Creation of the Earth in the Bible Genesis ch 1 is scientific or unscientific ? Explain.?

Question

If you are logical than give me your answer in detail and it should be scientific !

Bible says in Genesis Ch. No. 1 Verses No. 3 and 5,…‘Light was created on the first day.’ … ‘The cause of light - stars and the sun, etc. was created on the fourth day’. How can the cause of light be created on the 4th day - later than the light which came into existence on the first day? - It is unscientific. Further, the, Bible says ‘Earth was created on the 3rd day. How can you have a night and day without the earth ? The day depends upon the rotation of the Earth Without the earth created, how can you have a night and day? ‘Earth was created on the third day.’ ‘The Sun and the Moon were created on the fourth day.’ Today science tells us… ‘Earth is part of the parent body… the sun.’ It cannot come into existence before the sun – It is unscientific. ‘The vegetation, the herbs the shrubs, the trees - they were created on the 3rd day And the Sun, was created on the 4th day.How can the vegetation come into existence without sunlight, and how can they survive without sunlight ? etc..

Answer 1

Science deal with events that are measurable, reproducibles, and conform to known scientific theories.
The bible's presentation of creation is none of the above.

Answer 2

They're stories and nothing else. What makes you think christianity is the true religion? What makes you think the bible is true? There are hundreds of religions and religious books out there all believing in their own way how the universe was formed and how humans came to exist. They're moral stories that have existed throughout the history of civilization, and like another user noted, someone decided to take it literally and say "hey, maybe this is true!". Christianity just managed to get the most followers.
The closest we'll ever come to knowing how the universe formed and how everything came to be is through science and science alone, and we have pretty damn good explanations backed by evidence that have stood the tests of time. There are things that we know now that 2000 years ago was unknown, so thats the reason they're not in religious books or that they were overlooked, so the books get proven wrong when religious people try to use them against science. If the bible or any other religious book was truly the word of god, then how come knowledge that we take for granted now was not in it? Up until Galileo proved that at least one planet revolved about the sun, the church believed Earth was the center of the universe and they cited passages in the bible to back their claim. What do religious people say now? "oh, that was just a metaphor meaning the Earth was just the most important place in the universe". And just like the 6 days crap which religious people so dearly believed, science proved it wrong by showing that the Earth took millions of years to form. The religious response? "Oh, each day back then was like millions of years today".
I don't want to hear explanations like that, religious people are quick to come up with bullsh*t answers like that to everything.

One more interesting thing to note, if you use the bible, you'll reach the conclusion that Earth is only thousands of years old, which is what some idiots believe.
Equally interesting is that a genius like Sir Isaac Newton actually used "facts" from the bible to estimate the age of the Earth, he arrived at the conclusion that Earth was created in 3500 BC.
Of course now we know to a great degree of certainty that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.

So how in the world can I take anything the bible or any other religious book says as scientific?

Answer 3

The assertion that the Universe was created in a week by some divine being cannot be tested. Therefore it does not fall within the scope of science.

The assertion that it happened some 6000 years ago, or even several thousand years earlier has already been shown to be false. This demonstration of falsity does not involve carbon 14 as is so often asserted by those who have been duped by creationists.

Using the lead/lead isochron, it has long been shown from multiple samples from multiple sites around the world that rocks on this planet can be dated at more than 3500 million years old. These measurements have been confirmed in part by measurement of other radio-isotopes, again, not involving carbon 14.

Thus the Earth is at least 3500 million years old and the Genesis story is technically false. However it remains a reasonable account of creation if you consider the state of knowledge and technology at the time it was written.

Edit - Scientific explanations do not require proof, they require evidence.

Answer 4

.In the beginning the earth was void and without form and the spirit of God moved over the waters.' Where did the waters come from? 'And God said, let there be light and there was light.' This was before He created the lights in the sky, one for the day and one for the night, they had no idea that on an overcast day the light came from the sun. 'And God caused a firmament to form in the sky to separate the waters above from the waters below.' They had no idea how rain formed, this was their way around that little problem. 'And God caused the dry land to come from the waters and he called the dry land earth, they certainly were not referring to planet Earth, they had no idea of what a planet is. You must get the idea by now. The authors of that fiction did the beast they could with the knowledge they had but they got it all wrong. It amazes me that anyone with a high school education can't figure that out.

Answer 5

Genesis doesnt have a stitch of science in it. Its a story that isnt meant to be a scientific representation of the beginning of the earth.
In a non-litteral sense the story holds truth and meaning, but should not be used as a litteral scientific guide.
The point of the story is to show that God is the creater of all things, space, stars, day, night, birds, fish, and people. The first chapter of the Bible is trying to establish Gods supreme place in the universe.

It saddens me that we now have a much more accurate image of Gods handiwork and how he creates things, but so many Christians turn away because they want to believe the Bible was meant to be a science book and not the Devine litterary peice that it actually is.

