Genesis, Big Bang, Evolution....Atheist, Agnostics, Theist...Please Comment?

Question

Can science and Genesis play nice together. Please point out where these analogies don't work. Please note that I don't take the 7 days literal, I see them as distinct steps.

Step 1: Bible: Darkness to Light (Science: Big Bang)
Step 2: Bible: Separation of sky and water (Science: Creation of Earth)
Step 3: Bible: Creation of Land and Water and vegatation (Science: Earth Cooling, development of early life)
Step 4: Bible: Night and Day (Science: Formation of the Moon and the begining of the Earth rotating?)
Step 5: Bible: Creation of life in water and air (Science: Even in evolution theory I think life in water is accepted to come first, not sure about the air part.
Step 6: Bible: Creation of life on land and creation of man (Science: Final step of evolution to bring us close to where we are now, notice within this one step, it is said that first there were animals on the land, then created man)
Step 7: We are living in it right now, and God is resting : )

I put this down as an answer to another question. I'm sure it isn't original to just my thinking, but I haven't seen it anywhere else. Even if it isn't 100% accurate, I think it is very interesting that it could even almost fit together.

I don't even know if this is how I interpret it, but it was neat to me how it worked out.

Wow...ok. So what happened to having an open mind? Thanks to eleventy and the guy with all the squares in his name. Other than that, pretty sad.

Look, I said it isn't 100%. And who knows what translation did to this story. I also saw step 3 as being the biggest problem with it saying vegetaion covering the earth before discussion of the Sun. I am willing as a Christian to study science, and try to learn from it. But I have a "closed" mind because I still believe in God? But atheist won't even discuss the similar themes in what science discovers and what is already written in the Bible, Sumerian cuniforms, and the myth Eleventy mentioned. Lets assume there is no God as we think of him, I still think there had to be something with vast knowledge of the universe that shared it with our primitive ancestors.

Why am I still disapointed in atheist, why do I expect more out of them? They claim to be "thinkers" and such, but never demonstrate it.

Answer 1

Well the creation of vegetation(step 3) before the formation of the moon Sun and Planets(step 4) doesn't really work all that well, if there were millions of years in between steps as you propose.

I think your expectations from Atheists to be open minded about religious mythology is a tough one for many of us to meet.

Personally, I try to be open minded, but when talking about things that should have a scientific explanation, I tend to shut your 'impressions' or religious explanations, because they typically don't have a great track record of being correct.

For instance, many of the early discoveries about astronomy and the earth were met with tremendous opposition from religions who taught something completely differently.

So we have learned over time that reliance on myth or religion for answers typically doesn't provide the seeker with accurate information.

Just my 2 cents.

Answer 2

I am all for theists doing whatever they need to do in order to realize that no matter what they believe is written in a book science should not be discarded for it. Science is separate of god and people should keep their personal god out of science.

There was a time when the literal interpretation of genesis was followed (unfortunately some people still do.) then when people started to realize that there was no way the earth was only 6 thousand years old they decided it must be symbolic or metaphoric. The entire bible is followed that way and I can not respect that.

Edit: You can claim that we are not thinkers because we disregard your book all you like. The bible offers very little in historical context. In fact, if it wasn't considered by many to be the inspired word of god then it would not be as widely read or even available as it is today because it serves no other purpose. We have historical documents we can use. Many "thinkers" do not even trust the events in the bible as being reliable or factual. I am glad you have an open mind, but just because I will not back a theory based on your book does not mean I do not. I will not accept that I came from dirt and the events in Genesis one and two don't even match the same order.

Answer 3

Step 3: You'er saying that vegetation (or early life) came before the earth was anchored to a sun or rotating?
Step 5: aerial adaptations before land ones? Wouldn't work, since adaptation to land is necessary when leaving the ocean to keep the skin moist, and account for reproduction, etc.
Step 6: Man was not created after modern species but at the same time.

Don't bother to reconcile these. It is obvious that the writers of said literature were very ignorant about zoology and many other science. A literal interpretation of the bible will only lead to denial.

Answer 4

>>Please point out where these analogies don't work.
>>Please note that I don't take the 7 days literal, I see them
>>as distinct steps.

One of the problems is that the order presented in Genesis doesn't match up with reality.

