It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Does science support Genisis, chapter one

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by southern_cross3
Again, Genesis 2 does not in any way contradict Genesis 1. Someone else already explained it. If you're still confused, I'd be glad to expound on it.


did you just happen to overlook my explaination of the 2 huge contradictions?
or are you choosing to ignore those points?




posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Just because 'the heavens' exist as a realm does not mean that the sun, as an object within that realm, exists. Also, the very idea that ther eare a 'heavens', seperate from an 'earth', when in fact the earth is just one other thing within the 'heavens', ie, the universe, demonstrates that the writers of genesis had no idea about the world around them.

Referring the Earth as separate from the heavens makes complete sense. It's the place within the heavens that human beings occupy, and is indeed the only known location in the universe that harbors life. For that reason alone, it's worth referring to as a separate thing. Though there is nothing in Genesis 1:1 that precludes the Earth, Sun, and Moon from being formed.


Because its saying god create fish, THEN land animals, etc etc.

No... there's nothing that denotes a strict chronology, it just says these things were created on the same day. It doesn't necessitate a chronological listing. It's a vague description of events.



And thats the problem, its a text that is open to all sorts of interpretations. It has no 'real' or 'objective' meaning, and thus we can't look at is as a chronological account of the formation of the universe and how it works. Its not a science book, its a religious book.

Well, personally, I don't find books that are open to interpretation to be a problem. Hell, scientific evidence, by it's very nature is open to interpretation - especially a historical science... like any sort of origins topic is. In any case, I agree, we can't look at it as a chronological account - but that's what you're doing when you're saying the Bible says 'fish then land animals.' You're taking it as a literal chronological account. I've been saying you can't do this all along.


It is the only way we can rationally distinguish between competing ideas about what is 'the truth'.

Completely and utterly untrue. Science can't prove the truth that I think Mozart's music is beautiful, and that I genuinely believe my wife is the most beautiful woman I've ever seen. Those are truths that science can't touch. Science can't prove any such subjective truths. With respect to a historical event, science can elaborate on the most probable sequence of events perhaps, but it can in no way confirm that something happened. Sure it's entirely likely the watch you just found on the ground fell out of someone's pocket. And there might be lot's of evidence to say this true, but science can never determine whether or not the most likely thing - someone dropping the watch happened, or if some child left it there, or if someone chucked it out of a car window at their girlfriend. Hell, it could've dropped out of a news helicopter, bounced off a garbage bag and landed in it's current location. While evidence might suggest something, inference drawn from said evidence can be, and has been completely wrong.


The faithful can beleive that their religion is 'the truth', but they have no way of knowing it or demonstrating it. Indeed, their 'faith' isn't just unverifiable, its utterly useless, you can't use 'faith' to split the atom or make an airplane fly, despite the fact that peopel on the plane are certainly praying that it flys.

Ohhhh... okay... people's faith is utterly useless? Nice attitude. Sorry, but your view re: people's faith is simplistic and uninformed. Believe it or not, there are practical uses for things outside of splitting atoms and making airplanes fly. Hell, even if God isn't real, the very fact that faith has been preserved evolutionarily through kin selection, group selection, etc. argues against 'faith being useless' quite nicely.

Your analogy is weak. No one, and I'm pretty confident in saying that no one who flys on a plane believes that praying makes an airplane fly.


[edit on 12-12-2006 by kallikak]



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Except for a rational consideration of the evidence, sure.

Rational consideration of the evidence didn't make Steady State Theory true.



And faith changes. At least theories change based on rational examinations of the evidence, and can be put to use. Faith, on the other hand, changes for utterly irrational reasons.

Again your view is simplistic and uninformed. Faith changes for a variety of reasons. My own personal faith evolved as a result of my work in science. My personal faith in atheism was shaken and in fact utterly destroyed the more and more I became exposed to my particular field. Indeed, my faith arose for entirely rational reasons. And I resisted it for some time... giving in only when I could no longer deny what was plainly obvious.



Genesis can be interpreted as refering to our actual scientific understanding of the world, sure. But what you can't do is look at genesis only, and then having anything like the scientific understanding of the universe. THe only reason we think we see the scientific events in genesis, is because science has made us aware of them and because we back-project them into genesis.

I've never stated you could do this. In fact, I think all along I've been arguing that Genesis isn't a science text, and when you back-project based on scientific evidence, the two are not mutually exclusive.



