The BIBLE and SCIENCE

[betsy]

There are a lot of questions about Creationism in the other co-related evolution threads, so this thread was created to avoid too much clutters, for easy follow-ups, references....and because it deserves to have its own thread.

Be forewarned: most, if not all of the sources will come from Scientists-Christian Apologetics. I, myself, am learning about them as I go along with this.

We'll begin from the BEGINNING.

The following are excerpts from Richard L. Deem:

You are about to read the Genesis creation account and see (probably) for the first time what the text really says. My only request is that you pray for spiritual guidance, since the Holy Spirit can teach us what our pride usually rejects.

Genesis 1:1

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."

Volumes have been written about the first verse of Genesis. There are a two main interpretations of what this verse really means. Some say that the verse is a summary of the rest of the Genesis creation account. Others say that the verse represents the first creative act of God. How can we tell which interpretation is correct?

Day 1

The answer is really quite simple - keep reading! Reading Genesis 1:1 or any other Bible verse outside its context is one of the worst things that a person can do.2 When we look at Genesis 1:2,3 we see that it begins with the conjunction "and."

fact immediately tells us that Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 are part of one continuous thought. Remove the period at the end of Genesis 1:1 and read it as originally intended:

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth and the earth was formless and void...

The conjunction at the beginning of Genesis 1:2 tells us that Genesis 1:1 is not a summary of the creation account! This verse is a factual statement of what God did at the beginning of the first day.

There are other context clues that tell us that this is not a summary statement. If we continue reading the Genesis creation account, we come to the real summary at the end (Genesis 2:1).4 It would be superfluous to have a second summary at the beginning. As we continue to read Genesis one, we will notice how succinct the creation account really is.

So, we conclude that the text claims that God created the heavens and earth on the first day. What do the heavens consist of? Stars, galaxies, etc. So, we know that God created, at minimum, the stars and the earth. Actually, the Hebrew phrase translated "heaven and earth" refer to the entire created universe.

Some people claim that God created the earth first and that the rest of the heavenly bodies were created later. However, we are led to contemplate why God said that He created the "heavens and the earth." To accept this interpretation, we would have to say that God created "nothing" and the earth. If God had only created the earth, the Genesis 1:1 would have said, "In the beginning God created the earth." So, we can safely say that God created the entire heavens and earth at the beginning of the first creation day.

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis1.html

Richard L. Deem received his bachelor of science degree in biological sciences at the University of Southern California. He received his master of science degree in microbiology from California State University, Los Angeles, and has been working in basic science research since 1976. He has authored and co-authored a number of studies, included several areas of molecular biology and genetics, immunology, inflammatory bowel disease, natural killer cells, and infectious diseases. In addition, he has presented his work at a number of national and international scientific meetings.

Edited May 28, 2009 by betsy

[betsy]

Genesis 1:2 - the early earth

Those interpretations that claim Genesis 1:1 is just a summary have a problem in this next verse.

If Genesis 1:1 is just a summary, then there is no mention in Genesis of God creating matter - it is just suddenly mentioned as if it had existed all along. Such a model is compatible with the LDS (Mormon) theology, but not Christianity.

It is important in Genesis 1:2 to examine the context and the perspective to determine where the action is happening. Let's read the text:

And the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. (Genesis 1:2)

Where is God? In heaven? In outer space? NO! God, our personal Creator and Savior, is on the surface of the waters of the earth doing His creating "up close and personal." Imagine that - God personally came to earth to create and shape it for habitation! The important thing about this verse is that it defines the conditions as they appeared from God's perspective on the surface of the earth. What are the conditions? "...the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep..." Why was the earth dark? Genesis one does not say, but other creation accounts in the Bible do say.

In fact, in the book of Job, God Himself tells us the answer:

"Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? ...When I made a cloud its garment, And thick darkness its swaddling band" (Job 38:4-9)5

So, we know that when God created the earth it was dark because it was covered with thick clouds. This fact will be important to understand the next few verses.

Richard L. Deem

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis1.html

Edited May 28, 2009 by betsy

[betsy]

LET THERE BE LIGHT.

Genesis 1:3 begins with another conjunction, so we know it is part of the continuing action. God is still on the surface of the earth. "And God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light." Where is the light? It's on the surface of the earth for the first time. Where does the light come from. The text does not say directly, but it gives a lot of clues. Did God create the light? No! If God had created the light, the text would have said so, like it does in the rest of Genesis one. It says that God "let it be."

Let's read the rest of the first day to get the clues.

"And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day." (Genesis 1:4-5)

How long is day 1?

