The Genesis Account and Science

I think your redefinition of the word day is not scientific. The matter that formed the early Earth was likely orbiting the sun and rotating way before it was suitable for life. That means that a day was probably about 24 hours for the last 4 billion years or so. Even if the time called a day has changed, it would have been more accurate to measure it by today's standards. We know that higher life forms took several orders of magnitude more than a day to come about, therefore the Genesis account is scientifically inaccurate.
 
The bible isn't a scientific book therefore it is not constrained to strictly scientific definitions. It a social book and a spiritual book relating relative scientific ideas.

Thus it is accurate unto language and understanding...

There is further scriptural proof that the Isrealites , Jews, Paul in particular did not consider these days in 24 hour periods or any type of litteral days. But that's for another time.
 
Name one fact revealed in Genesis that couldn't have been known by Israelites at the time.
 
spidergoat said:
That means that a day was probably about 24 hours for the last 4 billion years or so.
Click to expand...

Actually, a day was much shorter than 24 hours long 4 billion years ago. One day was a mere 6 hours long when the Earth first formed 4.5 billion years ago. Tidal drag makes the Earth transfer angular momentum to the moon's orbit. This makes the moon slowly move away from Earth, a process that still occurs to this day. A large scientific organization (the International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Services, http://www.iers.org/) studies this problem.
 
Saquist:

Do you believe the Genesis account if alegorical, or literally true?

If you believe it is literally true, could you please start by explaining how you resolve the contradictions between the stories in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2?
 
Would you say that the "Earth was formless and rocky, watery and dark in the begining?
Click to expand...
Nope. Ophiolite is generous, holding erroneous only three of the four, but it was not actually "rocky", in its first melted state, either.

Liquid rock too hot for liquid water, which would not have had time to collect on the surface anyway, under a very bright sun, almost perfectly spherical in form,

0 for 4, Genesis. But a great story.
 
D H said:
Actually, a day was much shorter than 24 hours long 4 billion years ago. One day was a mere 6 hours long when the Earth first formed 4.5 billion years ago. Tidal drag makes the Earth transfer angular momentum to the moon's orbit. This makes the moon slowly move away from Earth, a process that still occurs to this day. A large scientific organization (the International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Services, http://www.iers.org/) studies this problem.
Click to expand...

Fascinating. Also another strike against a literal interpretation of the Genesis myth.
 
iceaura said:
Nope. Ophiolite is generous, holding erroneous only three of the four, but it was not actually "rocky", in its first melted state, either.
Click to expand...
Yes. I considered that, but if I were arguing Saquist's position I would note that molten rock is still rock. Therefore, to avoid rather meaningless debate on such a nice point I decided to let him have that one.

Now Saquist, you asked wheterhwe agreed with the formless, etc description. We have explained that it is wrong. Horribly, irreconcilably wrong. Your sole repsonse to this appears to be:
Excellent...to continue.
Click to expand...
Are you accepting the Genesis account is wrong on this point. Please clarify. Your nonsense in a later post saying the sun may not have ignited is baseless speculation that runs counter to all accepted theories of he formation of the solar system. So, do you accept that Genesis was wrong on this point?
 
spidergoat said:
Name one fact revealed in Genesis that couldn't have been known by Israelites at the time.
Click to expand...

The answer would dependent on a common mindset between us and the ancients. There is no reason to believe they would know any of this. I don't think that question is truely answerable. I could guess but what use would that be.

James R said:
Saquist:

Do you believe the Genesis account if alegorical, or literally true?

If you believe it is literally true, could you please start by explaining how you resolve the contradictions between the stories in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2?
Click to expand...

To keep the discussion on course through the entire six days and keeping to it's propper continuity the text shall be followed scripture by scripture instead of indiscriminate and a meandering discusion on various topics. I incourage you to stick around for that is a question we'll talk about.

iceaura said:
Nope. Ophiolite is generous, holding erroneous only three of the four, but it was not actually "rocky", in its first melted state, either.

Liquid rock too hot for liquid water, which would not have had time to collect on the surface anyway, under a very bright sun, almost perfectly spherical in form,

0 for 4, Genesis. But a great story.
Click to expand...

According to what data are we owing the facts to the Earth in a melted state before the ignition of the sun?


Ophiolite said:
Yes. I considered that, but if I were arguing Saquist's position I would note that molten rock is still rock. Therefore, to avoid rather meaningless debate on such a nice point I decided to let him have that one.

Debate can be meaningless and no I would not testify that rock is rock molten or soild. The bible describes a "formless, waste, and dark" I used the word rocky...As you said water could not exist on a molten surface.

Now Saquist, you asked wheterhwe agreed with the formless, etc description. We have explained that it is wrong. Horribly, irreconcilably wrong. Your sole repsonse to this appears to be:

Are you accepting the Genesis account is wrong on this point. Please clarify. Your nonsense in a later post saying the sun may not have ignited is baseless speculation that runs counter to all accepted theories of he formation of the solar system. So, do you accept that Genesis was wrong on this point?
Click to expand...