Since it wasn't a whole when genesis was written, it wouldn't make much sense to consider it as such. As far as being coherent, the cosmogenic beleifs of bronze age goat herders are rarely coherent.

That's like saying you can't consider the Star Wars saga as a coherent story because the prequel weren't around when Return of the Jedi came out. Stories aren't limited by Time, especially a story like that contained in the Bible. Personally, I give ancient people a little more credit than you. The Antikythera Mechanism, a Bronze Age artifact actually would argue against your statement above. It would appear that their understanding was more advanced than you're giving them credit for. This is of course to say nothing of the sophistication of Mayan cosmology... but I guess you don't consider being able to predict every major astronomical event for some thousands of years to be a significant accomplishment for a civiization that existed for practically 2000 years before Christ very coherent.




Are we also supposed to beleive then that god and satan were hanging out in heaven and afflicted job with boils, massacered his family, and destroyed his home? As literal, actual, real world events? Or as parables and stories of faith???

Does it really matter? What's the difference if you accept it as an actual event or a story of faith? Is the result not the same? Can you not learn the lesson from a story of faith that you could from an actual event?


There is no where where it says 'after the formation of earth from the initial accretionary disc, I created thick clouds over the earth, for no particular reason'.

No it certainly doesn't say for no reason. It doesn't give a reason. It just states that this is the way it was. Perhaps the reason is contingent perhaps not. Though it does seem that the formation of planets is accompanied by a thick atmosphere after accretion. The reason isn't relevant to the story, so it isn't provided, but it's undeniably information contained in the Bible. Why the clouds were there, and why the information are present isn't known... only that it is present.



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 07:33 PM
link   


The problem is, you are adding this idea of a light obscuring cover of clouds, that god had to remove before all the plants in the world could grow, and that he didn't mention at all in that context.

Well, I'm not adding the clouds, but yes, I am reading into the information somewhat. So? I've not taken anything that isn't there and added it. I've simply tried to understand what's written in the Bible with what science has learned about the world. It's an inference based on different observations. No there isn't a complete story, but it shouldn't stop people from making inferences about it, in light of what science has taught us.


The fact that it occurs in reality hardly means that the bible is talking about it.
You can't look at the bible, on its own, and then say 'ahah! The earth is divided into a crust, mantle, and core, with the crust being composed of disjointed plates, each of which move about its surface, creating mountains and trenches when colliding or rifts and ridges where seperating'. We can look back and sortof kindof interpret things as 'really' referencing these things that science has discovered for us. BUt whats the point? We could re-interpret any religious text as such, or even re-interpret children's fairy tales as such. Its meaningless.

No, of course you can't do this. And nowhere did I say that Genesis said this. This is simply my interpretation of what it means. But let's face it, having a hydrologic cycle is necessary for life. Indeed there is evidence to suggest that plate tectonics is a requirement for complex life.

Obviously it's meaningless to you. But that doesn't make it meaningless. Billions of people around the world deriving comfort from their Bibles, their relationship with God, and considering the Bible in context of their lives argues against it being a meaningless activity. Again, even from a materialistic standpoint, the activity has obviously bestowed some selective advantage, and is thus, not meaningless.


Of course I am. I'd think that you'd realize that the bible isn't a scientific text. That its a text that can only be subjectively interpreted.

I do, and it's what I've more or less been stating all along.


Why? Its foolish to interpret as saying that god took peices of dust, molded into a man-shape, and then blew on it to magically bring it to life.
Its a poetic text, not a literal one. They that on one day the plants came forth. This, of course, shoudln't be taken literally. It doesn't do any better to say that 'day' simply means 'a period of time' and then say 'see, its jiving with science, plants would come into existence, over a period of time'. While true, its not saying much.

It's foolish because it goes against what we actually can and do observe about fruits and seeds, etc. With respect to man coming from the dust of the Earth, I think given the age of scientific knowledge about the origins of man, it's just as reasonable of a description as evolution. Would early man really have had a better understanding of his origins if what was written in the Bible was something like: "I created man out of existing creatures using random variations of heritable material." While perhaps more factually correct, it does nothing for the historical stance and relevance of the Bible.


When god creates the heavenly bodies, its saying they were created ex nihilo

So now we're going form the Bible being subjectively interpreted to absolutes. Which is it, is the book open to interpretation, or is it absolute. You said it's interpretable above, but here you say it's absolute. Which is it, you can't have it both ways.



