[__ Science __ ] Genesis chapter 1, the creation vs. Science. (1/3)

Moody

Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2023
Messages
11
Reaction score
2
My following knowledge was acquired long time ago from a well known pastor and eschatology from a guy.

The 6 days of creation was often attacked by non believers, they said no facts and not scientific, indeed it was, due to most of our knowledge and theological explanations. So today, I'm going to clear up this vague.

First of all, just ignore all the theology explanations, and let us base on the bible words itself. In order to explain it correctly, we have to explain the words exactly, cannot add nor minus, cannot distorted, and also conform to science.

"Created" appear on verse 1, and "made" on fifth day, and "created" on sixth day of human creation, aside from these, first to fourth day, the bible didn't said it is created or made.

Next we observed, water is already existed before day 1, See verse 2:

"And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

Base on above, we can now say that God really created the universe, the earth, the sun and all of them, but it just the earth became without form... note the original text "earth was without form" can be translated to "earth became without form" It is not possible for God to create an earth without form, or darkness, and so God already created a beautiful earth before verse 1, how beautiful? there are dinosaurs and all sorts of prehistoric animals, plants etc... how long have it be been? wee don't know, but base on science, we do have some knowledge about those billions years ago's earth.

Now we think, who or how the beautiful world of prehistoric destroyed? Ans. Satan is already exist before verse 1, our world now is more or less 10 thousand years. It is a correct assumption that Satan destroyed prehistoric world.

So the assumption, when God use water to flood all over the earth, the surface of the water was covered heavily by clouds, and so the sun light cannot shine thru, note that only "darkness was upon the face of the deep." and other places were not, because outer space, sun and others were already exist, already created.

Then God said "let there be light, and there was light", this light is absolutely from the sun, because only the sun can let the earth having "night" and "day", and so every day of re-creation is ended in "And the evening was, and the morning was etc."

conclusion: verse 1's "in the beginning", in original text, is later than that John 1:1's "in the beginning" so this is the flow... John 1:1 literally said that the universe haven't existed yet, not even time, space and matter existed, and then Genesis 1:1, God created time, in the time container, then God created space (heaven) in it, then in the space-time container, God created matters (earth) in it. So actually verse 1 is God created the universe, including earth and also everything on earth, dinosaurs... they are just not written down, and even if write down all those creation in the bible, how can they understand those creatures? obviously not at ancient time, we know now that is because of science and technology.

to be continue...
 
My following knowledge was acquired long time ago from a well known pastor and eschatology from a guy.

The 6 days of creation was often attacked by non believers, they said no facts and not scientific, indeed it was, due to most of our knowledge and theological explanations. So today, I'm going to clear up this vague.

First of all, just ignore all the theology explanations, and let us base on the bible words itself. In order to explain it correctly, we have to explain the words exactly, cannot add nor minus, cannot distorted, and also conform to science.

"Created" appear on verse 1, and "made" on fifth day, and "created" on sixth day of human creation, aside from these, first to fourth day, the bible didn't said it is created or made.

Next we observed, water is already existed before day 1, See verse 2:

"And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

Base on above, we can now say that God really created the universe, the earth, the sun and all of them, but it just the earth became without form... note the original text "earth was without form" can be translated to "earth became without form" It is not possible for God to create an earth without form, or darkness, and so God already created a beautiful earth before verse 1, how beautiful? there are dinosaurs and all sorts of prehistoric animals, plants etc... how long have it be been? wee don't know, but base on science, we do have some knowledge about those billions years ago's earth.

Now we think, who or how the beautiful world of prehistoric destroyed? Ans. Satan is already exist before verse 1, our world now is more or less 10 thousand years. It is a correct assumption that Satan destroyed prehistoric world.

So the assumption, when God use water to flood all over the earth, the surface of the water was covered heavily by clouds, and so the sun light cannot shine thru, note that only "darkness was upon the face of the deep." and other places were not, because outer space, sun and others were already exist, already created.