Many Christians assume that all the Genesis creation days are exactly 24-hours long. Neither the Genesis 1 text nor other Bible verses directly address how long the first day was. However, there were a lot of things that happened on the first day. God created the entire universe. There are other Bible verses that address at least part of how God created the universe. No fewer than 11 verses from five different inspired authors claim that God stretches out the heavens.6

Many of these verses use present tense, indicating that God is still stretching out the heavens. How long did it take to stretch out the trillions and trillions of stars. The Bible doesn't say, but if we measure the current rate that the universe is being stretched, it would suggest a very long time.

Notice that every thought is begun with a conjunction, so we know that all of this is part of the continuing action. The text says that there was day and night on the earth on the first day. This tells us that the light that was shining on the earth was directional (from one source). Let's put it all together. God created the earth with a thick layer of clouds around it that caused it to be dark.

When God said "Let there be light" it is most logical to conclude that God removed at least some of those thick clouds so that light would fall on the surface of the earth. Where did the light come from? The Sun shining on a rotating earth. You might protest, "But the text never said God created the Sun." It actually does. As stated previously, the Hebrew term "the heavens and the earth" in Genesis 1:1 refers to the entire created universe. So, the Sun, stars, and earth were all created at the beginning of day 1.

Richard L. Deem

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis1.html

Edited May 28, 2009 by betsy

[M.Dancer]

There are a lot of questions about Creationism in the other co-related evolution threads,

I didn't see any question...just an out right dismissal by most and a couple of luddites claiming that a supernatural being made everything by simply wishing it...

Better not be a god cause if I ever see it I going to lay a citizen's arrest on it for crimes against humanity.

[M.Dancer]

Wanted

• For
  
  
• Crimes Against Humanity
  
  
• Murder
  
  
• Mass Murder
  
  
• Infanticide
  
  
• Genocide
  
  
• Use of Weapons of Mass Destruction against Civilians
  
  
• Rape
  
  
• Ethnic Cleansing
  
  
• Torture
  
  

God

Also known as

• The Big Guy
  
  
• Yawah
  
  
• Jehovah
  
  
• Zeus
  
  
• Vishnu
  
  
• Allah
  
  
• Ba'al
  
  
• Satan
  
  
• Lucifer
  
  

Suspect may be many armed and dangerous, approach with indignation

[ToadBrother]

Richard L. Deem

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis1.html

Wow, you found a guy who claims credentials who is a Creationist. If he's authored some papers, perhaps you could provide a link to them, or at least citations where those papers are used to justify the Genesis creation story.

Or did he ever actually publish papers on that particular subject? Do you, in fact, know anything about his credentials?

Let's start with the actual papers he's published. Care to provide a list?

[DogOnPorch]

Let's start with the actual papers he's published. Care to provide a list?

To prevent disappointment, betsy is unlikely to provide you with a list of anything. Faith...yah know. I do enjoy YOUR posts, however.

[Chuck U. Farlie]

No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says; he is always convinced that it says what he means. (Shaw)

[GostHacked]

holy hell, a 4th thread??

And you are talking about literal intepretations of the bible? And I guess the key word here is interpreting the bible. What the fuzzuck does it really mean to humanity?

If the bible is right, all other religious texts are wrong. And all science books will be wrong. Yes ALL of the science books will be wrong.

[ToadBrother]

holy hell, a 4th thread??

And you are talking about literal intepretations of the bible? And I guess the key word here is interpreting the bible. What the fuzzuck does it really mean to humanity?

If the bible is right, all other religious texts are wrong. And all science books will be wrong. Yes ALL of the science books will be wrong.

It isn't just if the Bible is right, it's if any particular interpretation of the Bible is right. For those of the Creationist bent, there are a plethora of interpretations. Some folks are OECs (Old Earth Creationists, interpreting the Creative Days as more like epochs), some folks are YECs (Young Earth Creationists, who insist the Creative Days are literal 24 hour periods). Some folk believe every single last species was specially created, some folks believe that Biblical "kind" are more like a genus, or maybe even some higher level taxonomic rank. Some don't even have a single definition of "kind", lumping all birds together, for instance, but tending to split mammals along major family lines (ie. cats, dogs, cows, etc.). Some accept microevolution, some accept limited macroevolution (speciation).

About the only thing you can meaningfully guarantee about all Creationists is, no matter how much or how little evolution they accept, how old or young they think the Earth, whether they believe llamas and sheep are related, each and every one will insist that humans are not apes.

[DogOnPorch]

holy hell, a 4th thread??

She lost the last three. So here we go again. It's a standard tactic in some forums to create multiple threads on the same subject forcing those against to fight the battle several times. Tedious.

dub does it re: the Jews.