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 07:33 PM
link   

He made them, where before they hadn't existed at all. He created light first, illuminating the abyss, later, he creates the luminaries.

Okay... I disagree with your interpretation, but I'm willing to accept it as such. I think the text implies something substantially different, especially when you apply a little common sense.


I didn't say that they thought that light didn't come from the sun. Not all light comes from the sun, clearly. They recognized that light was seperate from any one individual source. They thought light was important, and felt that it was the first thing that god brought into existence. After all, what can really 'exist' in an absolutely dark, completely formless, utterly cold and chaotic 'void'? God creates light, through his will, and it illuminates the world and begins to bring it into being. They are not saying that 'approximately 12 billion years agoas the universe came into being, there was an Inflationary episode associated with a great production of photons'

They are not saying this, no. But it's not relevant to the story. The age of the Earth and the exact sequence of events surrounding the Creation of the Universe are for the most part irrelevant. What God wants us to know is that He created it, all the rest is details... interesting perhaps, and relevant in many contexts, but not in a Biblical context.



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 08:32 PM
link   


did you just happen to overlook my explaination of the 2 huge contradictions?


I have come to learn from experience that anyone who believes the bible is the inspired word of god will not under any circumstance admit the bible is full of contradictions, inconsistencies and hypocrisies.

It does not matter how many contradictions, inconsistencies and hypocrisies you can point out to them with chapter and verse they will never admit it.

Its the complete antithesis of denial of ignorance.

Its the classic ostrich with its head stuck in the sand.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by etshrtslr


It's likely that this passage refers to removal of some other superficial atmospheric phenomenon that was contributing to the opacity of the atmosphere and obscuring the visible form of both the sun and moon.


If man was not on earth in those days who would be there to see the sun and moon from the earth?

It seems to me your are trying to insert opinions to account for the inconsistencies in the genesis storey.


[edit on 11-12-2006 by etshrtslr]


It's possible that Moses saw the event in a vision. You are right, no human could survive during those formative years so how did they perceive the creation process? Someone, either Adam, Seth or Moses saw it in a vision so it could be written down for some reason. It's very interesting why it is even included in the bible at all. It could just have said, "Then God made Adam and Eve" and then the story begins there. I think the creative days were mentioned because there's something important about the number Seven.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 08:46 AM
link   
Doesnt the roman catholic church now say that the first 11 chapters of Genesis are not to be taken literally???


But the first 11 chapters of Genesis, in which two different and at times conflicting stories of creation are told, are among those that this country’s Catholic bishops insist cannot be “historical”. At most, they say, they may contain “historical traces”.


So why should we believe?????? if even the christian don't!!!!!!



G



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 09:06 AM
link   
First off, many Protestants don't even consider Catholics to be true Christians. While I don't fall into this category, I certainly wouldn't say that Christians don't believe part of the Bible just because some Catholics have issue with some verses.

As far as Genesis 1 and 2, they do not contradict each other. Genesis 1 is a general account of the full seven days of Creation. Genesis 2 concludes that account with the seven days, and generally the first couple verses of Genesis 2 are included with the story line of Genesis 1. The division of chapters at this point is most likely not at the best location. Then, it goes back to the sixth day and elaborates on the creation of man with more detail. It also speaks of the creation of the Garden of Eden and such, all of which happened on the sixth day.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by shihulud
Doesnt the roman catholic church now say that the first 11 chapters of Genesis are not to be taken literally???


But the first 11 chapters of Genesis, in which two different and at times conflicting stories of creation are told, are among those that this country’s Catholic bishops insist cannot be “historical”. At most, they say, they may contain “historical traces”.


So why should we believe?????? if even the christian don't!!!!!!