Then God said "let there be light, and there was light", this light is absolutely from the sun, because only the sun can let the earth having "night" and "day", and so every day of re-creation is ended in "And the evening was, and the morning was etc."

conclusion: verse 1's "in the beginning", in original text, is later than that John 1:1's "in the beginning" so this is the flow... John 1:1 literally said that the universe haven't existed yet, not even time, space and matter existed, and then Genesis 1:1, God created time, in the time container, then God created space (heaven) in it, then in the space-time container, God created matters (earth) in it. So actually verse 1 is God created the universe, including earth and also everything on earth, dinosaurs... they are just not written down, and even if write down all those creation in the bible, how can they understand those creatures? obviously not at ancient time, we know now that is because of science and technology.

to be continue...
No Sun was around until day 4.
Light without source for the first 3 days.
 
Which is how we know this is not a literal six-day week. No mornings and evenings until there is a sun to have them.
Incorrect.
There was light. No light source... but light.
Do you believe in a God that can make the entire universe... but One that can't create photons without using a nuclear reaction?
 
Which is how we know this is not a literal six-day week. No mornings and evenings until there is a sun to have them.
There was light. No light source... but light.
If you were right, moonrise would be "morning." But of course, morning requires the sun, not merely light.

Which is why we know that the creation story is not a literal history. And that was known by early Christians, long before science verified an ancient Earth.
 
Which is how we know this is not a literal six-day week. No mornings and evenings until there is a sun to have them.

If you were right, moonrise would be "morning." But of course, morning requires the sun, not merely light.

Which is why we know that the creation story is not a literal history. And that was known by early Christians, long before science verified an ancient Earth.
Where do you get that morning needs a sun?
All you need is light and a rotating ball.
Maybe you need a science refresher.

Where do you get that the moonrise would be morning?
That doesn't make a lick of sense.
 
Where do you get that morning needs a sun?
By definition. It's that way in Hebrew as well as in English.
All you need is light and a rotating ball.
If that were so, we'd call moonrise "morning."
Maybe you need a science refresher.

Where do you get that the appearance of any light in the sky would be morning?
That doesn't make a lick of sense.
 
Do you believe in a God that can make the entire universe... but One that can't create photons without using a nuclear reaction?
I can make photons without a nuclear reaction. So does the sun. If we can do it, I figure God can too. Maybe you need a science refresher. But that still doesn't change the meaning of "morning."
 
By definition. It's that way in Hebrew as well as in English.
Only if you have a sun. How about without a sun... how would you define morning?
If that were so, we'd call moonrise "morning."
Maybe you need a science refresher.
As the moon would be reflected sunshine.... without a sun or moon in the sky... how do you get a morning?
Would not morning be the appearance of light due to the rotation of the Earth.
Where do you get that the appearance of any light in the sky would be morning?
That doesn't make a lick of sense.
Science.
 
I can make photons without a nuclear reaction. So does the sun. If we can do it, I figure God can too. Maybe you need a science refresher. But that still doesn't change the meaning of "morning."
The sun is a nuclear reaction. Wow that was the most unaware comment I have ever heard on this site.
Morning would be the start of a day.
A day would be the light side of the Earth.
No sun required in that definition.
Just light and a rotating ball.
 
By definition, you don't.

You don't. By definition.
I gave you a definition that does not require the sun.
You have not given any definition other than the sun.
I got my definition from outside sources... and you?
 
No, it isn't. And yes, by definition, "morning" is when the sun comes up.
The Sun is NOT a nuclear reaction????????????????
So what do you think it is?
Please show me a scientific source that says the sun is not a nuclear reaction.

The following definition does include sunrise... but only as a specific qualifier... not exclusive to sunrise.

morning
/ˈmɔːnɪŋ/
noun
  1. the period of time between midnight and noon, especially from sunrise to noon.
    "I've got a meeting this morning"


 
The Sun is NOT a nuclear reaction????????????????
So what do you think it is?
Please show me a scientific source that says the sun is not a nuclear reaction.
A nuclear reaction or "fission" is when a heavy nucleus decays into two lighter nucleii. An "atomic bomb" is an example of a nuclear reaction.

