Genesis

[watsup]

I have had pop theists try to tell me that the Bible is a "scientific" based book when that is clearly not the case. While it may get some scientific principles correct here and there, it also contains lots and lots of errors with regards to science.

Let's start with the creation myth of Genesis. Some theists say that it follow the same pattern as that stated by scientists over the billions of years since the Big Bang, and thus that God simply created the beginning of the universe and let it proceed on its own, via nature, since then.

So let's take a closer look at what Genesis has to say about creation.

Day 1: God created light and separated it from the darkness. Does that square with the Big Bang? Was there "light" yet, or did the stars have to first occur for there to be light?
Day 2: God created water and a "firmament" called heaven. I suppose that this "heaven" could be interpreted as the universe, but where exactly did the "waters" come from?
Day 3: God created dry land and also the flora of the Earth.
Day 4: God created days, years, seasons, and the sun and moon to give light to the Earth.
Day 5: God created the fish and fowl of the Earth.
Day 6: God created the animals of the Earth, to include man.

Does this sequence follow the same path as the formation of the universe, of Earth, and of evolution?

 

[NWO_Spook]

SAB: Genesis 1

 

[Triton]

No, Genesis does not match our scientific understanding of the creation of the universe and if you believe in Genesis, then you are blatantly rejecting the science. That is, unless your interpretation of Genesis is perverted to the point where you can literally construe it in any way you wish, which is an argument I have seen made from theists multiple times.

 

[Yasureoktoo]

Dude....

It's a religion...It's not real.

 

[dex4974]

the Bible is a "scientific" based book

Only a lunatic believes that.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Does this sequence follow the same path as the formation of the universe, of Earth, and of evolution?

No matter who brings this up or why there is nothing in Genesis, or anywhere else in the Bible for that matter, that is based on any facet of science.

Every single part of the Bible was written up through a period filled to the brim with bronze age myths, persistently told and retold time and time again for whatever religious and ideological reason. From roughly 2,000 years before Christ to about 200-240 years after Christ we have text that was eventually decided upon by the Roman Empire of all people. At no time was science, process, or even reason part of the discussion.

The Bible, scriptures and lessons, are not teaching science. They teach belief, that is it.

You have to fast forward all the way to the other side of the dark ages, and go up through the 1500's and 1600's to find the origins of what we call systems of process where all of a sudden we started asking questions from observations that ended up forcing conventional wisdom to adapt. Or, what we like to call science and what it does to Bronze Age myths.

We already know the earth was not created in a few days by a old and bored white haired guy sitting in the dark, just as we know woman was not created from the rib of a man just to give him some company in getting kicked out of Eden, and just as we know some 520+ year old guy did not build an ark - still have a kid or two along the way - and live up to the vibrant age of 950 (or whatever.)

This is all **** religion brings to the table, and it is just that... ****.

 

[What if...?]

No matter who brings this up or why there is nothing in Genesis, or anywhere else in the Bible for that matter, that is based on any facet of science.

Every single part of the Bible was written up through a period filled to the brim with bronze age myths, persistently told and retold time and time again for whatever religious and ideological reason. From roughly 2,000 years before Christ to about 200-240 years after Christ we have text that was eventually decided upon by the Roman Empire of all people. At no time was science, process, or even reason part of the discussion.

The Bible, scriptures and lessons, are not teaching science. They teach belief, that is it.

You have to fast forward all the way to the other side of the dark ages, and go up through the 1500's and 1600's to find the origins of what we call systems of process where all of a sudden we started asking questions from observations that ended up forcing conventional wisdom to adapt. Or, what we like to call science and what it does to Bronze Age myths.

We already know the earth was not created in a few days by a old and bored white haired guy sitting in the dark, just as we know woman was not created from the rib of a man just to give him some company in getting kicked out of Eden, and just as we know some 520+ year old guy did not build an ark - still have a kid or two along the way - and live up to the vibrant age of 950 (or whatever.)

This is all **** religion brings to the table, and it is just that... ****.

In all fairness, "the universe was formless and void" and then "Let there be light." is an awful good poetic description of the Big Bang.

That was the first thing that came to mind when I encountered the Big Bang Theory all those years ago.