G


Most Christians, of all denominations, as well as most Jews, now realise that Genesis is simply a collection of folk tales, many derived from mesopotamian sources. When written down, people may well have believed in them, just as they believed the Earth was flat and that the Sun revolved around it, but this is the 21st century ...... We can accept that our forebears 3,000 years ago actually knew a little less about the universe than we do today. And that there's no shame in that.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by EssanWhen written down, people may well have believed in them, just as they believed the Earth was flat and that the Sun revolved around it, but this is the 21st century


That early Christians believed the Earth was flat is a myth. Read for yourself, here or here.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by kallikak

Originally posted by EssanWhen written down, people may well have believed in them, just as they believed the Earth was flat and that the Sun revolved around it, but this is the 21st century


That early Christians believed the Earth was flat is a myth. Read for yourself, here or here.


they may not have thought it was flat, but they sure thought it was the center of the universe, within several spheres...

not exactly the most scientific view of the universe



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
they may not have thought it was flat, but they sure thought it was the center of the universe, within several spheres...

not exactly the most scientific view of the universe

Certainly not by today's standard, no. But that the Earth was the center of the universe isn't a Christian idea, even if it was appealing to Christians for a variety of reasons.

Indeed the idea that Earth was the center of the universe was 'cutting edge' in it's time. Claudius Ptolemy, an astronomer, first claimed in 150 BC that the earth was at the center of the universe. He stated that the moon, the sun, the planets and stars revolved around the earth in a series of circles. This was accepted for the next 1,400 years as an accurate picture of the universe.

So yes, early Christians believed the Earth was at the Center of the Universe, but so what? It was the predominant belief from more than a milennium. IOW, nearly everyone, not just early Christians believed the Earth was at the center of the universe. Furthermore, the idea doesn't even have it roots in Christianity.

So, again, I say: So what?

[edit on 13-12-2006 by kallikak]



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 10:20 AM
link   
Er, what's Christians got to do with this? Genesis was written down at least several hundred years before any Christian ever existed


(And it's based on stories going back thousands of years earlier)



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
Er, what's Christians got to do with this? Genesis was written down at least several hundred years before any Christian ever existed


(And it's based on stories going back thousands of years earlier)


Generally Christians are the people engaged in literal interpretation of Genesis, and trying to view scientific evidence in context with Genesis. Maybe Jews and Muslims do it too, but they're not as vocal about it... at least not in the US.



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 05:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by kallikak

Originally posted by Essan
Er, what's Christians got to do with this? Genesis was written down at least several hundred years before any Christian ever existed


(And it's based on stories going back thousands of years earlier)


Generally Christians are the people engaged in literal interpretation of Genesis, and trying to view scientific evidence in context with Genesis. Maybe Jews and Muslims do it too, but they're not as vocal about it... at least not in the US.


Indeed. Of course, Genesis is a Judaic book, not a Christian one (Christians by definition follow the teachings of Christ which in some ways are contradictions of the laws given in the Pentateuch - ie 'turn the other cheek' as opposed to 'an eye for an eye' ) Genesis has no real relevance to Christianity, other than insofar as it establishes the existance of God. Whether he created the world in 6 days or not is totally irrelevant.

So why are some Christians (mainly in America) so obsessed with proving that Genesis is wholly accurate and that everything else is wrong?



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
Indeed. Of course, Genesis is a Judaic book, not a Christian one (Christians by definition follow the teachings of Christ which in some ways are contradictions of the laws given in the Pentateuch - ie 'turn the other cheek' as opposed to 'an eye for an eye' ) Genesis has no real relevance to Christianity, other than insofar as it establishes the existance of God. Whether he created the world in 6 days or not is totally irrelevant.


I don't think I agree entirely with your line of thought. Let me attempt to explain why. Genesis is a Judaic book and a Christian book. Jesus made it quite clear throughout his ministry that the Father he spoke of, and the God of the Old Testament were indeed the same God. Christians by definition, do follow the teachings of Christ indeed, and Christ frequently referred to the Old Testament in his teachings, further substantiating the relevance of Old Testament teachings in the spiritual walk of Christianity.


So why are some Christians (mainly in America) so obsessed with proving that Genesis is wholly accurate and that everything else is wrong?

It is an interesting phenomenon, and a question that I don't have an answer for. Since I am a Christian by conversion... that is I wasn't born a Christian, and didn't become one until I had completed Grad School and was in my 30's. Since I neither relate to, nor do I generally see eye to eye with such Christians, I can't comment on the nature of their thought process. I would imagine that it's related to their faith being based on something weak as being born into Christianity... not that this necessarily makes a person's faith weak, but IMO, and this is strictly MO, if one doesn't have their own reasons for coming to Christ, their faith is easily damaged. Christ brought me to Himself in His own way, and as a result my faith is rock solid, and is in fact, not rooted in the Bible, but enhanced by the Bible.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join