SA Huguenot
Well-Known Member
Yip, I agree. They never became planets.
Could have been proto planets, planetessimals, or even only junk leftovers.
Could have been proto planets, planetessimals, or even only junk leftovers.
-
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!
Does Science disprove the Genesis description of Creation?
- Thread starter SA Huguenot
- Start date
The nature of self-deception is that you don't know you're deceiving yourself. If your beliefs are contrary to facts, then there's a clue of self-deception occurring.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
So gravity still played a huge role in the formation of the Earth.
Yerda
Veteran Member
And all the other creation myths, if you take them literally.
tas8831
Well-Known Member
Indeed.
You're actually wrong about that. The possibility of that is actually 100%. The God of the Jews is the one from their religious scriptures. And if you read those scriptures, it tells the story of Moses and his God. They are same one. So I don't know how to able to come up with a 0% possibility that they are two different gods.
So actually, what you are saying below is a total impossibility.
gnostic
The Lost One
You are still ignoring the fact that in physical sciences, the indication that the solar system were formed together, sun and planets and other objects (eg planetesimals, asteroids, etc). And that the Sun was formed about 4.7 billion years ago, but the sun was never the oldest star, because other stars existed in the Milky Way as well in other galaxies.
The earliest generation of stars formed over 13 billion years ago, in the universe with no heavier elements than lithium. These earliest and very massive stars, formed elements heavier than lithium through nuclear fusion of lightest elements, through two main processes known as Nucleosynthesis:
- Stellar Nucleosynthesis
- Supernova Nucleosynthesis
Our Sun, as well as stars with similar or near-similar masses like our Sun, for instances, will produce helium atoms by fusing hydrogen nuclei together, during most of stars’ lifetime (a phase in star’s lifetime known as the “main sequence”) before it run out of hydrogen nuclei to fuse. This type of Stellar Nucleosynthesis is called proton-to-proton chain-reaction.
More massive stars than the Sun can nuclear fuse hydrogen nuclei into heavier elements, like carbon, nitrogen and oxygen, during their “main sequence” stage. This Nucleosynthesis type is called Carbon-Nitrogen-Oxygen Cycle (CNO Cycle).
Supernova Nucleosynthesis only occurred when very massive stars explode during supernova events, fusing any other atomic elements heavier than helium, all the way to Iron in the periodic table.
My point is that there were no planets, dwarf planets, planetesimals, asteroids, and other objects, before the supernovae of the first generation of stars had occurred. Because before the first generation of stars, there were no iron, aluminium, silicon, etc, before the earliest supernovae.
First generation of stars and more than likely 2nd generation of stars, supplied heavier matters that provide materials for the formation of planets and other objects in the Solar System. And our Sun is 3rd generation star.
But in Genesis 1:1-2, Earth already formed, including with ocean of water covering the entire Earth with no lands whatsoever, and without sun or any other stars.
According to Genesis 1:3-5, light exist to give daylight without the Sun on the first day, before the creation of sun and other stars on the 4th day (1:14-20).
But that’s not the only problem with Genesis 1: there were firmament on the 2nd day (1:6-8), Earth’s atmosphere BEFORE there were sun and stars, dry lands (1:9-10) and vegetation (1:11-12) on the 3rd day (together 1:9-13) BEFORE there were sun and stars.
Anyway, all my earlier points about Nucleosynthesis, there are no possible for the Earth exist before the existence of much older stars than the Sun. The 1st and 2nd generations of stars have to exist for there the enough materials for the formation of the Solar System, including Earth.
So the Earth was created together at the beginning when the universe was very young, so Genesis 1:1-2 is wrong, as well as for the rest of Genesis 1.
Second. Vegetation did exist before marine life in oceans and seas, or anywhere there were bodies of waters, including lakes and rivers.
Single-celled organisms, such as bacteria and archaea predated all multicellular organisms, existing for billions of years, during the Precambrian eons, with the earliest microfossils of bacteria, dating to about 3.46 billion years ago (discovered in Western Australia). I am talking about oldest discovery; there could possibly be older microfossils that scientists haven’t been found.
Multicellular life started around in very late period of Precambrian, eg Ediacaran period, but more complex multicellular lifeform became increasingly diverse by the Cambrian explosion. Animals started forming around this period.
