7 ms·

Well, Genesis does not claim the earth is young. It says the earth existed for an unknown period of time, before God began to prepare it for habitation. The pe

by prmph 5y ago

Well, Genesis does not claim the earth is young. It says the earth existed for an unknown period of time, before God began to prepare it for habitation. The period of this preparation is also not given (it could be arbitrarily long). Genesis also gives an order of appearance of life (plants -> animals -> man) that roughly agrees with the fossil record. There is nothing in Genesis that is at variance with known science, and nothing in it that actually supports a young earth.

elwell 5y ago
As a Christian and a believer that evolution is a beautiful thing, the Genesis story increases my faith; even just the idea of whether or not there was a finite Beginning, seems easy for a religion-crafter to get wrong.
- dane-pgp 5y ago
  > seems easy for a religion-crafter to get wrong. Yes, it turns out it's also an idea that philosophy-crafters and science-crafters can also get wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady-state_model#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady-state_model#History
- gridspy 5y ago
  As a semi-christian, I agree. I think that evolution is the sort of beautiful self-correcting system that God would want to put in place.
goto11 5y ago
> There is nothing in Genesis that is at variance with known science This is so absurd a claim I don't know where to begin. But how about the claim that the sky is a vault which separate the waters above from the waters below? The sky is not actually a vault with water above it, at least according to science. Or how about the claim that the sun and moon and stars was created after plants and trees were created?
- prmph 5y ago
  Apparently before the flood there was massive amounts of water suspended high up in the atmosphere (but not falling as rain, hence disbelief of Noah's contemporaries about a coming flood). There was also water stored in rivers, lakes, oceans, and (ice?) on the surface of the earth. Most of the water in the atmosphere is what fell in the flood, causing some changes to the crust on the earth, and initiating the water cycle as we know it today. But you don't even have to accept this sequence of events. Even now we have large amounts of water suspended in the atmosphere (as clouds) and large amounts on the earth's surface (as described above). I'm not sure what is inaccurate about the description of this general state of affairs in Genesis.
  - munk-a 5y ago
    The definition of water written about in the bible could not include water vapor suspended in air because that concept was unknown to the authors and not among the major contemporary theories of matter. It is strange to use modern understandings to justify historical statements made without those modern understandings.
    - prmph 5y ago
      Isn't that a circular argument? My implicit claim is that the information in Genesis is coming from a superior source who would know, but you are saying that Genesis cannot be accurate because those who wrote it could not know what was scientifically accurate. The writers of the Bible books generally claimed that the information they wrote down was inspired.
      - munk-a 5y ago
        I think that's a logical trap - it implies that the contents of the bible are a direct transcription from a being with superior (or, in it's word, perfect) knowledge. If that's the case then mortal interpretation of the bible can understood to have been historically flawed until... well, until when? Can we understand it in a truthful manner now or are we still too imperfect beings to comprehend its actual truth? And, if we're failing to understand it properly are we doing so for good or ill - we know that some of the previous flawed interpretations were pretty awful. Declaring crusades and wars in the name of the Bible is an abhorrent interpretation to most modern christians - so how are we to know how correct our interpretations are?
krapp 5y ago
