Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 29, 2024, 5:02 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Genesis 1:1 contradicts science.
#1
Genesis 1:1 contradicts science.
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth."

Wrong. The scientific consensus places the age of the Universe to be around 13.8 billion years old. We could rightly say this constitutes the beginning. The Earth, on the other hand, is 4.5 billion years old. Does the beginning include the 9.3 billion years or so that followed the birth of the Universe? Perhaps Christians define "beginning" to include all time but that's obviously a dumb idea. Maybe we should re-define "heavens," "and," and "Earth" too.
So when Christians say that science doesn't contradict the Bible, tell them to open the first page and read the first sentence. Bam.
Reply
#2
RE: Genesis 1:1 contradicts science.
(January 8, 2014 at 6:28 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth."

Wrong. The scientific consensus places the age of the Universe to be around 13.8 billion years old. We could rightly say this constitutes the beginning.

What? Are you unfamiliar with Brian Greene's multiverse theory? That this is an universe among many, like suggested by our extraordinary value of empty space density?

Existence has no beginning and no end, this universe may have a beginning but it's just the event horizon, we know nothing else. If we spawned later in the future, we would have no measurable evidence that there even are other galaxies because they would have accelerated away from the event horizon long ago.

You're just dead wrong. I want you to point out a single thing in existence that is unique. Is Earth unique, NO there's other planets. Is our sun unique, NO there's other stars. Is our galaxy unique? NO, there's other galaxies. Then you come say our universe is unique. Why? Why be so unreasonable you only make one exception, that this trend stops with the Universe?
[Image: Untitled_1.jpg]
Reply
#3
RE: Genesis 1:1 contradicts science.
Pants are created on 3rd day.

The sun created on the 4th.

Photosynthesis, we don't need no stinking photosynthesis!

You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
Reply
#4
RE: Genesis 1:1 contradicts science.
(January 8, 2014 at 6:34 pm)Ksa Wrote:
(January 8, 2014 at 6:28 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth."

Wrong. The scientific consensus places the age of the Universe to be around 13.8 billion years old. We could rightly say this constitutes the beginning.

What? Are you unfamiliar with Brian Greene's multiverse theory? That this is an universe among many, like suggested by our extraordinary value of empty space density?

Existence has no beginning and no end, this universe may have a beginning but it's just the event horizon, we know nothing else. If we spawned later in the future, we would have no measurable evidence that there even are other galaxies because they would have accelerated away from the event horizon long ago.

You're just dead wrong.
This irritates me about scientists. They use "theory" in two distinct ways and then express frustration when the public misapplies the term ("Evolution is only a theory!"). Brian Greene's multiverse "theory" is a scientific hypothesis and requires confirmation by evidence to be anything more. That said, the Earth was not created in the beginning (of our space-time universe), and my point stands unscathed.
Reply
#5
RE: Genesis 1:1 contradicts science.
(January 8, 2014 at 6:41 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:
(January 8, 2014 at 6:34 pm)Ksa Wrote: What? Are you unfamiliar with Brian Greene's multiverse theory? That this is an universe among many, like suggested by our extraordinary value of empty space density?

Existence has no beginning and no end, this universe may have a beginning but it's just the event horizon, we know nothing else. If we spawned later in the future, we would have no measurable evidence that there even are other galaxies because they would have accelerated away from the event horizon long ago.

You're just dead wrong.
This irritates me about scientists. They use "theory" in two distinct ways and then express frustration when the public misapplies the term ("Evolution is only a theory!"). Brian Greene's multiverse "theory" is a scientific hypothesis and requires confirmation by evidence to be anything more. That said, IF the Big Bang was the beginning of THIS Universe, my point stands unscathed.

No, mathematical models predicted for the existence of Higgs boson long before it could be measured and discovered. You underestimate the power of mathematics, probably because you don't master it very well yourself. Brian Greene's calculations are mathematics and it at some point has to factor for several universes.

Of course, until it is measured and discovered, the math remains very abstract but you can't just discard it and treat it as religion because at least it is a highly logical deduction rather than a story being told.
[Image: Untitled_1.jpg]
Reply
#6
RE: Genesis 1:1 contradicts science.
(January 8, 2014 at 6:35 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: Pants are created on 3rd day.

