Does creation in genesis reflect reality


(Marvin Adams) #1

Continuing the discussion from How can Genesis be interpreted to agree with Theistic Evolution?:

sounds like the claim by an atheist “not to believe” not to be a believe as he could not see the evidence, e.g. dismissing you and your statement as unworthy of being evidence

Similarly:
"@gbrooks9 to
@pacificmaelstrom,

My dear Jamie, I think you are making this up as you go along.

If readers struggle with REAL science… how are we going to get anyone to accept your suppositions and speculations?"

The sequence described by Jamie in

is to me (apart from not thinking of birds and dinosaurs as the prime examples coming to mind) realistic to observed reality. Now would you want to make your readers wonder about where earth was before it experienced cyclic day and night? Also tell me about light. Tell me if there were photons before mass existed or do you think God created mass first and photons later. Do the beancounters insist that there is no light before the sun was visible from earth?

Try to write an executive summary of reality fit for a child to understand but coherent with reality as far as you understand it. And to be true to yourself you have to include the emotional reality that might even have predated the existence of the material reality (unless you have no evidence for an emotional reality).

Good luck trying to do that involving higher math, relativity and genetics :slight_smile: and then admire it compared to the handiwork of what is written in Genesis “by some primitive goat herders void of our “scientific” knowlege”.


(Jamie) #2

I’m not sure if you were disagreeing or agreeing with me on this but there was light before the sun is visible on Earth just like there is light on an overcast day when you cannot see the sun. That is why light comes before the sun. Venus has a large amount of carbon dioxide in its atmosphere and scientists believe that Earth used to have a similar atmospheric composition. The early ancestors of plants remove that carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and replace it with oxygen. This resulted in a clear atmosphere from which the sun was visible.


(Jo Helen Cox) #3

I see Genesis 1 as circular poetry. It follows the poetic requirements beautifully. That is how it would have been read before misunderstanding turned it into a linear list. A list distorts the connections made, which are obvious in the poem. When read as circular poetry, all the scientific problems that you mention go away. All of them. The creation story is the story of reality. Poetically Harmonizing Genesis with Science

I also believe Genesis 1 was a vision of reality. It took a master poet to write this masterpiece of literature that describes the reality of nature from the Big Bang to the introduction of humanity without any of our current knowledge available to him. That kind of vision requires inspiration from the God mentioned in the text. Divine inspiration lets the words in this text speak to all the generations and in the context of each generation’s understanding of the cosmos.

Of course, there are those on this site that reject the concept of concordism. I reject reading this inspired text as a myth when it can be viewed as reality described by modern science.


(Marvin Adams) #4

I very much agree with you but I would also consider where a considerable amount of “the earth” was before it ended up orbiting the sun.
not sure why you think early ancestors of plants would remove the CO2 as I would just think them to be plants which according to Genesis existed before the sun or the moon were in the sky.


(Marvin Adams) #5

thanks for the link. Considering the disagreement in science I would not worry too much anyhow and I would consider the flying things called insects likely to predate the birds anyhow. Sure with time I’ll go through the thread you linked.


(Jamie) #6

When you’re a plant, you remove CO2 from the atmosphere. It’s what you do.


#7

Very true, and a very important point. Plants take in carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and give off oxygen. We humans do just the opposite. We can thank plants for our breathable atmosphere!


(Phil) #8

Yes, but if a plant rots in the forest, it takes just as much oxygen to decompose it (or to burn it ) as it produced in it’s lifetime. Perhaps with should thank those algae and such that fall to the bottom of the sea un-oxidized.


(George Brooks) #9

@pacificmaelstrom

“… just like there is light on an overcast day when you cannot see the sun…”

I guess you can mix in miraculous ideas as much as you want… Apparently you think God CREATED THE EARTH with an overcast sky (miracles are funny, right?).

And then God REMOVED the CARBON DIOXIDE in a day … another amazing miracles.

So … as for miracles … have at it. But please don’t offer these explanations as scientific solutions to the implausible developments outlined in Genesis. There is no science for clearing the Earth’s sky in less than a week.