As well as the concept of "intelligent design" as an explanation of obvious evolutionary processes in our world.

My child's imagery was jahweh could manifest a cake or he could bake a cake. So he could create the universe finished and whole or just start vast "machinery" and watch it all unfold.

 

[OrphanSlug]

In all fairness, "the universe was formless and void" and then "Let there be light." is an awful good poetic description of the Big Bang.

That was the first thing that came to mind when I encountered the Big Bang Theory all those years ago.

As well as the concept of "intelligent design" as an explanation of obvious evolutionary processes in our world.

My child's imagery was jahweh could manifest a cake or he could bake a cake. So he could create the universe finished and whole or just start vast "machinery" and watch it all unfold.

You are making my point for me, no one back then knew what any of that meant.

You say 'awful good poetic description,' I say accidentally getting one thing somewhat right in a sea of getting everything else dead wrong. The only way you know about Big Bang or anything else of the like is from science.

What you do not get to do is grant to those in the Bronze Age some information we did not really even start to question and create hypothesis for until 1300+ years later. In the case of Genesis roughly 3000+ years later.

 

[zyzygy]

In all fairness, "the universe was formless and void" and then "Let there be light." is an awful good poetic description of the Big Bang.

That was the first thing that came to mind when I encountered the Big Bang Theory all those years ago.

As well as the concept of "intelligent design" as an explanation of obvious evolutionary processes in our world.

My child's imagery was jahweh could manifest a cake or he could bake a cake. So he could create the universe finished and whole or just start vast "machinery" and watch it all unfold.

Not really.

The Early Universe
After the Big Bang, the universe was like a hot soup of particles (i.e. protons, neutrons, and electrons). When the universe started cooling, the protons and neutrons began combining into ionized atoms of hydrogen (and eventually some helium). These ionized atoms of hydrogen and helium attracted electrons, turning them into neutral atoms - which allowed light to travel freely for the first time, since this light was no longer scattering off free electrons. The universe was no longer opaque! However, it would still be some time (perhaps up to a few hundred million years post-Big Bang!) before the first sources of light would start to form, ending the cosmic dark ages.
First Light & Reionization - Webb/NASA!)

In the very high density of the early universe, ionized matter and radiation were tightly coupled until the first atoms formed, creating a neutral medium that allowed radiation to pass. From then on the universe was mostly transparent, but it was dark, because there were no sources of light.
Opacity of Early Universe | American Scientist

Evolution has no goal, no future plans and nobody is designing it.

 

[What if...?]

You are making my point for me, no one back then knew what any of that meant.

You say 'awful good poetic description,' I say accidentally getting one thing somewhat right in a sea of getting everything else dead wrong. The only way you know about Big Bang or anything else of the like is from science.

What you do not get to do is grant to those in the Bronze Age some information we did not really even start to question and create hypothesis for until 1300+ years later. In the case of Genesis roughly 3000+ years later.

I have my own cosmology, and jahweh is at best a usurper and at worst a complete fabrication in it.

I just remember making that connection the first time I heard tthe big bang explained.

Life is stranger than a purely mechanical explanation for me. I have seen far too many odd things during my life that seem to support the premise than consciousness and reality interact with each other, that our perceived reality is shaped by our expectations and preconceptions in some way.

I don't need to define it farther than that. Nobody knows while they're alive and nobody has ever heard conclusively from anybody dead that there is anything after death.

My favorite shorthand is "We exist so the Universe can look at itself."

 

[zyzygy]

I have my own cosmology, and jahweh is at best a usurper and at worst a complete fabrication in it.

I just remember making that connection the first time I heard tthe big bang explained.

Life is stranger than a purely mechanical explanation for me. I have seen far too many odd things during my life that seem to support the premise than consciousness and reality interact with each other, that our perceived reality is shaped by our expectations and preconceptions in some way.

I don't need to define it farther than that. Nobody knows while they're alive and nobody has ever heard conclusively from anybody dead that there is anything after death.

My favorite shorthand is "We exist so the Universe can look at itself."

The universe was around long before we were. And Genesis is garbage.

 

[What if...?]

Not really.

