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.

  1. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    19,730
    Ratings:
    +23,214
    Religion:
    Non-theist

    Actually, a reading of Genesis does NOT suggest a ball at all. It suggests a flat surface to the water, a firmament above (heaven) with water above it, and the water covering land underneath (so moving the water away reveals the land, which can then dry).

    It looks to me that you are trying to force the current scientific views into the words of Genesis.
     
    • Like Like x 5
  2. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2018
    Messages:
    3,757
    Ratings:
    +3,115
    Very charitable.
    By quoting the bible? I guess so...
    Ah, 'explanations' from the bible...
    Apologetics is so yesterday....
     
  3. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2018
    Messages:
    3,757
    Ratings:
    +3,115
    TOTAL atheists are the worst kind!
     
    • Funny Funny x 3
  4. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2018
    Messages:
    3,757
    Ratings:
    +3,115
    Imagine that - someone wanting things being laid out as an argument to be correct... Crazy!
     
    • Like Like x 2
  5. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    19,730
    Ratings:
    +23,214
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    Except that this contradicts Egyptian chronology, which has Egypt controlling the lands of Canaan around that time. It is interesting that the Egyptian dynasty at the time was the Tutmosid. Is there a connection between the name of Moses and the names of the pharaohs? maybe a cultural memory of the time when Egypt controlled the areas?
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  6. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2018
    Messages:
    3,757
    Ratings:
    +3,115
    I take these atheist-to-biblical literalist claims with a grain of salt.
    Knew a guy in grad school who claimed to have been an 'old earth evolutionist' until he did some 'research.'
    As I got to know him better, he revealed that, in fact, his father was a self-proclaimed bible expert, and ran a small private 'bible Christian school' that he had to attend, in which all they learned was bible stuff. His time as an 'old earth evolutionist' ended up being (by his own unwitting admission after drinking a couple beers) a period of about a month when he was a teenager going through a rebellious phase. His 'research' consisted of dissecting the heart of a fish and concluding 'creation.'
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Informative Informative x 1
  7. Jayhawker Soule

    Jayhawker Soule <yawn> ignore </yawn>
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Messages:
    40,274
    Ratings:
    +14,387
    Religion:
    Judaism
    I suspect that the above is a gross over-simplification

    You might be interested in Schniedewind's How the BIBLE Became a BOOK.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  8. Israel Khan

    Israel Khan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2017
    Messages:
    3,760
    Ratings:
    +2,613
    Religion:
    None
    It is definitely a gross over-simpification. It was half a joke actually. It is also gross speculation.

    I would be very interested in reading that book. Thanks.
     
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  9. SA Huguenot

    SA Huguenot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2019
    Messages:
    1,680
    Ratings:
    +377
    Religion:
    Protestant
    And we will get to the 6 000 years a littlebit later.
    The Bible never said the universe is 6 000 years old.
    Furthermore, on the issue pf the existance of water, the Bible never mentions that the Sun was filled with water, but the Earth.
     
  10. SA Huguenot

    SA Huguenot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2019
    Messages:
    1,680
    Ratings:
    +377
    Religion:
    Protestant
    Which is also a postulation, not a fact.
    Archaeology on the OT was the one factor that did prove more than 3 000 cities, names, topographical places etc, as true, when for more than 400 years the same identities was discounted by the Bible critisizers. But this was something I learned loooong after I found the Biblical Creation Epoch to be true and supported by science.
    Actually, Science dont even know that what they use as their model of the origins of the Universe, came out of Genesis.
    But we will get there too.
    For now, We only investigated how the Earth took shape from a mass of matter, into Land and Sea with an atmosphere.
    There are much more to come.
     
  11. SA Huguenot

    SA Huguenot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2019
    Messages:
    1,680
    Ratings:
    +377
    Religion:
    Protestant
    Anyhow, what is this strategy in an attempt to discredit Moses as the author of the first 5 books of the Bible?
    I am not talking of Biblical critisizm now, that is for another thread.
    At this stage all I did was to show the people who critisized Genesis as "Non Scientific" and "non compatable to any logic" that such a perception is faulty.
    I do not understand why all of a sudden Ad Homen should enter your argument.
    All I am realising, is that what I have posted is not to your liking, and you need to grasp straws, to build a strawman.
    Please allow me to stay on what I propose, and show me if on my statements, I am wrong in my interperetation of the Biblical Creation narrative.
    So simple.
    Did I read it correct, or not!
     
