Why The Book of Genesis Is Not A Good Model of Origins
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-09-2016, 11:54 AM (This post was last modified: 18-09-2016 12:03 PM by Cumulus.)
Why The Book of Genesis Is Not A Good Model of Origins
This is an excerpt from my conversation with a Creationist. I analyzed the Book of Genesis explaining how it contradicts science and observation. If you're interested in reading it, please let me know if I did a good job, where I could've done better, etc.

Bible verses are in the regular color for text, while my commentary is highlighted blue.

Creation Is Not A Good Model of Origins

The purpose of this digital paper is to explain why the Book of Genesis in the Bible is not a good model for the origin of the universe and life.

“1. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.”

So here we see that the Earth was created before light. However the Earth would still give off light be it volcanoes and hydrothermal vents (if you believe God, ‘poofed’ it into existence). And if you believe in the Solar Nebular Hypothesis, which is the most widely accepted model in the field of cosmogony to explain the formation and evolution of the Solar System, then the Earth would still give off light after formation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebular_hypothesis

“5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.””

How can there be a day without the Sun, as it is not created yet? The text explicitly says there was an evening, and a morning but this impossible if the Earth isn’t rotating something.

“6. And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it.”

This is referring to the Cosmic Ocean. Basically Space is actually a giant body of water and here God is separating Earth from the cosmic ocean by creating the firmament. I don’t feel the need to explain why Space isn’t a giant body of water. Now you might say that God is separating the waters from the atmosphere but it is made clear to me that Moses or whoever wrote this book is referring to water in its liquid form, not gaseous form as the plural word for water is used. “Waters.”

“And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.”

So the vault which is separating the, ‘waters’ is called the Sky. The atmosphere is separating the, ‘waters’ and the waters above the expanse are not the atmosphere. This confirms it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_c...underworld

“9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.”

There is no evidence that the entire earth was at one point covered with water.
https://ncse.com/library-resource/yes-no...hole-earth

“11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.”

Vegetation without sunlight? And fruit-bearing trees no less. That’s a tall order without a Sun. Also, not all vegetation produces seeds yet the Bible says God created specifically seed-bearing plants. Also there’s evidence that seeds evolved, (weren’t created). The Bible also says that plants were created specifically on the land, not the ocean. This does not account for plant life like algae, kelp, lily pads and other aquatic plant life.
http://earthsky.org/earth/how-did-the-fi...eds-evolve

“14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.”

Finally the Sun is created. Now supposing God made the Earth at a stand still and then created the Sun, the Earth would be swallowed by the Sun’s gravity. But supposing God made the Earth already rotating… we run into a problem. How can the Earth rotate something that isn’t there? Additionally the Sun rotates the center of the galaxy. So if God made the Sun at a standstill with no rotational motion, then it would gravitate towards the center of the galaxy and be swallowed by the supermassive black hole over time. Also as the solar system got closer to the center of the galaxy, all life on Earth would be fried from radiation of other stars and the black hole, Sagittarius A, that is if the Earth somehow didn’t get swallowed from the Sun itself.

“20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.”
What about other life that can fly that aren’t avian? Like insects, bats, and some extinct dinosaurs?

“24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 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. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

So here we see God creating mankind (not just man) and he is creating more than one (see the word, ‘them’ and the words, ‘male and female). So obviously this is before God made Adam which doesn’t make sense and is inconsistent. Now I’ve been told before that this is just a summary, but the Bible doesn’t outright say it or imply it.

I’m going to skip past some verses as I currently have no commentary on it.


“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.”

The Theory of Evolution is a better theory than this as it explains with more detail how we came to be and actually has evidence to support it. There is no evidence that we were formed from dust. Also, if we were formed from dust, then how come we don’t see people emerging from dust devils? It might sound like a silly argument but the same silly argument is applied to evolution. Perhaps you’ve heard of the tornado passing through the junk yard and constructing a ferrari argument? Same thing.

Additionally is it not strange that Adam was formed as a man and not a baby? How did Adam learn how to walk and talk? There are cases of children never learning how to talk and walk and they are called, ‘Feral Children.’ Would Adam be a feral man?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_child

And what of the other species of human like the Neanderthals which could use tools, had jewelry, and spoke their own language? There is no account of them being created.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo

Here’s a frozen caveman that they found.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96tzi

And another frozen caveman,
http://undergroundscience.net/mysteries/frozen-caveman-discovered-in-himalaya/

The Bible does not account for the different species of Humans and is therefore not a good model of origins.

