of Creation?

Discussion in 'Science and Religion' started by SA Huguenot, Apr 8, 2021 at 6:56 AM.

  1. SA Huguenot

    SA Huguenot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2019
    Messages:
    1,523
    Ratings:
    +348
    Religion:
    Protestant
    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.

    But fight for their narrative, they will. I will prove this statement in this thread, because when I will be done, you will see many Bible attackers continue to fight with hair-splitting semantics.

    I will put it in one question (as it was framed by Zakir Naik in 2000)

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

    And this was what drove me to investigate for myself when I wanted to make fools of the Christian, their God, and their Bible.

    The questions posed by the Atheist, and copied by the Muslim in their vigorous proselyting, was:

    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.

    2. Why does the Bible say everything was created in 6 days (6 000 years ago), when science today knows that the universe took billions of years to take its’ current shape?

    3. If Christians believe these ‘Days” in Genesis to be thousands of years each, they will have to explain how plant life survived from day 3 to day 4 without any sunlight?

    I loved these questions, and I was so sure this will be my evidence to proving the Biblical God as erroneous in science, and a mythological idea.

    Every time I see a new thread opened by the atheist on this topic, I can only shake my head in disbelief. Not to the person who posts these allegations, but to myself for the reasons to why I needed to know what the atheist wanted me to belief. I soooo much needed their observations to be true!!!

    I needed their evidence that the Bible was at fault…

    So that I could soothe my conscience with “evidence” that my atheism was solidly on a foundation of “Science”.

    Well, it took me about 3 weeks to lose that fight!

    So, Lets see what I found!

    The Bible say:

    1. In the beginning God created the Heavens and Earth.

    2. The Earth was without shape, empty, and it was a dark and wet collection where the Spirit of God hovered above.

    3. Then God said “Let there be Light!”, and it was evening and morning. Day 1.

    4. Then God divided waters above a “Firmament”, from waters below this firmament. Day 2.

    5. God then separated Land and Sea and made plant life. Day 3.

    6. God made the great and lesser light to be signs of time, seasons etc. Day 4.

    7. God made animals in the ocean and Birds that could fly. Day 5.

    8. God made Land animals, and Man. Day 6.

    Now, before we look at this description on what Genesis says God did, it is important to agree that the above summary is correct.

    I will give a few hours to allow anyone to correct me if they disagree.
     
  2. SalixIncendium

    SalixIncendium Advaita Vedantin
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2016
    Messages:
    12,690
    Ratings:
    +19,198
    Religion:
    Sanatana Dharma
    To the question in the title, science disproves the story of creation in Genesis if one takes the creation story told there literally.

    To expand on my point:

    To me that's plausible. So okay, I'm with you so far...

    Without shape? Yeah, it was a bit without shape before gravity collected the dust and debris of its mass into a sphere. Wet? No. Any moisture would have evaporated, given the temperature of the earth 4.5 million years ago hovered around or just below the boiling point.

    There was light before the earth formed into a sphere, as the sun existed before the earth had solid surface area, let alone was habitable.

    Actually, a developing atmosphere did this.

    Actually, gravity did this. Gravity pulls water to the lowest terrain, allowing the highest terrain to be exposed as land above the water's surface.

    God made plant life? Well, actually, land plants as you know them evolved from algae after the land where it resided became exposed to air.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    When did God make microorganisms?

    Yes, the above summary is correct in the fact that it's an accurate account of the story of creation in Genesis.

    But it is not historically accurate.
     
    #2 SalixIncendium, Apr 8, 2021 at 7:01 AM
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2021 at 7:22 AM
    • Like Like x 4
    • Winner Winner x 3
  3. Israel Khan

    Israel Khan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2017
    Messages:
    3,719
    Ratings:
    +2,534
    Religion:
    None
    Maybe you should also mention the seeming discrepancy between the sequence of creation between the first Genesis account and the second one?

    Secondly have you considered the point of reference that the writer is taking? Maybe the writer is describing creation from the position of earth (as in standing on earths ground) as opposed to seeing creation from outer space, which changes what certain verses are referring to,?
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  4. Mock Turtle

    Mock Turtle Silent Generation - so don't expect much
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2018
    Messages:
    7,617
    Ratings:
    +3,728
    Religion:
    Fellowship of the Mutable (agnostic atheist)
    Why don't you use a bit more obvious rhetoric to enhance your arguments. I'm sure it would slip past so many - if such are like you. :oops:
     
    • Like Like x 4
    • Funny Funny x 4
    • Useful Useful x 1
  5. Teritos

    Teritos Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2021
    Messages:
    267
    Ratings:
    +75
    Religion:
    Christian
    Perhaps the creation in the Bible is to be seen symbolically?

    A possible interpretation:
    Day 1: Adam brought darkness into the light through his sin
    Day 2: Noach and the flood
    Day 3: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and their decedents are the plants
    Day 4: Jewish Kings and Jewish Prophets are the lights
    Day 5: Jesus came and made new living creatures through the cross, which are the Christians
    Day 6: Christians fill the earth with their faith
    Day 7: Eternal Sabbath with Jesus
     
  6. cOLTER

    cOLTER Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2020
    Messages:
    1,027
    Ratings:
    +268
    Religion:
    Disciple
    Many Christians know God better than their Bible. I have faith in God even though I know that the Bible is flooded with errors and contradictions as should be expected.

    The Israelites created the creation story as a standard story of origins for the scattered Israelite audience.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Useful Useful x 1
  7. Secret Chief

    Secret Chief Meghalayan Ape

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2011
    Messages:
    7,436
    Ratings:
    +5,248
    Religion:
    Buddhism
    The summary may be correct as in it is a correct summary taken from the book but that in no way means that it is correct as in the assertions made are correct. Agree?
     
    • Like Like x 2
  8. SA Huguenot

    SA Huguenot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2019
    Messages:
    1,523
    Ratings:
    +348
    Religion:
    Protestant
    Tnx, We will come to the "Accuracy" as I show you my point of view.
     
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
  9. TagliatelliMonster

    TagliatelliMonster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2019
    Messages:
    9,569
    Ratings:
    +7,412
    Religion:
    Atheist
    I usually take up whatever interpretation the creationist I speak with lays out.
    It seems to me that most people do that.

    This question assumes that there is a god AND that he had a hand in the creation of the bible stories.
    I reject both premises.

    In my view, the stories the bible tells, sound about right considering they were the product from rather primitive people from the iron age and whatnot.
    The stories reflect the times they were narrated. This is why it says rather ignorant things about reality, why it includes barbarism and has no moral problems with things like slavery and sexism.

    It's also why there is no mention at all of anything outside of a 500 mile radius. You won't read about kangaroo's in the book, for example.

    Sounds you are confused about what atheism is.
    Nothing in atheism requires you to "prove the bible wrong".
    Atheism is merely the position that belief in theism isn't warranted because the lack of evidence.

    But it is certainly true that certain interpretations of certain bible stories are in direct contradiction with solid scientific data, off course.


    "it is important to agree that the above summary is correct."

    What do you mean, "correct"?

    Correct as in: that is indeed what the bible says?
    Or correct as in: it accurately reflects the evidence of reality?

    Because in the latter case, it doesn't.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  10. SA Huguenot

    SA Huguenot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2019
    Messages:
    1,523
    Ratings:
    +348
    Religion:
    Protestant
    If you want to we will also discuss the suggestion of a first, and second creation. (This was the opinion of Scofield to which I also delft into, and found to be a far fetched idea, not supported by scripture)
    But from the Biblical point of view, there was only one creation.

    As I will show you what I found, things will be clear.
     
  11. SA Huguenot

    SA Huguenot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2019
    Messages:
    1,523
    Ratings:
    +348
    Religion:
    Protestant
    I also had the same idea.
    But give it some time.
     
  12. SA Huguenot

    SA Huguenot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2019
    Messages:
    1,523
    Ratings:
    +348
    Religion:
    Protestant
    So, let me start with the whole story on Genesis as it happened with me. It is a much more structured way of explaining.

    What I did was to purchase the book of Maurice Bucaille, “The Bible and Quran in relation to science”, after I discovered Zakir Naik used it as his resources. Bucaille was a French doctor who studied the Egyptian pharaoh, Ramesses. He was then appointed as King Faisal’s family physician. He wrote a few books, and flirted with Islam and attempted to discredit the Bible and glorify the Quran.

