I am not saying this is fact...simply what I see as a plausable theory. Very basic but dont have enough space to write everything. God created. Let's assume at this point that is true. Earth formless/empty/covered with water. Let there be light (sun). expanse (sky/atmosphere,clouds), dry ground appears. water creatures formed, birds formed, land animals formed/man formed.
Arguments: God is timeless so he would have had no purpose in using time as a measure. Days would have been time span man could understand. Man had to understand the story so God told it as if we were talking to infant. God invented K.I.S.S. principal (keep it short, simple)Man could have been slightly confused on specific order but it is awfully close to what science says. Question: Does it make sense that a man of 3500 years ago could have had enough science knowledge to guess this closely? I could do a lot more detail and explation but have neither time or space at moment. Is this a possibility?
2007-03-13 05:20:43 · 6 answers · asked by Poohcat1 7 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Astronomy & Space
I am not saying that this proves entire Bible. Only that it is (to me) a plausible explanation for the differences re: creation. Much of the Bible can be interpreted differently without changing God or his existance factor. I suggest that man (just as now) has had a great deal to do with what the book says and we as Christians may be afraid to look at things from a different perspective. If I wanted to, I could tell you that THIS IS GODS WORD, not mine but I won't and can't do that.
2007-03-13 05:25:01 · update #1
Read creation account in Bible, then read science explanation. Earth without form is gases. Our light is the sun so even though mentioned later, it could have been in error.
2007-03-13 05:27:30 · update #2
Welcome to informed creationism. Indeed evolution, the 'big bang, etc. are only theories which attempt to describe God's _method_ of creation.
Science describes (for a good bit) how/when/where , NOT who or why
Most folks seem to reject that idea though.
Go figure.
2007-03-13 05:29:37 · answer #1 · answered by credo quia est absurdum 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
All this proves is that facts can be packed, twisted and massaged to fit revelation. Allegorize the "days" or swap the order and any evidence will fit. (I've also heard a theory that the Sun wasn't "created" until the fourth day because the continual fog in the pre-rain world didn't permit it to be seen before then.)
The point is that the Bible is not a science or a history book. That is simply not its purpose. Genesis 1 explains that God's creation was orderly (Light, Sky, Land; Sun, Birds, Animals) and good, that's all. The specific details were unknowable and unimportant to the composers. Trying to keep it literally true is an exercise in contortion and contrary to the spirit of the composers. They regarded details, especially unverifiable details, as trivial distractions. Their message is that God created and created well.
But your point about understanding is well taken. A story that described the development of the cosmos and life on Earth as it actually happened would have been incomprehensible to the ancients. It would never have seen the light of day.
2007-03-13 13:17:50 · answer #2 · answered by skepsis 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I've always been amazed by this too.
I definitely have a non-traditional out of this universe concept of God. After all, How could anything inside a universe create the universe? If God created all, he is reflected in all. Thus modern science can reveal more of him to us allowing us to refine our concept of him.
2007-03-14 01:07:00 · answer #3 · answered by G's Random Thoughts 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"God created. Let's assume at this point that is true." That's one big enchilada to swallow.
A science forum is not the proper place to ask such a question. First, there is no science at all in your question. Second, science, by definition, does not even posit the supernatural. This is the realm of philosophy and pseudoscience.
See ya! Next!
2007-03-13 12:26:39 · answer #4 · answered by gebobs 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
In principle, yes. The principal problem with the thesis is that it has no value as a predictive mechanism. Scientists look for physical causes that give predictable effects, since the whole idea of science is to make predictions about how things work.
2007-03-13 12:27:20 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
You've started by assuming that God created, and then massaged facts until they fit your "theory".
Trust me, much smarter people than you and I have tried to prove this argument, and they have failed every time.
2007-03-13 14:27:01 · answer #6 · answered by Anthony Stark 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