“18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”

19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.

But for Adam[f] no suitable helper was found. 21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs[g] and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib[h] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

23 The man said,

“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.”
24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.”

Why didn’t God just make Woman out of dust? Why did he have to perform surgery on Adam, so to speak, and take one of his ribs to make woman? Just make her out of dust. There is no evidence that men have one less rib than women which could provide evidence that Woman was made from Man. Scientists think that the two sexes co-evolved versus one evolving and then the other.

Another point; Did God create Adam with the ability to sexually reproduce? If Woman was literally created because the animals failed to be good helpers to Adam, then when God initially made Adam why would he have reproduction in mind? Woman was created to help Man, but if that purpose was to procreate then you have to apply that purpose to the other animals too because the Bible says that they failed in whatever helping Adam meant. It does not appear that Woman was created for the express purpose of procreation. The details of sexual reproduction aren’t even mentioned. You could assume that God created Adam with procreation in mind but then that calls into question why he didn’t just make Woman and Man together. Why wait to make Woman?

Later on in the creation story, Adam and Eve eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. This opposes the Theory of Evolution in which morality is a result of evolution. But the flaw with this is the need for the Law. If we know what is right for wrong because Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, then why did God command Moses to write his commandments down? Shouldn’t the Israelites already know what is wrong? Why do we need Laws if Evil is universally known by everyone?

Obviously what is wrong and what isn’t, isn’t universally known or completely shared between different societies. So if we inherit Sin from our ancestors, Adam and Eve, shouldn’t we also have knowledge of good and evil? Why do we need to decide in courts if something is wrong or not if we already know? Even Christians and Jews argue over what’s right and what’s wrong.

Where is the Garden of Eden? Or more specifically where is the Tree of Life and Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil? There are no reports of trees that make people live forever and we’ve found and eaten pretty much all the fruit there is on the planet. And if the Cherubim God sent to guard the garden is still guarding it to this day with a flaming sword, why is there nothing in the news about it? Or if God removed the Garden of Eden from this planet, then why is it not recorded in the text?

There is no evidence to back up the creation myth in Genesis Chapters 1 and 2. Most of the time it doesn’t make sense and what it says is contrary to our scientific knowledge and what we observe. To summarize my points are as follows:


1. The Earth could not be created before light.
2. There can not be a day without a Sun.
3. There are no, ‘waters’ above the atmosphere and that is what the Bible is actually talking about.
4. There is no evidence that the entire Earth was covered in water, opposing God creating dry land.
5. The Bible says the Sun was created after Plants. However, Seed-bearing plants can not live without sunlight and the Bible does not account for aquatic plant life.
6. The Bible says the Sun was created after the Earth which is contradictory to Modern Cosmogony. Additionally, the Sun’s gravity would swallow the Earth and the solar-system would be swallowed by the black hole at the center of the universe.
7. The Bible does not account for other flying life such as insects, bats, and dinosaurs.
8. The Bible does not account for other species of Human.
9. There is no evidence to suggest we formed from dust.
10. It is not explained how Adam learned how to talk and walk.
11. It is not logical why God made Woman out of man’s ribs versus out of dust.
12. The Bible does not account for the origin of sexual reproduction like the Theory of Evolution does, and Woman appears to be created to help Man, but not make babies with him.
13. The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil contradicts the necessity for the ten commandments and Law in general.
14. There is no evidence to suggest that the Garden of Eden, the Cherubim with a flaming sword protecting it, or the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and the Tree of Life exist or existed.

Overall the Lambda-CDM model does a better job of explaining the universe, the Solar-Nebula Hypothesis does a better job of explaining the formation of the solar system and the Theory of Evolution and the theory of abiogenesis do a better job of explaining Life. While all the answers aren’t there, a lot of the important ones are and those answers are more detailed, make logical sense and don’t contradict each other or what we observe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebular_hypothesis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Bible verses were taken and quoted from this site,
https://www.biblegateway.com/
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Cumulus's post
18-09-2016, 12:54 PM
RE: Why The Book of Genesis Is Not A Good Model of Origins
The Bible isn't a science textbook and only an imbecile treats it as such.