Opilolite, I'm not asking you to accept anything in Genesis as your new belief system. Should you wish to maintain you previous held model of the begining of the Earth despite the bilble's testimony you should feel free to do so.

I have already at this point out lined twice to you that this biblical model is obviously not subject to theory, only the facts and the realm of possibility those facts exist among.

Now what is it you do not accept factually the description of Waste, formless, and darkness? Are you still stuck on the theory you already know unwilling to brave the uncharted currents of a different model?

IceAgeCivilizations said:
Saquist, when do you think the Earth and Universe were created, when do you think Noah lived, and was Abraham ten generations after Noah?
Click to expand...

I myself believe as the bible's testimony of events. I percieve that there are many things that science agrees with. I also recongize that tradition of the six day creation period is so strong some do not wish to entertain that the bible has not set a exact period of time on these things. To do so would have been to use knowledge that the world didnt' already have...such as a number as big as a billion or even millions. Man had sinned and I don't see God imparting anymore knowledge to rebelious mankind than was necessary. God has given prophecies to that purpose....But LOOK those prophesy fortell God's purpose and thus relevant events to that purpose. But the Bible seems pruposely short on information that could have allowed mankind to progress more rapidly.
 
Last edited:
Saquist said:
Opilolite, I'm not asking you to accept anything in Genesis as your new belief system. Should you wish to maintain you previous held model of the begining of the Earth despite the bilble's testimony you should feel free to do so.
.
Click to expand...
That is not the point. You claimed that the Genesis account matched what we knew of the origin of the world. I have shown that it does not. How then do you defend the Genesis account?
Saquist said:
I have already at this point out lined twice to you that this biblical model is obviously not subject to theory, only the facts and the realm of possibility those facts exist among.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, I see the words, but the meaning you intend does not emerge from them OR what do you mean?
Saquist said:
Now what is it you do not accept factually the description of Waste, formless, and darkness? Are you still stuck on the theory you already know unwilling to brave the uncharted currents of a different model?
Click to expand...
The different model is based upon a description of the origin that does not match , even in a metaphorical sense, the facts and observations and carefully developed hypotheses and theories available to us. Why should I abandon a tried and tested theory for a speculative, unfounded myth, whose simplest statements run counter to our observations?
Saquist said:
I myself believe as the bible's testimony of events.
Click to expand...
That's fine. You are free to wallow in your ignorance. But please don't continue to make claims like this:
Saquist said:
I percieve that there are many things that science agrees with.
Click to expand...
when I have demonstrated that science doesn't agree with many (and probably most) of those with which you think it does.
 
IceAgeCivilizations said:
One more time, how long ago did the creation week begin, when did Noah live, and was Abraham ten generations after Noah?
Click to expand...

The bible does not tell us the amount of time that subsquently passed for me to answer that questions.

IceAgeCivilizations said:
Ok Saquist, now, when did Noah live, and was Abraham ten generations after Noah?
Click to expand...

I'd have to do my research to answer this question, nor have I counted previous the number generations Abraham proceeded Noah. I have a bible in the car, but I don't know off the top of my head. If you like I'll answer your last two...tomorrow afternoon.
 
Ophiolite said:
That is not the point. You claimed that the Genesis account matched what we knew of the origin of the world.
Click to expand...

Yes what we know, a disclaimer to theory, which is defined as a best guess.

I
have shown that it does not.
Click to expand...
Not yet you haven't. Please continue. This is sure to be a intresting challenge for you.


The begining of the Tread explicitly stated that the facts would be considered in comparision to the Genesis account not theories or best guesses....That would be the fourth time I'd have to explain that to you.


The different model is based upon a description of the origin that does not match , even in a metaphorical sense, the facts and observations and carefully developed hypotheses and theories available to us.
Click to expand...

ok.

Why should I abandon a tried and tested theory for a speculative, unfounded myth, whose simplest statements run counter to our observations?
Click to expand...

Ophilolite, I never suggested you do otherwise...You're here of your own volition attmpting to prove that the Bible doesn't coincide with current Scientfic Theory when we all know this already.

Consider your goal attained before you ever arrived.

That's fine. You are free to wallow in your ignorance. But please don't continue to make claims like this:
Click to expand...

" " what ever comment you see fit to counter with add between the bunny ears.

when I have demonstrated that science doesn't agree with many (and probably most) of those with which you think it does.
Click to expand...

My dear Ophilolite that is exactly have you haven't done. Please for the sake of every one observing the thread explain the Genesis model as scientificly wrong and please attempt to seperate your scientific hypothesis and theory from the science which is

Science, in the broadest sense, refers to any system of objective knowledge
Click to expand...

1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
Click to expand...

The floor is your Geologist Ophilolite and we will remain here as long as you wish.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top