Answer 6

Scientific explanations require a proof for the reason why things happened.
example - why did the apple fall to the ground when the stem broke? the mass of the earth is large enough such that gravity will pull objects toward it. Therefore the obect when released will move toward earth. Theres an explanation.

genesis... God said let there be earth, and pop, there was earth out of no where. How to prove this occured? Is there any evidence that god did this? Is there a candid camera video of god doing hocus pocus? no. Did god write his signature on fjords in norway, "Created by God, (signature), copyright 2000BC"? nope. Is there any way to verify the hocus pocus occurred by following some kind of magic hokey pokey dust trail? nope. Is there any way to verify it or proove it at all? nope. Isn't that absolutely and utterly unscientific? Yes, you are correct sir.

Answer 7

Well, most shepards & carpenters around the time of Christ were unfamiliar with Nebular theory & fusion physics, so... for *them* describing the beginnings of solar output as, "Let there be light" is about as scientific as you can get.

Most religions struggle with a way to describe the beginning of the world. In Native American legend, a Great Bear carried the Earth to the sun, so his mate could raise their cubs.

In some religions, the Earth is on the back of a turtle. If you twist the words around in any of them, you can make it sound scientific - which is really a discredit. Take the stories for what they are, and let science figure out what really happened.

Answer 8

So who is going to define "Scientific " , the evolutionists who reject the evidence at hand ? Of course principal among the "known scientific theories" is evolution, the pre-conceived paradigm from which all scientific evidence is viewed.

As evidence, either accepted or rejected, the entire book of Genesis, including the first two chapters and verses one and two is confirmed elsewhere in the Bible, in both Old and New Testaments. That this is and was rejected by atheists both contemporarily and historically is also stated and confirmed in the same Bible, especially in the first chapter of Romans. Jesus had no problem with biblical history , even referring to Noah when describing the times prior to His return. The rejected accounts in Genesis are more scientific than the accepted accounts of Plato. But then take your pick among the written evidence at hand.
Science has to do as much with WHICH evidence is accepted as it does with how that evidence is explained. Atheists will not acccept written documentation of the acts of Almighty God even though it is from many witnesses. They cannot because that is their religion and they must have evolution to explain their false concept of reality.
The age of the Earth versus common religious dogma has been a rallying point of evolutionists for a long time. This is because the dogmas of traditional Christianism do not always follow the teachings of the Bible as they claim. (Jesus also spoke against false religions in his name). Between Genesis verse one and two there is to be understood an indeterminate period of time during which an original creation was wrecked and then a recreation instituted in verse three. But these are creative acts of God. Again they are confirmed elsewhere. Can an act of God be scientific ? Is there evidence of it ? So the age of the Earth and the age of the universe do not really need to be a biblical problem even though some religionists insist that it is. Well thay don;t have the Trinity, Christmas, Easter, heaven and hell right either. The real issue is WHO did it ? Evolutionists say nobody. The Bible says God.
Evolutionists themselves have no evidence whatever to prove that the premis of abiogeneses or that changes from one life form to another higher species ever happened. That too is a matter of faith in the testamonies of others, not on hard evidence. So who are you going to believe ? Regardless of their pouting and intimidation, the fossil record which they claim is just not there. Darwin recognized this, himself.
Beside the written evidence of divine creation, there is the confirming observed evidence of nature that there is the design of extreme complexity, synergism and competetion, in multiple systems which are indicative of a creation planned and executed by a higher being. There is no evidence of anything else, but many wish that there was. That higher being was known as the Lord God in the Old Testament and is Jesus Christ. But nobody wants God telling them what to do. Now that is truly scientific; there is abundant evidence for it.

Answer 9

science is a study in which everything happens in a logical flow. given enough knowledge, you could determine anything. According to the Bible, God said "Let there be light," and there was light. doesn't tell you how, doesn't tell you why he got bored one day... just says it happened. that alone makes it very unscientific. in the 6 days that God created the earth, he said that things were to happen, so they happened. again, it doesn't tell you how, doesn't tell you why, just that it happened.

you see where I'm going with this? The Bible is a book. All books can be mistranslated, and the Bible is believed to have gone from Hebrew to Latin and other languages before even coming to English.

My theory is that the Bible originally was a book of morals, like Aesop's fables. then, due to a logical fallacy, people began thinking, "hey, this must be true!" and then convinced everyone else it was true.

as you can see from my profile picture, I am quite able to think "logically" =)

Answer 10

Did it happens verbatim as it says in the Bible, no. Can the Biblical story be correct symbolically, yes. The first thing, "Let there be light" is accurate, it was the first thing created.

All the other stuff that happened afterward leading up to the dawn of man would take more explanation that a person (at the time the Bible was written) could understand, comprehend, and believe. There are still those who don't believe it, and prefer the Bible verbatim

Answer 11

Depends (to some extent) on how literally you read the bible.

If you do it "storybook-style," then obviously it took more than six days.

Some biblical "scholars" claim that each day represents a much longer period of time. Um, yeah, it's hard to argue against that.

The general strategy from religion's point of view has been to retreat to higher ground whenever science refutes a previous claim.

That's why I don't like to argue about it. From the religious side, the answer can always be made just a little more vague . . . .