What goes on in the sun is fusion, a thermonuclear reaction, when lighter nucleii are fused into heavier ones. Most commonly, two hydrogen nucleii are fused into a single helium nucleus.

Thermonuclear fusion is the process of atomic nuclei combining or “fusing” using high temperatures to drive them close enough together for this to become possible. There are two forms of thermonuclear fusion: uncontrolled, in which the resulting energy is released in an uncontrolled manner, as it is in thermonuclear weapons ("hydrogen bombs") and in most stars; and controlled, where the fusion reactions take place in an environment allowing some or all of the energy released to be harnessed for constructive purposes.

They are opposite processes.
 
The following definition does include sunrise... but only as a specific qualifier... not exclusive to sunrise.
Perhaps the Hebrews didn't have business meetings. Nevertheless it again requires a sun, even if it is somewhat more vague about what the sun is doing:
especially from sunrise to noon.
Sunrise is when the sun appears, and Noon is when the sun is at its highest point of the day. Again, no sun, no morning.
 
A nuclear reaction or "fission" is when a heavy nucleus decays into two lighter nucleii. An "atomic bomb" is an example of a nuclear reaction.

What goes on in the sun is fusion, a thermonuclear reaction, when lighter nucleii are fused into heavier ones. Most commonly, two hydrogen nucleii are fused into a single helium nucleus.

Thermonuclear fusion is the process of atomic nuclei combining or “fusing” using high temperatures to drive them close enough together for this to become possible. There are two forms of thermonuclear fusion: uncontrolled, in which the resulting energy is released in an uncontrolled manner, as it is in thermonuclear weapons ("hydrogen bombs") and in most stars; and controlled, where the fusion reactions take place in an environment allowing some or all of the energy released to be harnessed for constructive purposes.

They are opposite processes.
They are similar processes... your petty nit-picking just shows your character.
And nuclear is in the name... so it is the same sort of thing.
Thermo"nuclear" fusion
 
Perhaps the Hebrews didn't have business meetings. Nevertheless it again requires a sun, even if it is somewhat more vague about what the sun is doing:
What are you talking about?
Hebrews?
Business meetings?

Sunrise is when the sun appears, and Noon is when the sun is at its highest point of the day. Again, no sun, no morning.
You are a nit-picker.
No... day does not require the sun. Your narrow vision of the world may require it, but mine and God's view of the world do not.
So why do Days 1-3 have a morning and evening?
There was no Sun till Day 4 so why were there 3 mornings before the Sun appeared?
 
A nuclear reaction or "fission" is when a heavy nucleus decays into two lighter nucleii. An "atomic bomb" is an example of a nuclear reaction.

What goes on in the sun is fusion, a thermonuclear reaction, when lighter nucleii are fused into heavier ones. Most commonly, two hydrogen nucleii are fused into a single helium nucleus.

Thermonuclear fusion is the process of atomic nuclei combining or “fusing” using high temperatures to drive them close enough together for this to become possible. There are two forms of thermonuclear fusion: uncontrolled, in which the resulting energy is released in an uncontrolled manner, as it is in thermonuclear weapons ("hydrogen bombs") and in most stars; and controlled, where the fusion reactions take place in an environment allowing some or all of the energy released to be harnessed for constructive purposes.

They are opposite processes.
When did I say fission?
You jumped to that conclusion.
Fission and fusion are both nuclear reactions.
They are the results of a reaction of the nucleus of an atom.
Joining or splitting is is a reaction of the nucleus of an atom.
A nuclear reaction.
 
When did I say fission?
You said "nuclear reaction." Which it isn't. Nuclear reactions involve fissioning nucleii.
The sun does fusion, a thermonuclear reaction that fuses two nucleii together.
It might seem like the same thing to some people, but it's the complete opposite.

Learn about it here:
 
Back
Top