Genesis contains two creation myths that contradict one another. The Genesis 1 tale is a more recent addition than the Genesis 2-3 account.

Magic makes poor science. What else do you call a story with a rib woman, talking snake, and fruit tree of knowledge (+2, cursed)?

In the Genesis 2-3 tale, god lies, the serpent tells the truth and god banishes Adam and Eve because he's worried about competition.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Paleophyte's post
19-09-2016, 03:29 AM
RE: Why The Book of Genesis Is Not A Good Model of Origins
(18-09-2016 12:54 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  The Bible isn't a science textbook and only an imbecile treats it as such.

Genesis contains two creation myths that contradict one another. The Genesis 1 tale is a more recent addition than the Genesis 2-3 account.

Magic makes poor science. What else do you call a story with a rib woman, talking snake, and fruit tree of knowledge (+2, cursed)?

In the Genesis 2-3 tale, god lies, the serpent tells the truth and god banishes Adam and Eve because he's worried about competition.

Damn, while I agree with you, you sure put it bluntly. Then again this IS an Atheist Forum. Yes my Creationist friend seems to think its a scientific text. This was just me showing him he was mistaken. Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Cumulus's post
19-09-2016, 06:06 AM
RE: Why The Book of Genesis Is Not A Good Model of Origins
The "bible" isn't a good model of origins, much in the same way that Harry Potter and the Sorcerer"s stone isn't a good medical journal............



Works of fiction should be for entertainment value only.....

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like onlinebiker's post
19-09-2016, 06:51 AM
RE: Why The Book of Genesis Is Not A Good Model of Origins
A few, possibly overly pedantic, comments...

(18-09-2016 11:54 AM)Cumulus Wrote:  “1. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.”

So here we see that the Earth was created before light. However the Earth would still give off light be it volcanoes and hydrothermal vents (if you believe God, ‘poofed’ it into existence). And if you believe in the Solar Nebular Hypothesis, which is the most widely accepted model in the field of cosmogony to explain the formation and evolution of the Solar System, then the Earth would still give off light after formation.

The text is ambiguous; it says that the earth was created in the beginning but then that it was formless except for the "deep". Ignoring the apparent cribbing from earlier creation myths, there doesn't appear to be an earth as we know it yet to be giving off light from the heat or volcanoes or anything.


Quote:“5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.””

How can there be a day without the Sun, as it is not created yet? The text explicitly says there was an evening, and a morning but this impossible if the Earth isn’t rotating something.

I'm a bit confused about the Earth needing to be "rotating something". Day and night could be if either (a) the Earth is rotating in the presence of a light source or (b) a light source is revolving around the Earth.

Quote:“11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.”

Vegetation without sunlight? And fruit-bearing trees no less. That’s a tall order without a Sun. Also, not all vegetation produces seeds yet the Bible says God created specifically seed-bearing plants. Also there’s evidence that seeds evolved, (weren’t created). The Bible also says that plants were created specifically on the land, not the ocean. This does not account for plant life like algae, kelp, lily pads and other aquatic plant life.

I think that first criticism is weak; plants don't need the sun, they need light and that was already created. The order doesn't work here since we know that land plants, and specifically fruit trees, came long after sea life and that they arose in conjunction with animal life, not before.

Quote:“14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.”

Finally the Sun is created. Now supposing God made the Earth at a stand still and then created the Sun, the Earth would be swallowed by the Sun’s gravity. But supposing God made the Earth already rotating… we run into a problem. How can the Earth rotate something that isn’t there? Additionally the Sun rotates the center of the galaxy. So if God made the Sun at a standstill with no rotational motion, then it would gravitate towards the center of the galaxy and be swallowed by the supermassive black hole over time. Also as the solar system got closer to the center of the galaxy, all life on Earth would be fried from radiation of other stars and the black hole, Sagittarius A, that is if the Earth somehow didn’t get swallowed from the Sun itself.

I'm not sure if it is a language issue but the Earth doesn't "rotate the sun" and the sun doesn't "rotate the galaxy". The Earth rotates and it revolves around the sun; if you said that the Earth rotates around the sun if would be understood. I also don't see it as important that the text doesn't mention that either body is moving - it also doesn't say that they are standing still. I think you may be arguing a strawman there. There's enough to go on just pointing out that there was light before we had the sun or stars yet.