[ToadBrother]

She lost the last three. So here we go again. It's a standard tactic in some forums to create multiple threads on the same subject forcing those against to fight the battle several times. Tedious.

dub does it re: the Jews.

I notice some variation between threads. She seems to be trying a number of different tacts. Now she's going for the "I've got this guy whose an AUTHORITY and he denies evolution", though I haven't been able to find any information as to his actual qualifications (a Bachelors doesn't exactly convince me that we're in fact dealing with someone who is any meaningful sense a scientist, but Creationists are usually forced to take who they can get).

[betsy]

Far from losing....this all-out guns ablazing reactions shows I must've really hit a nerve! The hounds are all yapping and yipping on my heels!

It's bad enough that you're in denial....but you're denying that there had been questions about Creationisms in the other threads - asking about dinosaurs, young earth blah-blah-blah....and now that I decided to give you a head-on rebutt, what's your reaction??? Not interested.

Of course you're not interested. I know why. You know why. Who are we kidding?

You can deny, dismiss and fib your way around it all you want. Coming from a bunch who end up clinging to science fiction writers for serious answers...what a joke.

[M.Dancer]

Far from losing....this all-out guns ablazing reactions shows I must've really hit a nerve! The hounds are all yapping and yipping on my heels!

It's bad enough that you're in denial....but you're denying that there had been questions about Creationisms in the other threads - asking about dinosaurs, young earth blah-blah-blah....and now that I decided to give you a head-on rebutt, what's your reaction??? Not interested.

Of course you're not interested. I know why. You know why. Who are we kidding?

You can deny, dismiss and fib your way around it all you want. Coming from a bunch who end up clinging to science fiction writers for serious answers...what a joke.

Please cite a few of those questions.

[WIP]

Yawn, yawn, yawn!

Here goes betsy again, but this time science is okay if it just happens to vaguely coincide with a few verses from the Bible. Instead of wasting time on this latest challenge, I want betsy to first evaluate the verses in the Quran, which are proved by science.........at least according to Muslims.

Here you go! http://www.islam101.com/science/bucaille.html

Now, refute all of the claims that the Quran is proved by scientific discoveries -- that should keep you busy for several days, and cut down on the annoying clutter of Bible-based creationism.

[ToadBrother]

Far from losing....this all-out guns ablazing reactions shows I must've really hit a nerve! The hounds are all yapping and yipping on my heels!

It's a strange hobby of mine to humiliate people like you. Like I said, I've met far cleverer Creationists than you. I've even met a few who actually know what evolution is, who actually are familiar with some of the literature. You don't appear to know anything about evolution, and it's very clear you haven't read anything by an actual expert in the field.

It's bad enough that you're in denial....but you're denying that there had been questions about Creationisms in the other threads - asking about dinosaurs, young earth blah-blah-blah....and now that I decided to give you a head-on rebutt, what's your reaction??? Not interested.

There's nothing sadder than misplaced bravado.

Of course you're not interested. I know why. You know why. Who are we kidding?

You can deny, dismiss and fib your way around it all you want. Coming from a bunch who end up clinging to science fiction writers for serious answers...what a joke.

You have yet to answer a single one of my challenges, and now you're stuck with what amounts to "nyah nyah nyah".

[DogOnPorch]

Far from losing....this all-out guns ablazing reactions shows I must've really hit a nerve! The hounds are all yapping and yipping on my heels!

It's a forum. You're the one starting the threads.

We could always just limit things to posting

....awwwww...SO CUTE!

[ToadBrother]

It's a forum. You're the one starting the threads.

It seems like she's starting threads now with the express purpose of declaring victory.

[sharkman]

It's a strange hobby of mine to humiliate people like you. Like I said, I've met far cleverer Creationists than you. I've even met a few who actually know what evolution is, who actually are familiar with some of the literature. You don't appear to know anything about evolution, and it's very clear you haven't read anything by an actual expert in the field.

Well, nothing like intellectual arrogance to aid your cause. Tell me Mr. toadbrother, how do evolutionists say the universe began, A big bang? And what caused that to happen? How did life begin on earth? The best they can come up with is that matter on CRYSTALS began the first cells as the crystals did some hocus pocus on them. I am not making this up.

Or if the evolutionists really trust you, in a moment of weakness they will say it's possible that ALIENS SEEDED THE EARTH with life. Again, I am not making this up. They offer no word on who created the aliens, however.

Another theory is that a bolt of lightning hitting mud started the process of life, but in the 50's some schmuck scientist proved to himself that he could not get any life to start when he experimented with lightning and mud over and over again repeatedly. Some say it started to smell good, which is where mud pies came from.

If that's the best the brightest minds in the world can come up with after hundreds of years and the power of computers, then perhaps those that oppose ID need to realize there is nothing better coming from their side.