The vegetation post-dated not only the Precambrian, but also post-dated the Cambrian. According to the evidence, vegetation began appearing from Ordovician period, most likely evolved from green algae, which were capable of photosynthesis. But these primitive land plants are not like the current species.
So animals started forming around this period (Ediacaran), the earliest being primitive sponges. Marine invertebrates started appearing the Cambrian period, as well as marine arthropods, eg trilobites.
So what Genesis was saying about vegetation existing before marine animals, don’t actually align with paleontological evidence and data.
SA Huguenot
Well-Known Member
Tnx, but I do know all of the above, and you are welcome to discuss these objections if you want to.
I have never said anything about 1st and 2nd generation stars.
What I did say is that the Bible says that the Universe (heavens) were created in a period before the Earth had its first day.
This time period can not be measured, for the simple reason that the mechanism to determine Time, still did not exist!
How is it possible that you can say that 13 billion years ago...
Without having an Earth and a Sun to measure time.
Therefore, the very simple manner in which the Author of the Bible says that "Before" Time existed, counted off from day 1, was a period of Zero time.
If you want to call this Zero time - billions of years, due to using imagginary time - you are welcome to do so...
It does not render Genesis in error.
Furthermore, I think you missed out on what the Bible says about the light of the Greater, and lesser lights shining into the atmosphere.
It does not say God made the Sun, Moon and Stars on the 4th day, but that the light of these bodies shined into the atmosphere.
I definately prevented to talk about the time line of Plan and Marine life, for that will be a discussion on Evolution.
My intend in this thread was to show the description of the origins of the Universe by science and Genesis.
And there is no condradiction between the two.
And to place a cherry on the top of the Atheist's attack about the Genesis creation story...is that I was able to discover that science plagerised the Nebular theory from the Bible, which they did not know about, and which they now think is evidence that the Bible is wrong.
Thats all I did, nothing more, nothing less.
As for Evolution, It is a fairytale where you believe your children more human, and your parents more ape than you.
(you as in anyone believing in the religion of Evolution)
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, you are just as "ape" as your ancestors were. In fact you are still 100% ape. You clearly do not understand evolution. Which is both a fact and a theory. There is no religious belief involved. But it is amazing how deniers always get the science wrong and then think that refuting a strawman refutes evolution.
gnostic
The Lost One
According to Genesis 1:1, the Earth was created at the same time as the heavens.
And it never say anything about heavens being the universe like we know it today.
To ancient Hebrews, heavens referred to the dome or vault of the SKY, or the firmament (raqia).
In Hebrew, Genesis 1:1 heavens is translated as shamayim. This same word shamayim is used in 1:8, where the heaven is the “sky”, where not only sun, moon and stars are (1:16), and the birds or fowls created (1:20), also fly in this same shamayim.
The heavens or sky is something that the ancients thought that they can see, and that include astronomical objects, clouds and birds all within this firmament.
They (ancient Hebrews) obviously had no real understanding of space, stars (including the Sun), galaxies and the universe like we do today. They don’t even have real understanding of the Earth itself.
SA Huguenot
Well-Known Member
Pal. I dont know about you!
But I traced my ancestry back to 1659, and not one ape!
perhaps you have an ape ancestor, but from my part, it is simply an impossibility.
SA Huguenot
Well-Known Member
And then again.
The Bible is very clear that there are 3 heavens.
1 the sky.
2. the place where stars exist within.
3. The third heaven where God's existence extends far beyond the realm of space.
Just in this regard, I can make a claim that the Bible says that the Universe with matter is finite, and that empty space infinite.
I did not even investigate to what science understand from this point of view.
SA Huguenot
Well-Known Member
That's not true at all.
It says: In the beginning, God created the Heavens, and the Earth.
Then it continues to say that the Sun gave off a dim red glow, resulting in the first Day, and Time came into existance.
It says that before this first day, the Earth was an unidentifiable blob of Gas, Liquid and solids, with no recognisable shape!
Why do you have the idea that the Bible say something different than science?
Here is a few question syou should answer for yourself before even attempting to disprove what the Bible might or might not say.
Why does scientists agree that Emmanuel Kant's description of the Nebul;ar theory is the time proven correct version of the origins of our solar system?
Did you know Kant got this from the Bible?
Did you know that scientists , especially today's, did not know that the science they use as a model for the formation of the solar system, came out of Genesis?
