-
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
Brian2
Veteran Member
I would say the Big Bang had already happened as verse 1 says in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth and heavens were there. God said let there be light after that. IMO the vantage point after the initial creation was from the earth, and it was dark and with an ocean and little if no land. The earth was covered in cloud and that is what made it dark as Job 38:9 says.
From what I have read, science agrees with the simple description in Genesis of what happened on day one.
At the end of day one the light (from the sun no doubt) started to shine through the clouds, even though you still could not see the sun, moon and stars yet.
ecco
Veteran Member
What does that even mean? Do you take everything in the Bible as Literal Truth? Do you believe that, ~4000 years ago, the entire earth was flooded to the tops of the tallest mountains?
Bible hating atheists is a very strong claim. I'm an atheist. I don't hate the Bible. I just view it for what it is, another attempt by people to a form a new religion. In so doing, they pretended knowledge of the creation of the universe and events that occurred since its creation. Most all of which is demonstrably false.
I take the Bible for what it purports to be as supported by whatever believer I am in discussion with. If the believer takes the position that all is allegory, then my "opinions" would be related to that. If the believer takes the position that all of eg Genesis is provable fact, then I would point out the absolute lack of evidence for a Flood.
I have read Genesis and reread parts many times by going to BibleHub to refresh my memory when in discussions with believers. That is certainly not being lazy. What is there to investigate? You use the term "explanations from the Bible". A more rational starting approach is to evaluate "explanations for the Bible". I briefly touched on that above.
hmm, the first photons did not form for about 10 minutes after the big bang.
and earth didn't coalesce until about 9.5 billion years later, at the same time the sun coalesced
ecco
Veteran Member
Your atheism? Really? A brief period of time reflecting on and questioning beliefs held from an early childhood do no constitute atheism. Do you think your arguments are stronger because you claim that you were once an atheist, but now you have seen the light - again?
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
Yes, it probably began with “In the beginning”.
And those ancient Hebrews didn’t have the Hubble Telescope, so you’re probably also right about their perspective being from the vantage point of Earth’s surface.
Not sure anyone was actually there though, when the lights went on. Unless the universe was conscious from the moment of it’s inception.
ecco
Veteran Member
Certainly not any rational atheist.
Actually what you found were several verses that could be interpreted to contradict the narration in Genesis.
A bit over 2/3 of the time so far?
ecco
Veteran Member
Close, but no cigar...
Where Did the First Light in the Universe Come From? Astrophysicists Now Know
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.
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.
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
ecco
Veteran Member
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 can't imagine eternity but i can get pretty close on a clear day
Secret Chief
nirvana is samsara
Ok time up.
stvdv
Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
I see mind as just a bundle of thoughts. Reduce the number of thoughts will give the Divine time to inject innervoice
And indeed innervoice is not a psychological illness, its a natural gift man has been granted, though many have lost it. Calling it a disease probably means they are jealous you still have it and sad they lost it
stvdv
Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
You took the first step, its a known fact that God takes many steps towards you
I love it, this interaction with the Divine
stvdv
Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
As children we used to say "wat je zegt, dat ben jezelf" (you know what I mean). Later on I forgot this wisdom, thanks for reminding. There is no need to prove your faith to others. I did the hard work myself, if Atheists would be really interested to know spiritual truth/wisdom, they would not ask others, but investigate themselves
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. All are free to develop their own personal interests
halbhh
The wonder and awe of "all things".
Helpfully, science disproves the peculiar assumptions and added ideas that are nowhere in scripture used to manufacture the theories of 'Young Earth Creationism'.
But plenty in mainstream science theories simply congrues with the text of Genesis chapter 1, when the scriptural text is read correctly in the wonderfully figurative wording used in this vision.
Example of the congruence:
Scientists determine early Earth was a ‘water world’ by studying exposed ocean crust
just like the poetical wording in the text suggests.
(And water is the 2nd most common molecule in space by observation, which also seems to agree with the poetical wording of the text, in that the accretion disk of the early Earth is theorized by some to have had plenty of water; it would look to the untrained eye as if the sea and the atmosphere didn't even have a clear boundary early on -- just as the poetical wording of the vision might suggest....)
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.
(my background includes a degree in engineering physics and decades of reading in astrophysics as a hobby, but I was still truly surprised a few years ago when I first began to notice the various congruences)
Last edited:
Not quite. let's go into a bit more detail.
1. God created the heaven and the earth.
2. The Earth was without form and void. Darkness was on the face of the deep.
So the Earth existed at this point, but didn't have form and was 'void'. There is a question about what constitutes 'the deep'. This is answered in the next line.
3. The Spirit of God moved over the face of the waters.
So, already we have an Earth with water. This is *before* there is light. This alone excludes the interpretation of this as the Big Bang (where the light would have been 9 billion years before the formation of the Earth along with water). Also notice that the waters have a face (a surface), which shows we are not talking about clouds or atmospheric water. This is liquid water.
4. God said 'let there be light' and is a separate action separated the light from the darkness.
This suggests thinking of light and darkness as substances, NOT that darkness is simply the absence of light.
5. God called the light 'Day' and the darkness 'Night'.
Problematic since day and night are aspects of the rotation of the Earth, but the sun has not yet been created.
6. There was an evening and a morning--the first day.
This is evidence *against* the interpretation that thousands of years transpired between the days of creation: there was an *evening* and a *morning*.
7. God creates a firmament to separate the waters. The firmament is called 'heaven' and there are waters both above and below.
This goes back to an ancient way of looking at the universe. In this view, the Earth was a bit of land in the middle of a wide 'ocean' with a dome covering it (the sky). This was a very common view around the Mediterranean basin. it appears that the Bible holds this view, calling the dome 'heaven' instead of 'sky' and having water both above and below it.
By the way, the water above the firmament becomes relevant for Noah's flood since some of the flood waters come through the 'gates of heaven'.
This is the second day, again with an evening and a morning.
8. The waters under heaven are brought into one place and dry land appears.
Again, this is in line with the common view described above. The dry land is called Earth and the waters below heaven are called Seas.
Now, the Earth brings forth grass, herbs and fruit trees.
This is an important step, but it should be noted that flowering plants (both grass and fruit trees and many herbs) were a fairly late type of plant that did not arise until the middle of the time of the dinosaurs. In particular, the sun and moon would have been quite long in existence by the scientific view by the time flowering plants came about. Also, animals would have been in abundance.
This is the end of the third day.
So, at the end of the third day, we would have day and night, but no sun or moon. We would have dry land with grass and fruit trees, but no animals as yet. Heaven would be a dome over the Earth separating water above and below.
How does this compare to the scientific views? Not well at all.
First, there is no firmament. There are no waters above separated from waters below. Flowering plants would not have existed prior to animals and the sun and the moon. Seasons would have been long established.
9. Now, lights are placed in the firmament (heaven) to determine the seasons, signs, and years. Two greater lights were also made, one to rule the day and the other to rule the night. Stars were also made.
It was known in ancient times that the position of the sun in the sky (relative to the stars) changes over the course of the year and is related to the seasons. A year is defined (in the ancient mind) by one grand cycle of the sun. The phases of the moon were used to mark off months. And, in fact, many cultures used the moon as the basis of their calendar, not the sun.
So this represents the time that it was possible to start marking off time using astronomical observations.
Notice the stars and the sun were not made until this day, NOT prior to the formation of the Earth. They are placed in the firmament (sky, heaven). Again, this was a very common view: that the stars are points of light on the dome covering the Earth and the sun and moon are also on this dome.
Anyway, I think I will stop in my analysis at this point. I can continue, but I think it is quite clear that the Biblical views and the modern scientific views are VERY different on a number of vital points.