>There is nothing in Genesis that is at variance with known science, The part where the first man was created directly from the dust of the earth? The part where the first woman was created from the rib of the first man? The talking snake? The magic trees? The angel with the flaming sword? The existence of God?!
- prmph 5y ago
  You will note that all those things you mention are only impossible to you because you choose to believe the their impossibility. Consider, if something happens once in a billions years, does the fact that you (and everyone who has ever existed) have never seen it happen necessarily mean it is impossible?
  - gridspy 5y ago
    Scientific inquiry requires objective proof OF EXISTANCE. We know that humans can be deceived, both by themselves and others. You might be asking for scientific proof of non-existance, but that cannot be provided for pretty much anything. For instance, you cannot (yet) prove that there is NOT a teapot orbiting at the same distance from the sun as Pluto. By claiming we need to disprove God, you are missing the point. You're being asked to PROVE God. Much of religion is desirable (godlike friendly entities, everlasting life, real justice). However we have no evidence any of it is true. I wish some of it was. Wrath of god, less desirable.
    - prmph 5y ago
      I'm sure you believe in a lot of things for which you have no personal proof. The information in Genesis gives information about several things that agree with known science (even at a time where there was no modern scientific knowledge to speak of). Now, if there are other things in it that seem to go beyond our experience, there is no reason to suddenly doubt it's accuracy. Also, about the null hypothesis thing: Let's say I claim I'm a sentient being. You dispute that claim. On who should the burden of proof fall?
omnicognate 5y ago
> Genesis also gives an order of appearance of life (plants -> animals -> man) that roughly agrees with the fossil record. "Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[a] and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams[b] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the Lord God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. 8 Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." That seems pretty clear and explicit: man -> plants -> animals. And then the first woman is formed from the rib of the first man. Not to mention earth existing before the stars. Before even light! How can you say this is all consistent with known science? Do you consider it a mistranslation or an absurdly contorted metaphor or something?
- prmph 5y ago
  > "Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[a] and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams[b] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. This passage is simply saying there was no human agriculture on the earth, because rain as we know did not exist, and there were no humans to do the work. > 8 Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." Generally plants were existing, but this passage is saying that just prior to forming man, a special garden was planted for them to start with. In effect God was starting an agricultural project to hand over the the first man, for them to dominate the flora with time. > And then the first woman is formed from the rib of the first man. What is impossible about that? > Not to mention earth existing before the stars. Before even light! Nowhere does Genesis say or imply that
  - munk-a 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
amalcon 5y ago
So, there are a lot of tricky translation issues in B'reisheet (the first being that we're calling it Genesis, but no comparable word actually appears in the text). This is not too surprising since a lot of routine concepts today didn't really exist when it was written. However, there are several things that seem not only inconsistent with modern scientific consensus but inconsistent within the book itself. Most obvious is that in chapter 1, animals are said to exist before people ("fifth day", "sixth day"). In chapter 2, however, this happens in the reverse order ("It is not good that man should be alone... formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air"). The latter disagrees with not only the former, but also with basically all evidence we have.