Let me give you a nice artistic depiction about the nebular theory, where Nigel Henbest in "Exploding Universe" wrote his finding in the late 70's that the only corect model in this regard, is the one from Kant. Oh, and Nigel Henbest is non religious.
As I said, I can paste this in the Bible and it will not be in contradiction with each other.
Again, I rest my case!
The atheist gets crazy when they see their accusation against the Bible from science, actually came from the book which the Christian clain, was the author of Creation.
Why do you fight this truth so vehemently?
Just accept that the Bible and science does not contradict each other because science took their theory from it.
So simple.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Genesis1[26-27]
[26]Then 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 birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth."
[27] So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
...But...
Genesis2[18]Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him."
[19] So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.
[20] The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper fit for him.
[21] So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh;
[22] and the rib which the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.
[23] Then the man said, "This at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called Woman,
because she was taken out of Man."
[24] Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh.
[25] And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed.
Note that Genesis1 says that God made both "male and female", but in Genesis2 it says He made Eve later out of Adam's side. it also says this at the beginning of Genesis2:
Genesis2[2] And on the seventh day God finished his work which he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had done.
Thus, Genesis1 has both Adam and Eve made on day 5 but Genesis2 has it that Eve is made after the 6-day creation was already over.
It appears that these creation accounts likely were written by two different authors probably written at two different times. With me, that's not a problem since I'm not a literalist. But to those whom are literalists, they have a problem.
[26]Then 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 birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth."
[27] So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
...But...
Genesis2[18]Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him."
[19] So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.
[20] The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper fit for him.
[21] So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh;
[22] and the rib which the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.
[23] Then the man said, "This at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called Woman,
because she was taken out of Man."
[24] Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh.
[25] And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed.
Note that Genesis1 says that God made both "male and female", but in Genesis2 it says He made Eve later out of Adam's side. it also says this at the beginning of Genesis2:
Genesis2[2] And on the seventh day God finished his work which he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had done.
Thus, Genesis1 has both Adam and Eve made on day 5 but Genesis2 has it that Eve is made after the 6-day creation was already over.
It appears that these creation accounts likely were written by two different authors probably written at two different times. With me, that's not a problem since I'm not a literalist. But to those whom are literalists, they have a problem.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
If you only tested your ancestry back one generation you would find that you are 100% ape.
Tell me, are you a human being?
SA Huguenot
Well-Known Member
Nope, it does not.
In Genesis 1 God fives a full description on how He created everything up untill the 7th day.
In Genesis 2 God gives a detailed description on how He created Adam and eve on the 6th day.
on the 6th day God created Adam, then he created MORE animals, to show Adam that He created everything, and God brought these animals to Adam, so he could name them.
Then God Created Eve.
This was all in one "Day", the 6th one.
The Animals created before the 6th day, was not the animals God created to show to Adam.
SA Huguenot
Well-Known Member
I am a Human, and my father was also a Human.
We are both Man.
I have pictures of my Great grandfather's father.
Guess what...Human!
his wife...human.
not one single ape for 21 generations.
Tell me, do you realy think, as you claimed, that your father (one generation back) was an Ape?
What are you?
An Ape?
your children?
Apes?
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Nice try, and I've heard the above many times before, but it you take it step by step and look at the order and when each supposedly happened, it ain't a match. Let me recommend you go back through what I posted, keep your Bible open, and you should be able to see that I did not twist anything.
Also, it says that God stopped creating after the 6th day, contrary to what you said above:
Gen.2
[1]Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
[2] And on the seventh day God finished his work which he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had done.
[3] So God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it, because on it God rested from all his work which he had done in creation.
Genesis2[4] starts another rendition of the creation account, and analysis of this indicates that it was written at a different time and likely by a different author. This should not shock anyone who studies scripture since there many what theologians call "variations" found within. The early Church never believed in scriptural inerrancy as that was an over-zealous response to "modernism".
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
If you are a human then you are an ape. If you deny being an ape you are saying that you are not a human. Every single one of your ancestors was an ape.
Tell me, is a German Shepherd "100% dog"? If not when did it stop being "100% dog". For that some reason you are "100% ape". A population cannot evolve out of its past.
Yes, I am an ape, my parents are apes my children are apes. That is because I am a human being and human beings are apes.