  12. SA Huguenot

    SA Huguenot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2019
    Messages:
    1,680
    Ratings:
    +377
    Religion:
    Protestant
    Thanks for the reference.
    I will definately get his publication and work through it at a later stage.
    Perhaps he has some newer information I dont.
    on Archaeology, History, science and so on, I have a personal collection of 1300 plus books which I have personally read over 18 years or so.
    Greetings
     
  13. SA Huguenot

    SA Huguenot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2019
    Messages:
    1,680
    Ratings:
    +377
    Religion:
    Protestant
    Nice observation.
    I applaud you for this answer.
    However, if we read tht before God let light shine on the Earth, the Earth was without shape, any recognisable shape.
    And when light shone on the Earth, it became Evening and Morning.
    Is there any possible way that there would be evening and morning without the earth turning on its axis?
    Furthermore, There is a few references to the fact that the Earth is an free standing body in space, and it is round.
    Stuff like God encompassed the Earth throughout its deep, and in Job, the earth is round and hangs on nothing.
    Again, if I read Genesis chapt 1, it does not say the Earth is flat also.
    Anyhow, Im off for the weekend
    Greetings
     
  14. viole

    viole Metaphysical Naturalist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2014
    Messages:
    10,344
    Ratings:
    +5,196
    Religion:
    Gnostic Atheism
    And? Fact is: it writes the water existed before the first star was created. Same with heavy elements.

    Not to speak of the sun being a second generation star.

    So, there is no way to force Genesis page 1 into any of the things we know today. Which should not be surprising, considering that the authors were totally ignorant about astrophysics, cosmology, etc.

    Ciao

    - viole
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    19,730
    Ratings:
    +23,214
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    In the ancient view, the sky rotated around the Earth.

    Written MUCH later than Genesis and shows knowledge gained by that time.

    I thought we were just reading Genesis? or are you claiming the Bible as a whole is consistent on this point?

    Also, the Earth does NOT hang. It moves in an orbit around the sun. Hanging is the old, geocentric view, which came after the flat-Earth view.

     
  16. A Vestigial Mote

    A Vestigial Mote Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2015
    Messages:
    6,194
    Ratings:
    +4,145
    Religion:
    ?
    Who cares? Why is this relevant? How is this any sort of "Aha!" moment?

    And yes, there would be other explanations, obviously. It could have been water and the "land" un-tempered rock (mountains beneath the surface) for example. Again though - why is this so relevant?

    Oh geez... how about there being "evening" and "morning" without a sun? Explain away that one.
     
  17. Jayhawker Soule

    Jayhawker Soule <yawn> ignore </yawn>
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Messages:
    40,274
    Ratings:
    +14,387
    Religion:
    Judaism
    Unverifiable claims appear to come easy to to you but, if you're trying to impress me, you've failed miserably, beginning with ...

     
  18. ecco

    ecco Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2016
    Messages:
    13,343
    Ratings:
    +6,667
    Religion:
    atheist

    Far be it for me to disagree with you on a science topic (no sarcasm intended). However, perhaps you can cite an article for my perusal.

    I just keep finding things like this...

    https://phys.org/news/2016-11-universe.html
    This was the moment of first light in the universe, between 240,000 and 300,000 years after the Big Bang, known as the Era of Recombination. The first time that photons could rest for a second, attached as electrons to atoms. It was at this point that the universe went from being totally opaque, to transparent.​
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  19. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    19,730
    Ratings:
    +23,214
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    yes, this is when the universe becomes *transparent* to the photons. Prior to that matter and photons interacted fully, which didn't allow the photons to travel far before being absorbed again.

    Look up the 'photon epoch'. For example, in
    Photon epoch - Wikipedia

    Note the timing of the photon epoch: from about 10 seconds to about 370,000 years.

    The article you are pointing to is discussing the beginning of the recombination epoch. This is when the universe became transparent and the background radiation was formed.

    Many cosmology books will simply discuss the times when radiation was the dominant part of the energy balance of the universe, which lasted until about 47,000 years into the expansion. Radiation, in this situation, includes photons and neutrinos primarily.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  20. halbhh

    halbhh The wonder and awe of "all things".

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2019
    Messages:
    1,743
    Ratings:
    +712
    Religion:
    Rescued of Jesus the Christ
    With reading my post fully, I hope it's clear I'm saying that groups that preach that 'young earth' ideology are wrong. I can say more though. YEC is unbiblical ultimately, in that the YEC theory uses added ideas that are not in the text anywhere.

    Example: without any basis in the text, the added idea that zero or little time passed during verse 1 before verse 2 right at the start:

    1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
    2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

    As we can easily see, no information at all is given about (the ultimately less important side issue of) how much time passed during verse 1 before the moment in verse 2. Assuming it was zero time or little time is an extraneous idea to the text, an added idea. It could be for instance 1 second or 9 billion years.

    But we can see by looking in astronomy that the latter is a good estimate.

    Of course the text isn't about relatively trivial (though interesting to me) details such as geology or planetary accretion -- those are not the subject matter, which instead is very clearly in the text about Earth being a "very good" (the actual text wording) home for us, the suitability of Earth as a home for us being "good" is repeated 7 times, and is a dominate theme any good reader can see.
     
    • Useful Useful x 1
Loading...