by prmph 5y ago

elwell 5y ago

As a Christian and a believer that evolution is a beautiful thing, the Genesis story increases my faith; even just the idea of whether or not there was a finite Beginning, seems easy for a religion-crafter to get wrong.

dane-pgp 5y ago
> seems easy for a religion-crafter to get wrong. Yes, it turns out it's also an idea that philosophy-crafters and science-crafters can also get wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady-state_model#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady-state_model#History
gridspy 5y ago
As a semi-christian, I agree. I think that evolution is the sort of beautiful self-correcting system that God would want to put in place.

goto11 5y ago

> There is nothing in Genesis that is at variance with known science This is so absurd a claim I don't know where to begin. But how about the claim that the sky is a vault which separate the waters above from the waters below? The sky is not actually a vault with water above it, at least according to science. Or how about the claim that the sun and moon and stars was created after plants and trees were created?

prmph 5y ago
Apparently before the flood there was massive amounts of water suspended high up in the atmosphere (but not falling as rain, hence disbelief of Noah's contemporaries about a coming flood). There was also water stored in rivers, lakes, oceans, and (ice?) on the surface of the earth. Most of the water in the atmosphere is what fell in the flood, causing some changes to the crust on the earth, and initiating the water cycle as we know it today. But you don't even have to accept this sequence of events. Even now we have large amounts of water suspended in the atmosphere (as clouds) and large amounts on the earth's surface (as described above). I'm not sure what is inaccurate about the description of this general state of affairs in Genesis.
- munk-a 5y ago
  The definition of water written about in the bible could not include water vapor suspended in air because that concept was unknown to the authors and not among the major contemporary theories of matter. It is strange to use modern understandings to justify historical statements made without those modern understandings.
  - prmph 5y ago
    Isn't that a circular argument? My implicit claim is that the information in Genesis is coming from a superior source who would know, but you are saying that Genesis cannot be accurate because those who wrote it could not know what was scientifically accurate. The writers of the Bible books generally claimed that the information they wrote down was inspired.
    - munk-a 5y ago
      I think that's a logical trap - it implies that the contents of the bible are a direct transcription from a being with superior (or, in it's word, perfect) knowledge. If that's the case then mortal interpretation of the bible can understood to have been historically flawed until... well, until when? Can we understand it in a truthful manner now or are we still too imperfect beings to comprehend its actual truth? And, if we're failing to understand it properly are we doing so for good or ill - we know that some of the previous flawed interpretations were pretty awful. Declaring crusades and wars in the name of the Bible is an abhorrent interpretation to most modern christians - so how are we to know how correct our interpretations are?

krapp 5y ago

>There is nothing in Genesis that is at variance with known science, The part where the first man was created directly from the dust of the earth? The part where the first woman was created from the rib of the first man? The talking snake? The magic trees? The angel with the flaming sword? The existence of God?!

prmph 5y ago
You will note that all those things you mention are only impossible to you because you choose to believe the their impossibility. Consider, if something happens once in a billions years, does the fact that you (and everyone who has ever existed) have never seen it happen necessarily mean it is impossible?
- gridspy 5y ago
  Scientific inquiry requires objective proof OF EXISTANCE. We know that humans can be deceived, both by themselves and others. You might be asking for scientific proof of non-existance, but that cannot be provided for pretty much anything. For instance, you cannot (yet) prove that there is NOT a teapot orbiting at the same distance from the sun as Pluto. By claiming we need to disprove God, you are missing the point. You're being asked to PROVE God. Much of religion is desirable (godlike friendly entities, everlasting life, real justice). However we have no evidence any of it is true. I wish some of it was. Wrath of god, less desirable.
  - prmph 5y ago
    I'm sure you believe in a lot of things for which you have no personal proof. The information in Genesis gives information about several things that agree with known science (even at a time where there was no modern scientific knowledge to speak of). Now, if there are other things in it that seem to go beyond our experience, there is no reason to suddenly doubt it's accuracy. Also, about the null hypothesis thing: Let's say I claim I'm a sentient being. You dispute that claim. On who should the burden of proof fall?

omnicognate 5y ago

> Genesis also gives an order of appearance of life (plants -> animals -> man) that roughly agrees with the fossil record. "Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[a] and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams[b] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the Lord God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. 8 Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." That seems pretty clear and explicit: man -> plants -> animals. And then the first woman is formed from the rib of the first man. Not to mention earth existing before the stars. Before even light! How can you say this is all consistent with known science? Do you consider it a mistranslation or an absurdly contorted metaphor or something?

prmph 5y ago
> "Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[a] and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams[b] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. This passage is simply saying there was no human agriculture on the earth, because rain as we know did not exist, and there were no humans to do the work. > 8 Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." Generally plants were existing, but this passage is saying that just prior to forming man, a special garden was planted for them to start with. In effect God was starting an agricultural project to hand over the the first man, for them to dominate the flora with time. > And then the first woman is formed from the rib of the first man. What is impossible about that? > Not to mention earth existing before the stars. Before even light! Nowhere does Genesis say or imply that
- munk-a 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

amalcon 5y ago

So, there are a lot of tricky translation issues in B'reisheet (the first being that we're calling it Genesis, but no comparable word actually appears in the text). This is not too surprising since a lot of routine concepts today didn't really exist when it was written. However, there are several things that seem not only inconsistent with modern scientific consensus but inconsistent within the book itself. Most obvious is that in chapter 1, animals are said to exist before people ("fifth day", "sixth day"). In chapter 2, however, this happens in the reverse order ("It is not good that man should be alone... formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air"). The latter disagrees with not only the former, but also with basically all evidence we have.