    The first thing I did was to take note of Bucaille’s claim that the Bible never gave an explanation that the Moon was not a source of light as was the Sun, but only reflected the light radiated by the Sun and reflected this light from the Moon too the Earth.

    He made this claim to reference to the Biblical day 4 where the Bible say God made a “Greater light and a Lesser light”.

    Buchaille made another claim: “The Author of the Bible never knew that the Moon only reflects the light from the Sun…however, the Quran not only distinguished between the source of the light of the Moon, but made a distinction between the light of the Sun and Moon very clear.”

    I had to read almost 120 pages to eventually find his explanation on how the Quran knew the light of the Moon was a reflection, and not originating from the Moon itself.

    He used some translation between the Arabic words that the Sun was a “Torch”, and the Moon was a “Lamp” ….and Buchaille made this out as a wonderful discovery which places the Quran unparalleled with any other ancient scripture! I was totally disgusted when I read his words on page 133 of his book:

    “…true, this was only a verbal distinction, but how was God to explain to a man, 1400 years ago, in the desert, that the Moon only reflected the light of the sun, without confusing him?”

    Now, to the Atheist who likes to discredit the Bible, I placed the above as an example of how one should investigate claims.

    Do not just believe what anyone says, but go and find out for yourself!

    Take both points of view into consideration, even if there are more views, go and get all the info.

    Well, I found out that Zakir Naik did not check his source, and Bucaille lied about his claims, but I did not understand why someone would know their claim is nothing more than a verbal distinction, and does not say what he claimed. To me, he just destroyed one claim he used to lower me into a trap!

    How many people fell for Islam due to this lie, I asked myself?

    Anyway, I then did what any investigator should do, and that was to see what the Bible said about reflection of light, if it did.

    Look what I found.

    · The Sun shines and the Moon walks in brightness.(Job 31:26)

    · If God cover the Sun with a cloud, the Moon shall not give her light. (Ezek 32:7) (Mathew 24:29) (Isaiah13:10)

    · If the Sun increases seven-fold in brightness, the Moon will shine as the Sun. (Isaiah 30:26) let us see what scientists compute with this statement.

    · There are different glories for the Sun, Moon and Stars. (Corinthians 15:41

    My conclusion was as follow:

    If the Bible knew that the Moon will not shine of you “cover the Sun with a cloud”, and if it says the Moon walks in brightness, and the Sun shines, and ends of telling me that if the Sun increases its intensity, the moon will shine brighter; I am of opinion that this was a definite description of reflection of light of the Sun from the Moon.

    I was disgusted, because with one single investigation, I did not get any evidence to destroy the Christian’s argument, but I had to contend with a small scientific description I did not know was in Genesis.

    So small, yet so significant!

    I investigated the claim, the claim’s source, and the opposing information, and I found a small taste of what “Truth” means!
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  13. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2010
    Messages:
    4,276
    Ratings:
    +2,558
    Religion:
    None
    The answer to that question is a simple no, because the descriptions of creation in the Bible aren't clear or consistent enough to present as a single definitive hypothesis which could then be tested via scientific method. There are too many different statements, poetic language and missing detail in the Biblical text and therefore a vast range of different translations, readings and interpretations of the text.

    What you go on to describe is just one of them (albeit a fairly popular version) but no less subjective, unspecific and incomplete. You're free to assess your version against the general understanding of how these things actually came to be but you're never going to reach any kind of meaningful definitive answer either way.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Winner Winner x 2
  14. Yahcubs777

    Yahcubs777 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2021
    Messages:
    775
    Ratings:
    +90
    Religion:
    None.
    They are literal to the core, they haven't known the parasidic nature of the earth before the fall which was called :"Shiloh" in the bible. It is also the state the earth was in for a time after the events of Noah's ark, for nearly 100 years. That earth was parasidic nature. The Lion ate straw for instance. They also haven't known that the earth was in a sub celestial state before the fall. They are ignorant. They also haven't understand what it means: The lamb slain from the foundation of the world. The foundation of the world is what set the earth rotating on her axis, rotating around the sun. It was not a rotating planet before the fall. The terrestrial system had not been activated until the fall of Man took place. Eden is also not, nor has ever been a garden in the earth, but is the garden of the heavens world for Mankind called Eden. That whole event of the fall of man took place in the celstial heavens world eden.

    The light that came on the first day, is celestial; it is the light of Eden. There is no darkness in heaven. The separation of the light from the darkness, was the partition between the earth, the firmament and Eden. And that partittion was horizontal, not vertical like a three story house. The bottom story is the earth (in her sub-celestial state), the middle story is the firmament, and the top story is Eden. The Celestial is above the firmament, which is not just the earths atmosphere, but above space. The sun is not a celestial body, rather, it is like a stove, burning gasses that will be switched off at the end of this earth. The light the sun gives, is like a torch lilght in a dark room. Light chases away darkness. The proof it is temporal, that it is like a torch lilght, is that when the earth rotates away from it, darkness remains. The light of the sun doesn't chase away darkness, it only enables us to see in the darkness for a time.

    So the heaven in question here is Eden, the third heaven... The firmanent and the earth are what was separated from Eden.

    GOD also planted seeds that were pre-destined to sprout at a certain time. Some seeds HE planted remained seeds until millions of years later. That is why for instance, in the day of Noah there was a certain tree that he first had to locate, and from it had the pieces to the puzzle that he had to couple for the ARK. This story, contrary to belief, did not happen within 6000 years ago, but millions of years ago. The Fall of Man actually happened nearly 450 million years ago. But of the trees in the earth on the third day, they were brought forth by the earth. Just as the earth was brought forth by water. And the air brought forth water. The earth and the water also brought forth the animals. The earth was in a different state. The trees did not need light to survive. This earth is in a surviving state in the fall, heading towards a chaotic state. The earth before Genesis 1:2 was in a chaotic state. The earth before the fall was in a dormant state. There was no aging, no declining, no depreciation of any kind. For the secret of aging is in the rotation of the earth, and in the burning sun... That was sign given to the people that followed Joshua, that the earth actually stopped rotating on her axis, and the sun was paused for a time; a sign that aging had been defeated as they gained the launch into Jericho.

    And finally, that 6000 years is 6 days in Celestial system of counting, not the earth. The rotation of the earth was not yet activated. Scientists are far from understanding these things, because they are literal and can only deal in the things they can see, in the natural world. Yet, their theory evolution has where it came from, which is not from the earth, but from another place that i will not reveal here. Scientists, are a priesthood of their own, with their own beliefs, and agenda. There is a reason why a branch of science is archaeology, (Ark key ology).
     
  15. RestlessSoul

    RestlessSoul Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2021
    Messages:
    85
    Ratings:
    +73
    And God said: Let there be light, and there was light.

    Probably as good a description of the Big Bang as you'll hear anywhere.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Winner Winner x 1
  16. TagliatelliMonster

    TagliatelliMonster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2019
    Messages:
    9,569
    Ratings:
    +7,412
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Fun fact about Maurice Bucaille...

    Becomes house doc for the saudi royal family.
    Shortly after that starts publishing islamic propaganda claiming the quran miraculously mentions modern scientific facts.
    Never becomes muslim himself
    Is paid millions by the saudi royal family.


    Draw the obvious conclusion about this unethical man with no professional dignity. :)


    As for the rest of your post, I must admit I lost interest rather quickly when I saw Maurice's name pop-up.

    Could you perhaps just move on to your argument as to how the bible is correct even when it's obviously wrong?

    Tnx ;)
     
    • Like Like x 4
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  17. Thief

    Thief Rogue Theologian

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2009
    Messages:
    48,074
    Ratings:
    +4,689
    if He told you how......you might try doing so

    ANARCHY!.....CHAOS!........

    omg
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  18. Thief

    Thief Rogue Theologian

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2009
    Messages:
    48,074
    Ratings:
    +4,689
    and I believe....and routinely post.....

    I AM!........is synonymous to......Let there be light!
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  19. Thief

    Thief Rogue Theologian

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2009
    Messages:
    48,074
    Ratings:
    +4,689
    you have a very poor read on Genesis
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. Israel Khan

    Israel Khan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2017
    Messages:
    3,719
    Ratings:
    +2,534
    Religion:
    None
    That is an interesting point I have never come across. All I know of is that it seems like there is a discrepancy in the sequence of creation events in the two accounts. My own view is that Genesis 1 is a rough overview, and Genesis 2 explains finer details. This is because I don't think that the writer or compiler would place two obviously contradictory accounts next to each other. It doesn't make sense to me.
     
Loading...