The Early Universe
After the Big Bang, the universe was like a hot soup of particles (i.e. protons, neutrons, and electrons). When the universe started cooling, the protons and neutrons began combining into ionized atoms of hydrogen (and eventually some helium). These ionized atoms of hydrogen and helium attracted electrons, turning them into neutral atoms - which allowed light to travel freely for the first time, since this light was no longer scattering off free electrons. The universe was no longer opaque! However, it would still be some time (perhaps up to a few hundred million years post-Big Bang!) before the first sources of light would start to form, ending the cosmic dark ages.
First Light & Reionization - Webb/NASA!)

In the very high density of the early universe, ionized matter and radiation were tightly coupled until the first atoms formed, creating a neutral medium that allowed radiation to pass. From then on the universe was mostly transparent, but it was dark, because there were no sources of light.
Opacity of Early Universe | American Scientist

Evolution has no goal, no future plans and nobody is designing it.

I'm not making declarative statements here. As a storyteller's version of "there was nothing and then there was everything", "Let there be light" is hard to beat.

And as to intelligent design, my point was that when I understood evolution I did not see a conflict with the idea of a creator. That the method might be more akin to baking a cake than instant manifestation. Or all just a side effect of our experience of spacetime being a linear thing and a creator of spacetime would not be bound by it so would perceive the entirety of a spacetime universe as a simultaneity. The "question" answered in the moment it was "asked".

I just think it's more fun to infuse a little imagination than settle for the "you live you die and that's it" of atheism. None of us know for sure. And if it's all just chance and one shot I should have been killing assholes years ago. They are slowly making my life less easy and increasing the suffering of others that I have to witness. If there is no point, then why not remove them from my experience?

 

[What if...?]

The universe was around long before we were. And Genesis is garbage.

You are presuming that nothing exists outside of our spacetime. I suspect we exist in myriad spacetimes, each created for the purpose of the experiences they contain.

Nobody really knows, and physics has holes where damn near anything could "be".

 

[zyzygy]

You are presuming that nothing exists outside of our spacetime. I suspect we exist in myriad spacetimes, each created for the purpose of the experiences they contain.

Nobody really knows, and physics has holes where damn near anything could "be".

Created by what?

 

[zyzygy]

Some of these tall tales are hard to beat.

16 Incredible Ancient Creation Stories from Around the World

List of creation myths - Wikipedia

 

[What if...?]

Created by what?

Itself? Who knows.

Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense.

We don't know and can't say for certain.

I don't have confidence in the accuracy of any of the abrahamic death cults, but some guy showed up with a new way of looking at life and living together at some point in most cultures. A way that resonated and loved on as a result.

And all of those ways boil down to the same "way" with allowances for variances in pre existing belief systems.

Some version of the Golden Rule, when stripped of all the embellishments added since they lived.

It's interesting. And I don't have whatever it is that makes the vast majority of people need an answer to the question of what happens when you die. I am happy to alter my conception as new information or simple whimsy provide it.

 

[watsup]

Itself? Who knows.

Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense.

We don't know and can't say for certain.

I don't have confidence in the accuracy of any of the abrahamic death cults, but some guy showed up with a new way of looking at life and living together at some point in most cultures. A way that resonated and loved on as a result.

And all of those ways boil down to the same "way" with allowances for variances in pre existing belief systems.

Some version of the Golden Rule, when stripped of all the embellishments added since they lived.

It's interesting. And I don't have whatever it is that makes the vast majority of people need an answer to the question of what happens when you die. I am happy to alter my conception as new information or simple whimsy provide it.

The "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" motto is often used by the pop theists to claim that "there might be a God" and that can't automatically be discounted, but the statement if basically akin to nonsenses. The same saying could be used to claim that there might be wood fairies or bigfoot or Santa Claus. Absence of evidence means basically means that the entity to which it refers has no evidence to undergird it and the LOGICAL conclusion is that such entity simply does not exist.

 

[What if...?]

The "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" motto is often used by the pop theists to claim that "there might be a God" and that can't automatically be discounted, but the statement if basically akin to nonsenses. The same saying could be used to claim that there might be wood fairies or bigfoot or Santa Claus. Absence of evidence means basically means that the entity to which it refers has no evidence to undergird it and the LOGICAL conclusion is that such entity simply does not exist.