#10

But plants need light to do this. If the overcast is so thick you can’t see the sun there won’t be a lot of light for photosynthesis.


(Marvin Adams) #11

consider blue skies a fairly recent invention.


(Marvin Adams) #12

"
I guess you can mix in miraculous ideas as much as you want… Apparently you think God CREATED THE EARTH with an overcast sky (miracles are funny, right?)."
looks like a miracle is needed for you to understand genesis. Do you think it also describes God making mud pie humans?


(George Brooks) #13

@marvin

I’m a little confused by your overall approach. You describe an overcast planet that within a week has clear blue skies… and yet you doubt that God made humans out of red earth.

I can’t tell what you are thinking …


(Marvin Adams) #14

I can’t tell what you are reading either. I must have missed the bit where anyone claimed that God would have created the earth with a blue sky or cleared the atmosphere in a day or week.
I hope you realised that that the text in parenthesis was quoting your own.


(George Brooks) #15

@marvin

I think you could have done a better job of making the following 3 things more clear:

  1. What part is quoting me.
  2. What part is sarcasm… (or irony?), and
  3. What part is YOUR position.

(George Brooks) #16

@pacificmaelstrom’s words were the source of my posting @marvin

“That is why light comes before the sun. Venus has a large amount of carbon dioxide in its atmosphere and scientists believe that Earth used to have a similar atmospheric composition. The early ancestors of plants remove that carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and replace it with oxygen. This resulted in a clear atmosphere from which the sun was visible.”

Pacific’s analysis requires the following conclusions:

  1. God creates light … then 3 days later the sun.
  2. Despite the obvious problem in sequencing … he thinks this JUSTIFIES what we read in the account.
  3. So the global cloud cover DISAPPEARS by day 4 when we all see the sun - - that has actually been there since the first day that light appears.

(Marvin Adams) #17

It should not have taken you that much effort to recognise your own text in my text considering those little " marks.

Have you ever considered that light would have existed before the sun or are you so heliocentric that you think the sun was the first part of the universe. And if you think “c*m^2” came before “e”, please explain why.

Did @pacificmaelstrom say anything about 4 days? you could imagine some rather fast plants or perhaps someone with a gigantic hover sucking the dust out if the earth atmosphere :slight_smile:

Good luck with your miracle


(George Brooks) #18

@marvin

What exactly do you think you are disputing? I wouldn’t be surprised if @Pacificmaelstrom intentionally avoided the reference to days in creation… But we know that the Sun is not CREATED until Day 4. So proposing that the Bible scribes MEANT TO SAY that the Sun was not VISIBLE until Day 4 is - well - hilarious.

As for the idea that LIGHT filled the Universe before there was matter … I’m delighted with your interest in the Cosmological sciences that go with that idea. But that’s not what Pacific has been arguing:

He says the SUN was created, but no one could see it because of the Earth being blanketed in overcast skies. But Pacific says the Sun is the source of light (not the Big Bang) - - and that it only SEEMED that the Sun was created on Day 4 - - because it took until Day 4 for the overcast skies to be dispelled.


(Bill) #19

The (unfortunate) truth of this matter is that the only possible way to get the Genesis account of creation to agree with evolution is to say that the Bible does not mean what it says. The Genesis accounts have to be interpreted “poetically” or “mythically” or “metaphorically” or some other way which means that they do not, in fact, mean what they say. God, being God, could have superintended the writing of this text so that it perfectly lined up with science and reality as we understand it. But, for whatever reason, he did not do so. So it is the case that science and religion are simply not compatible if we are going to stay with the plain sense of the text. If we are not going to stay with the plain sense of the text (with what it says), then we open the text up to mean anything we want it to. And I doubt the original authors intended that we should do that. I’m more comfortable saying that they were simply wrong about how the Cosmos came to be, rather than trying to “save the Bible” by saying that it doesn’t mean what it says. Best wishes to all. Bill


(Mervin Bitikofer) #20

So it’s either “my way” (the text must mean what [I think] it plainly says), or the “highway” (it can mean anything at all). Never mind the inconvenient existence of the entire world in between.

How hard it must be to let go of those stark dichotomies!