Genesis 1 has the order as: 1) the earth (already there, but covered with water), 2) light, 3) sky/atmosphere, 4) dry land, 5) fruit-bearing plants, 6) stars, 7) sun and moon, 8) marine life and flying creatures, 9) land animals, 10) humans. Genesis 2 gives a slightly different order (e.g.: man, then all animals, then woman)

In reality (meaning, the order that's consistent with what we see when we examine the world through biology, chemistry, cosmology, paleontology, etc.), it should be:
1) beginning/light, 2) stars and sun, 3) atmosphere, 4) the earth, 5) dry land, 6) water, 7) sea life, 8) moon, 9) land animals (plus amphibians), 10) fruiting plants, 11) air animals and more land animals, 12) humans.

If you find some personal spiritual inspiration in the story of Genesis, fine. No scientist is saying you can't believe in God. Just don't treat the Bible as a geological history book.

EDIT: Calm down. There were still some atheists here who gave good responses, including the one you mentioned.

Answer 5

Sure, they can play, but why? There are fundamental contradictions between the chronologies of each account. (What does "light" mean here? What is the "water" in this verse really?) The Genesis 1 story was written for people with a Bronze Age understanding of the world. They could not have understood the fusion of hydrogen atoms or the difference between the strong and weak atomic forces. Essentially you are shoe-horning a folktale into a scientific mold. Parts look squished and other parts look stretched and twisted. Instead of this desperate play for relevance, why not go with the undisguised, scientific version? Leave Genesis alone to explain "why" it all happened, and leave the technical "how" to the scientists.

Answer 6

I have a similar way of thinking. I have never put it that way. However I think you might like my science/religion argument.

Science has a purpose. Like your liver cells. If they (it) stop(s) doing what it(s) supposed to do. (Ex becoming cancerous) it kills you (or puts you in an incredible amount of pain).

Science has bounds. It is the study of our best explanations. All it offers is constants. It does not offer explanation for why, and is incapable of telling you how to live your life.

That is religions job. To give you an explanation of why things are the way they are, and to give you a guide to life.

When science is studying the formation of planets and discovers ours is 4 billion or so years old. Then religion needs to let go of the literal translation of how old the earth is and start adjusting.

Science needs to take a slice of humble pie now and then. Becuse we cant know everything. It simply is not possible when you sum up the vast amounts of data and subjects for study. We dont have a full catalog of animals for the earth yet. We have had 200 or so years to do it and we finished.

thats one example. I have many more.

Answer 7

Here's the problem. The Bible was all made up by people who lived two thousand years ago. They had no concept of the Big Bang. They had just gotten out of the period of time where people thought the Sun was a god riding his chariot through the sky.
Genesis is a fable in a book of inconsistencies and brutality. The Big Bang and Evolution are science backed up by research and rigiorous testing.

Answer 8

I don1t see what all the fuss is about Be it millions of years or 7,000 its still a long time ago it was created or evolved and thats it ..Now its time for people to think about how many days it would take to destroy the Earth .Academics from all over the world are predicting that an attack on Iran will lead to WW3 and that it will be the end of us all .
7 days might well be the time it takes from pressing the button to there being no one left

Answer 9

Well, my question would be: If the bible is the word of God, why would it be so vague and metaphorical? The idea is that any religion's creation story could be picked apart, looked at as a metaphor, and made to fit with science. But at the end of the day, why wouldn't you then just use the actual science as your belief? If you have to continually modify your religion to fit with science, maybe it means your religion is just a bunch of vague stories, and you should just give them up.

Answer 10

The Big Bang Theory is supported by extensive data. The whole Genesis myth is so full of logical and evidential holes that it's astounding that anyone past Santa Claus stage gives it any credence. There's no reliable evidence for God/Yahweh, Jesus, Allah, Zeus, Thor, or any of the thousands of other gods that people have worshiped. If any of the major gods existed, there would be reliable evidence. Since no such evidence exists, these gods do not exist. There's also extensive evidence that they are all just myths, created to help soothe our fear of death, and perpetuated through religion to subjugate the underclass into obedience. Science has shown that there's no need for gods to explain the traditional reasons for a god -- origin of the universe, origin of life, origin of species, origin of humans, origin of morality. Science also shows us the psychological reasons that people believe in god(s). See the 1st link, "Andy Thomson: Why We Believe in Gods."