[Chuck U. Farlie]

So are you saying, sharkman, that it is better to believe in some imaginary god in the sky that magically created everything than to slowly explain what we can through observation and experimentation - and for everything else say "We don't know - yet"? Rational people have no problem saying that everything is not understood - and at least rational people use reasonable means to find out what we don't yet know - unlike those that have endless faith in holy texts.

I would love to believe in fairy tales, but I am afraid I am not that delusional.

I do not think it is necessary to believe that the same God who has given us our senses, reason, and intelligence wished us to abandon their use, giving us by some other means the information that we could gain through them. Galileo Galilei

Edited May 29, 2009 by Chuck U. Farlie

[sharkman]

Well consider this chuck, the best minds in the world believe in the fairy tale of aliens seeding life on earth. You may not want to believe in a fairy tale, but they do believe in one.

All I am saying is this earth has the appearance of an intelligent designer, it's just too fantastic to have happened all by itself. That is not as much a fairy tale as believing in aliens, or crystals, or lightning, no matter how deluded you get.

I would submit that rational people don't put blind faith in such as those. Rational people also don't decide what the answer is for the genesis of the universe and then look at the evidence, throwing out anything that disagrees with their preconceived answers and keeping old monkey bones as the missing link.

Edited May 29, 2009 by sharkman

[CANADIEN]

As I once heard somebody say about literal interpretation of Genisis (or poor attempt at making it pass as a science text) - "it's a bit insulting towards god to say that is not able of inspiring people to write an allegory".

The Bible is many good things to me. what it is not is a science book.

[Chuck U. Farlie]

Well consider this chuck, the best minds in the world believe in the fairy tale of aliens seeding life on earth. You may not want to believe in a fairy tale, but they do believe in one.

All I am saying is this earth has the appearance of an intelligent designer, it's just too fantastic to have happened all by itself. That is not as much a fairy tale as believing in aliens, or crystals, or lightning, no matter how deluded you get.

I would submit that rational people don't put blind faith in such as those. Rational people also don't decide what the answer is for the genesis of the universe and then look at the evidence, throwing out anything that disagrees with their preconceived answers and keeping old monkey bones as the missing link.

Fair enough - if true. I think many scientists would say things like "It is possible that... (insert hypothesis here)". I have never read anything that claimed with absolute conviction that the earth was seeded by alien life or by a bolt of lighting.

Anyway, why do you (or anyone else) need to believe in any of these things or what other people believe? What is wrong with saying 'I don't know'? I don't know how life started. I don't know how the universe came to be. And I certainly don't know what, if anything, will happen after death - and I don't care either. All those things are irrelevant and don't change how I am going to live my life now.

What is relevant is the science that can improve our lives today - and one of those sciences that help to improve our life is the study of evolution - especially when it comes to understanding how bacteria and viruses operate, and in understanding genetics.

[GostHacked]

Well, nothing like intellectual arrogance to aid your cause. Tell me Mr. toadbrother, how do evolutionists say the universe began, A big bang? And what caused that to happen? How did life begin on earth? The best they can come up with is that matter on CRYSTALS began the first cells as the crystals did some hocus pocus on them. I am not making this up.

Biological evolution simply does not deal with the big bang, or how like emerged on earth. Evolution is the changes in life forms over time. This was covered in the other 3 threads you need to read first.

Or if the evolutionists really trust you, in a moment of weakness they will say it's possible that ALIENS SEEDED THE EARTH with life. Again, I am not making this up. They offer no word on who created the aliens, however.

Anything is possible. It really comes down to probability of it happening.

Another theory is that a bolt of lightning hitting mud started the process of life, but in the 50's some schmuck scientist proved to himself that he could not get any life to start when he experimented with lightning and mud over and over again repeatedly. Some say it started to smell good, which is where mud pies came from.

Hey there Kent 'serving-time-for-tax-evasion' Hovind.

Incorrect. You have posed a hypothesis. Once you have enough evidence then it becomes a working theory. And in science all theories are backed up by scientific evidence. Gravity was a hypothesis untill tests and research was done. We still don't know everything about gravity yet, but we can say for damn sure we know what it is about.

tIf that's the best the brightest minds in the world can come up with after hundreds of years and the power of computers, then perhaps those that oppose ID need to realize there is nothing better coming from their side.

Toadbrother, WIP, DogOnPorch ..... this is too funny.

[GostHacked]

The Bible is many good things to me. what it is not is a science book.

Preach on good sir!!!! The bible is a guideline for life and morals and how to live. And the fact that there are so many religions and with so many different beliefs and so many different versions of creationism. ....... I fail to see how a literal intepretation of the bible is science at all.