The sun created on the 4th.

Of course pants were created on the 3rd day - there was no sun, you expect people to walk around in shorts or something? Brrr.
Reply
#7
RE: Genesis 1:1 contradicts science.
(January 8, 2014 at 6:45 pm)Ksa Wrote: No, mathematical models predicted for the existence of Higgs boson long before it could be measured and discovered. You underestimate the power of mathematics, probably because you don't master it very well yourself. Brian Greene's calculations are mathematics and it at some point has to factor for several universes.

Of course, until it is measured and discovered, the math remains very abstract but you can't just discard it and treat it as religion because at least it is a highly logical deduction rather than a story being told.

You're right, I don't understand the mathematics. Moreover, I'm willing to bet you don't either. But it's all besides my original point anyhow. And who said to discard it and treat it as religion? The people who speak of the "multiverse" as if it is a scientific fact are the ones who have taken a leap of faith. I doubt even Brian Greene would take it that far at this point.
Reply
#8
RE: Genesis 1:1 contradicts science.
(January 8, 2014 at 6:41 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: This irritates me about scientists. They use "theory" in two distinct ways and then express frustration when the public misapplies the term ("Evolution is only a theory!"). Brian Greene's multiverse "theory" is a scientific hypothesis and requires confirmation by evidence to be anything more.

(I may be completely off my rocker here, but I've got the ball, and Imma run with it.)

I believe you are conflating two different meanings of theory here.

Brian Green's multiverse theory is a mathematical model, and belongs purely to world of theoretical physics. As such, it is not strictly scientific, as you alluded. However, as it does belong to the world of theoretical physics and not (yet) to the world of science, it would be inappropriate to apply the scientific definition of theory to it.
Reply
#9
RE: Genesis 1:1 contradicts science.
(January 8, 2014 at 7:01 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: (I may be completely off my rocker here, but I've got the ball, and Imma run with it.)

I believe you are conflating two different meanings of theory here.

Brian Green's multiverse theory is a mathematical model, and belongs purely to world of theoretical physics. As such, it is not strictly scientific, as you alluded. However, as it does belong to the world of theoretical physics and not (yet) to the world of science, it would be inappropriate to apply the scientific definition of theory to it.

Thank you for the clarification. But seriously, it might improve communication if they find another word instead of "theory" to express their models (how about just "string model").
Reply
#10
RE: Genesis 1:1 contradicts science.
(January 8, 2014 at 7:12 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: Thank you for the clarification. But seriously, it might improve communication if they find another word instead of "theory" to express their models (how about just "string model").

It certainly might - however every specialized field has specialized vernacular, and I don't think we're ever going to get away from that.

I think you'd have better luck getting laypersons to learn something about that which they criticize. Big Grin
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Is this a contradiction or am I reading it wrong? Genesis 5:28 Ferrocyanide 110 9021 April 10, 2023 at 3:32 pm
Last Post: Ferrocyanide
  There are no answers in Genesis LinuxGal 248 19251 March 24, 2023 at 7:34 pm
Last Post: Ferrocyanide
  Plantinga's "Free Will" defense contradicts Christianity mrj 96 5592 February 8, 2020 at 6:41 pm
Last Post: Abaddon_ire
  Atheist Bible Study 1: Genesis GrandizerII 614 63465 March 9, 2019 at 8:38 pm
Last Post: Bucky Ball
  Genesis interpretations - how many are there? Fake Messiah 129 16832 January 22, 2019 at 7:33 pm
Last Post: donlor
  Free interpretation of the Genesis 3:5 KJV theBorg 19 3627 November 13, 2016 at 2:03 am
Last Post: RiddledWithFear
  Genesis - The Prequel! Time Traveler 12 3230 May 17, 2016 at 1:16 am
Last Post: Love333
  Rewriting the bible part 1 - Genesis dyresand 4 1914 March 12, 2016 at 3:14 am
Last Post: robvalue
  god is a moron - genesis dyresand 70 18712 August 7, 2015 at 5:03 pm
Last Post: Wyrd of Gawd
  The Real Bible: Genesis Chapter 1 Theoretical Skeptic 25 6967 May 6, 2015 at 7:01 am
Last Post: Hatshepsut



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)