Quote:“20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind.

I think you missed an opportunity to point out that sea life preceded land life.

Quote:Additionally is it not strange that Adam was formed as a man and not a baby? How did Adam learn how to walk and talk? There are cases of children never learning how to talk and walk and they are called, ‘Feral Children.’ Would Adam be a feral man?[/color]

When you have a magical being creating a person out of dust I don't think the argument that it had to be created as a baby is meaningful.

Quote:The Bible does not account for the different species of Humans and is therefore not a good model of origins.

Genesis talks about the Nephilim creating hybrids of some kind; that can probably be twisted to explain hominid fossils. What it doesn't explain is the fossils of species that no longer exist.

Quote:But for Adam[f] no suitable helper was found.

You missed an opportunity to point out that god thought Adam could find a mate among the animals. You allude to it later but it might benefit from more focus. Apparently not even the goats or sheep were acceptable.

Quote:23 The man said,
“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.”
24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.”

Why didn’t God just make Woman out of dust? Why did he have to perform surgery on Adam, so to speak, and take one of his ribs to make woman? Just make her out of dust. There is no evidence that men have one less rib than women which could provide evidence that Woman was made from Man. Scientists think that the two sexes co-evolved versus one evolving and then the other.

Not to mention that it already said he created mankind which implies both men and women.

Quote:Later on in the creation story, Adam and Eve eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. This opposes the Theory of Evolution in which morality is a result of evolution. But the flaw with this is the need for the Law. If we know what is right for wrong because Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, then why did God command Moses to write his commandments down? Shouldn’t the Israelites already know what is wrong? Why do we need Laws if Evil is universally known by everyone?

That's an interesting question but the other issue is how Adam or Eve were supposed to know that disobeying was a bad thing before they had any knowledge of good and evil. They could not possibly tell right from wrong.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
19-09-2016, 12:50 PM
RE: Why The Book of Genesis Is Not A Good Model of Origins
(19-09-2016 03:29 AM)Cumulus Wrote:  
(18-09-2016 12:54 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  The Bible isn't a science textbook and only an imbecile treats it as such.

Genesis contains two creation myths that contradict one another. The Genesis 1 tale is a more recent addition than the Genesis 2-3 account.

Magic makes poor science. What else do you call a story with a rib woman, talking snake, and fruit tree of knowledge (+2, cursed)?

In the Genesis 2-3 tale, god lies, the serpent tells the truth and god banishes Adam and Eve because he's worried about competition.

Damn, while I agree with you, you sure put it bluntly.

No reason to put if differently. Bible and religion deserve criticism.

Wysłane z mojego 6045K przy użyciu Tapatalka

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Szuchow's post
19-09-2016, 01:11 PM
RE: Why The Book of Genesis Is Not A Good Model of Origins
I think this is a more logical explanation for the beginning of life rather than Genesis...

[Image: fstork.jpg]

—In Greek mythology, storks were associated with stealing babies, after Hera turned her rival into a stork, and the stork-woman attempted to steal her son. In Egyptian mythology, the soul of a person—the ba—was usually represented by a stork. The return of a stork meant the return of the soul, at which point the person could become animated again.

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes SYZ's post
19-09-2016, 02:57 PM
RE: Why The Book of Genesis Is Not A Good Model of Origins
(19-09-2016 03:29 AM)Cumulus Wrote:  
(18-09-2016 12:54 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  The Bible isn't a science textbook and only an imbecile treats it as such.

Genesis contains two creation myths that contradict one another. The Genesis 1 tale is a more recent addition than the Genesis 2-3 account.

Magic makes poor science. What else do you call a story with a rib woman, talking snake, and fruit tree of knowledge (+2, cursed)?

In the Genesis 2-3 tale, god lies, the serpent tells the truth and god banishes Adam and Eve because he's worried about competition.

Damn, while I agree with you, you sure put it bluntly. Then again this IS an Atheist Forum. Yes my Creationist friend seems to think its a scientific text. This was just me showing him he was mistaken. Smile

I don't pull punches when it comes to creationist bullshit. Seeing as you're talking to a friend you may want to.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Paleophyte's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: