Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Johnny Skeptic · 11-12-2007, 09:47 AM

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=197303

Opening post

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lee Merrill

Hi everyone,

This came up in another thread, and I thought it would be best to discuss it here, the question was whether there are good correspondences between science and the Genesis account:

There is the initial light (let’s start with energy, shall we?), the clearing of the atmosphere and the division so the seas and land are separated (continents moving?), simple life being first (“plants” could stand in for such, algae and bacteria and other simple forms), complex life starting in the water first, birds following fish (I don’t mind if some fish changed to birds), then land animals such as mammals, and then man.

And then there were the objections of a day being called an age (I am an old-earth creationist), of the sun being created after plants, and so on.

Now the day being an age, the Hebrew word "yom" does have that meaning:

Zechariah 14:7 It will be a unique day, without daytime or nighttime-- a day known to the Lord. When evening comes, there will be light.

Which verse as it turns out also has the very phrase the young-earth creationists say must refer to a 24-hour day, “yom echad.” So the ordinal does not always imply a 24-hour day, as also is shown here:

Genesis 27:45 When your brother is no longer angry with you and forgets what you did to him, I'll send word for you to come back from there. Why should I lose both of you in one day [“yom echad”]?

Which certainly means “at once,” and not “within 24 hours.”

Also, Augustine and others held that creation was done in a split second, so he did not believe the days were 24-hour periods, and the sun being after plants also speaks of the days not being normal days, so this is not some idea that need be foisted on the text.

Now speaking of plants! The term “seed” is a generic term for the germ of life, it does not mean like a seed in the technical scientific sense:

Genesis 1:29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food."

Broccoli and bananas too, I would say!

As far as the sun appearing after plants, "Let there be lights" and "let them be lights in the heavens to give light" ("let there be lights and let them be lights") implies a sequence here, placing lights to give light. "And the Lord [had] made and he placed them,” it is possible that “had made” is meant here, that is a possible grammatical option (re Gleason Archer, a Hebrew teacher).

Genesis 1:17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth...

So then if that was the purpose, then perhaps those means which were for those purposes were employed on the first day? Could there even be an echo of "Let there be light," in "Let there be lights"? And here, the perspective seems to be of someone on earth:

Genesis 1:18 ... to govern the day and the night.

So that would seem to fit with an appearance, that at this point, their obvious governance of the day and night would begin.

I fail to see how that reasonably proves that the God of the Bible created the universe. What exactly was Lee Merrill trying to prove?

gstafleu · 11-12-2007, 10:03 AM

The problem is that the bible is rather vague, and can easily be interpreted to mean what you want it to mean. For example: "There is the initial light (let’s start with energy, shall we?)." Light is a very specific form of energy, a very narrow band in the electromagnetic spectrum. To equate this with energy (as the post seems to surreptitiously do) is reading your preferred version into the text. The Big Bang seems to posit a very condensed state of the universe at time T near 0. To call this "energy," let alone "light" seems tendentious to me.

So I'm not so sure what use such attempts to make the bible match science are, beyond apologetics. You can always make a stab at it, but I doubt if it will ever be very convincing.

Gerard Stafleu

Von Smith · 11-12-2007, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=197303

Opening post

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lee Merrill

Hi everyone,

This came up in another thread, and I thought it would be best to discuss it here, the question was whether there are good correspondences between science and the Genesis account:

There is the initial light (let’s start with energy, shall we?), the clearing of the atmosphere and the division so the seas and land are separated (continents moving?), simple life being first (“plants” could stand in for such, algae and bacteria and other simple forms), complex life starting in the water first, birds following fish (I don’t mind if some fish changed to birds), then land animals such as mammals, and then man.

And then there were the objections of a day being called an age (I am an old-earth creationist), of the sun being created after plants, and so on.

Now the day being an age, the Hebrew word "yom" does have that meaning:

Zechariah 14:7 It will be a unique day, without daytime or nighttime-- a day known to the Lord. When evening comes, there will be light.

Which verse as it turns out also has the very phrase the young-earth creationists say must refer to a 24-hour day, “yom echad.” So the ordinal does not always imply a 24-hour day, as also is shown here:

Genesis 27:45 When your brother is no longer angry with you and forgets what you did to him, I'll send word for you to come back from there. Why should I lose both of you in one day [“yom echad”]?

Which certainly means “at once,” and not “within 24 hours.”

Also, Augustine and others held that creation was done in a split second, so he did not believe the days were 24-hour periods, and the sun being after plants also speaks of the days not being normal days, so this is not some idea that need be foisted on the text.

Now speaking of plants! The term “seed” is a generic term for the germ of life, it does not mean like a seed in the technical scientific sense:

Genesis 1:29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food."

Broccoli and bananas too, I would say!

As far as the sun appearing after plants, "Let there be lights" and "let them be lights in the heavens to give light" ("let there be lights and let them be lights") implies a sequence here, placing lights to give light. "And the Lord [had] made and he placed them,” it is possible that “had made” is meant here, that is a possible grammatical option (re Gleason Archer, a Hebrew teacher).

Genesis 1:17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth...

So then if that was the purpose, then perhaps those means which were for those purposes were employed on the first day? Could there even be an echo of "Let there be light," in "Let there be lights"? And here, the perspective seems to be of someone on earth:

Genesis 1:18 ... to govern the day and the night.

So that would seem to fit with an appearance, that at this point, their obvious governance of the day and night would begin.

I fail to see how that reasonably proves that the God of the Bible created the universe. What exactly was Lee Merrill trying to prove?

1) There is absolutely no reason to believe that the plants referred to in Gen 1:11-12 refers to anything other than plants. And read as "plants" the timing obviously does *not* square with science.

2) Birds contemporaneous with fish but before land animals? I don't think so. Birds *are* land animals, and relative latecomers at that (in fact, the first birds may postdate the first mammals.)

lee_merrill · 11-12-2007, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

Light is a very specific form of energy, a very narrow band in the electromagnetic spectrum. To equate this with energy (as the post seems to surreptitiously do) is reading your preferred version into the text.

I would of course have more difficulty if the starting line was "Let there be an Ice Giant, and his cow Ymir." The point is that these are correspondences, and this is a correspondence, which cannot be dismissed by saying we should see such distinctions as "let there be electromagnetic radiation in this specific band of the spectrum."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Von Smith

There is absolutely no reason to believe that the plants referred to in Gen 1:11-12 refers to anything other than plants.

I don't think I say this means other than plants, though.

Quote:

Birds contemporaneous with fish but before land animals? I don't think so.

Me neither! I'm saying birds came after fish, and possibly even a line here from fish to birds is described here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

I fail to see how that reasonably proves that the God of the Bible created the universe.

And I must say that I fail to see how you have responded to any point in my initial post--I do hope this is not "Somebody please refute Lee." I would hope also to see some indication that you have checked the previous discussion, and that this is not simply "Lee's thread restarted"! Please, I don't want to rehash all the points that have been gone over before.

Von Smith · 11-12-2007, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lee_merrill

Quote:

Originally Posted by Von Smith

There is absolutely no reason to believe that the plants referred to in Gen 1:11-12 refers to anything other than plants.

I don't think I say this means other than plants, though.

I think you do, though:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Your OP

simple life being first (“plants” could stand in for such, algae and bacteria and other simple forms),

And I see your whole point in speculating this new meaning for "plants" as being to preserve the appearance of "good correspondences between science and the Genesis account", namely, that organisms make their first appearances on earth in "good correspondence" to the order described in Genesis. They don't. Land plants don't appear before fish, and birds don't appear contemporaneously with fish, but before land animals.

If that wasn't your point, then what *was* your point, and what "good correspondences between science and the Genesis account" are you referring to?

Quote:

Originally Posted by lee merrill

Me neither! I'm saying birds came after fish, and possibly even a line here from fish to birds is described here.

Well, there is a line from fish to birds, but it runs *through* land animals. Birds evolving directly from fish isn't "good correspondence" with science, unless you are using the terms "good", "correspondence", and/or "science" differently from me. Perhaps these words mean "plant"?

Johnny Skeptic · 11-12-2007, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

I fail to see how that reasonably proves that the God of the Bible created the universe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

And I must say that I fail to see how you have responded to any point in my initial post--I do hope this is not "Somebody please refute Lee." I would hope also to see some indication that you have checked the previous discussion, and that this is not simply "Lee's thread restarted"! Please, I don't want to rehash all the points that have been gone over before.

I have not read many posts from the other thread. I might read some more of them, but for now, in order to save me some time, please tell me what you are trying to prove. Are you trying to reasonably prove that science verifies the Biblical description of creation, thereby reasonably proving that the God of the Bible created the universe? If so, let's take one claim at a time. You pick a specific claim and let's discuss it.

lee_merrill · 11-12-2007, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Von Smith

Quote:

Originally Posted by lee_merrill

I don't think I say this means other than plants, though.

I think you do, though...

Sorry, I forgot about that--I've been rather preoccupied, and haven't been able to invest the requisite time in the several threads Johnny has started for me here! Note then that there is no Hebrew word for algae, and that plants fits them as well as bananas and broccoli fit "all plants with seed in them" for food.

Quote:

Land plants don't appear before fish...

Agreed, but simple life forms do, which the Hebrews would recognize as plant-sorts of critters.

Quote:

Well, there is a line from fish to birds, but it runs *through* land animals.

Genesis 1:25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds.

Now "wild animals" and "creatures that move along the ground" are fairly generic terms for animals, "livestock" refers to cattle and such, so it's not certain that we have "land animals" as in amphibians, those might be back in verse 21.

lee_merrill · 11-12-2007, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Are you trying to reasonably prove that science verifies the Biblical description of creation, thereby reasonably proving that the God of the Bible created the universe?

Yes.

Quote:

If so, let's take one claim at a time. You pick a specific claim and let's discuss it.

Alright, how about a separation of the land and the appearance of seas? As I recall that wasn't discussed in the other thread on this topic.

Von Smith · 11-12-2007, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lee_merrill

Quote:

Originally Posted by Von Smith

I think you do, though...

Sorry, I forgot about that--I've been rather preoccupied, and haven't been able to invest the requisite time in the several threads Johnny has started for me here! Note then that there is no Hebrew word for algae, and that plants fits them as well as bananas and broccoli fit "all plants with seed in them" for food.

Genesis 1:11-13 specifically mentions trees ('ets), so we are obviously dealing with plants in the usual sense, not algae. And since it mentions trees, it is wrong, or at least, does not align well with mainstream science. There were lifeforms that could reasonably be called "fish" long before there were lifeforms that could reasonably called "trees", but the order in Genesis reverses this.

Quote:

Agreed, but simple life forms do, which the Hebrews would recognize as plant-sorts of critters.

Doesn't matter. The passage clearly intends that trees were created before fish. This does not align with mainstream science.

Quote:

Well, there is a line from fish to birds, but it runs *through* land animals.

Genesis 1:25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds.

Now "wild animals" and "creatures that move along the ground" are fairly generic terms for animals, "livestock" refers to cattle and such, so it's not certain that we have "land animals" as in amphibians, those might be back in verse 21.

Reptiles, dinosaurs, even the earliest *mammals* precede the earliest birds in the fossil record. There is simply no way honest way to read this so that it aligns well with mainstream science.

Johnny Skeptic · 11-12-2007, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

Let's take one claim at a time. You pick a specific claim and let's discuss it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lee Merrill

Alright, how about a separation of the land and the appearance of seas? As I recall that wasn't discussed in the other thread on this topic.

Please quote the pertinent Scriptures.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-12-2007, 10:03 AM	#2
gstafleu Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: London, Ontario, Canada Posts: 1,719	The problem is that the bible is rather vague, and can easily be interpreted to mean what you want it to mean. For example: "There is the initial light (let’s start with energy, shall we?)." Light is a very specific form of energy, a very narrow band in the electromagnetic spectrum. To equate this with energy (as the post seems to surreptitiously do) is reading your preferred version into the text. The Big Bang seems to posit a very condensed state of the universe at time T near 0. To call this "energy," let alone "light" seems tendentious to me. So I'm not so sure what use such attempts to make the bible match science are, beyond apologetics. You can always make a stab at it, but I doubt if it will ever be very convincing. Gerard Stafleu

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.