Yes. But as there is interaction between consciousness and "reality" then what we perceive is partially a thing of our making.

So who can really say what the ultimate nature of the universe is?

And it is also good to remember that much of what we take for granted today was impossible or inconceivable not too long ago.

 

[gboisjo]

I am 99.9% sure when you die your dead. Everything you were or could have been is gone forever. So, make the best
out of your brief stay as a human ..its all one gets.

IMHO, If there is some sort of creator we don't know what is. More than likely there is a scientific explanation for the origin of the universe, however, we may never figure it out.

Genesis, for the lack of a better word, is a joke. However, I try to refrain from going after believers as it usually part
of a persons belief system. For that reason its as valid as anyone's real or not .

 

[zyzygy]

Itself? Who knows.

Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense.

We don't know and can't say for certain.

I don't have confidence in the accuracy of any of the abrahamic death cults, but some guy showed up with a new way of looking at life and living together at some point in most cultures. A way that resonated and loved on as a result.

And all of those ways boil down to the same "way" with allowances for variances in pre existing belief systems.

Some version of the Golden Rule, when stripped of all the embellishments added since they lived.

It's interesting. And I don't have whatever it is that makes the vast majority of people need an answer to the question of what happens when you die. I am happy to alter my conception as new information or simple whimsy provide it.

You don't see a problem there?

 

[What if...?]

You don't see a problem there?

I believe that any entity capable of creating a universe would be as inconceivable to us as we are to a mouse.

No actual "meeting of the minds" is possible. We would have to be entities capable of creating a universe for that.

My cosmology comes down to two major "veins".

The Godhead, the Universal "Is", whatever you want to call it, either split itself into pieces or created new "baby Is's. For which it created an infinite multiverse for all of those new "souls" to experience everything that can be experienced in soacetime and other types of universes.

So It could experience itself, and eventually have "peer". Someone to really talk to, you know? Friends, family.

This cosmology provides acceptable explanations for every observable "wrong" in the world we live in. For instance, how does Jahweh explain babies who are born into pain and live briefly in agony and die. What is the point to that in the Abrahamic universe?

In all of mine (there are a couple of other variants) that llfe provided the experience of being born in pain living briefly in agony and dying. Whcih sounds kind of terrible to people who believe they live once and die. Eternally judged or vanishing into nothing after this single existence.

Nobody knows what's really going on. I've seen enough "impossible" and often ridiculously specific things to accept a completely mechanistic explanation, especially after acceptance that there is fundamental interaction between "reality" and consciousness, and the god of the abrahamic faiths is far too much a characature of the very worst in human beings for me to believe "he" is responsible for the amazing and whimsical universe we live in.

 

[grip]

I believe that any entity capable of creating a universe would be as inconceivable to us as we are to a mouse.

No actual "meeting of the minds" is possible. We would have to be entities capable of creating a universe for that.

My cosmology comes down to two major "veins".

The Godhead, the Universal "Is", whatever you want to call it, either split itself into pieces or created new "baby Is's. For which it created an infinite multiverse for all of those new "souls" to experience everything that can be experienced in soacetime and other types of universes.

So It could experience itself, and eventually have "peer". Someone to really talk to, you know? Friends, family.

This cosmology provides acceptable explanations for every observable "wrong" in the world we live in. For instance, how does Jahweh explain babies who are born into pain and live briefly in agony and die. What is the point to that in the Abrahamic universe?

In all of mine (there are a couple of other variants) that llfe provided the experience of being born in pain living briefly in agony and dying. Whcih sounds kind of terrible to people who believe they live once and die. Eternally judged or vanishing into nothing after this single existence.

Nobody knows what's really going on. I've seen enough "impossible" and often ridiculously specific things to accept a completely mechanistic explanation, especially after acceptance that there is fundamental interaction between "reality" and consciousness, and the god of the abrahamic faiths is far too much a characature of the very worst in human beings for me to believe "he" is responsible for the amazing and whimsical universe we live in.

This ↑ in the bold...