Chronogenesis

[AV1611VET]

You're trying to make mythology match up to facts.

Phred, you don't get it, do you?

I'm just trying to see how far off Genesis 1 is with respect to current paradigms - that's all.

Just pretend like it's not Genesis 1, and put the things mentioned in It in chronological order.

That way, I can hold up one sheet of paper and say, "This is the order that God says it's in" --- and hold up another sheet of paper and say, "And this is the order 'science' says it's in."

 

[TheManeki]

That way, I can hold up one sheet of paper and say, "This is the order that God says it's in" --- and hold up another sheet of paper and say, "And this is the order 'science' says it's in."

Actually, a more accurate statement would be "This is the order that 'God' says it's in" vs. "This is the order science says it's in" seeing as you have yet to demonstrate your interpretation of Genesis 1 -- out of all the many others -- is the sole correct one.

 

[FishFace]

"If it disagrees with the Silmarillion, it's wrong."

To be fair, the Silmarillion was published posthumously and, at least in my edition:

Included in the preface the claim that J.R.R. wouldn't have considered it worthy to be published - it can hence hardly be considered infallible ;-)

 

[FishFace]

That way, I can hold up one sheet of paper and say, "This is the order that I think someone says that God told them to say it's in" --- and hold up another sheet of paper and say, "And this is the order evidence says it's in."

Fixed.

 

[necroforest]

To be fair, the Silmarillion was published posthumously and, at least in my edition:

Included in the preface the claim that J.R.R. wouldn't have considered it worthy to be published - it can hence hardly be considered infallible ;-)

So, it's kind of like the Bible?

 

[Nathan Poe]

LOL --- you don't even understand the OP --- do you?

Nobody ever does.

Here --- let me try --- maybe that'll kick-start something in your icons:

1. sun
2. moon
3. stars
4. earth
5. ocean
6. atmosphere
7. plant life
8. ocean life
9. whales
10. land animals
11. birds
12. man

How far off am I?

Pretty much hit-and-miss, as usual. And that's not including all the stuff you left out.

 

[tcampen]

Put Genesis 1 in chronological order, with respect to evolution.

Genesis:

1. Watery, formless planet Earth suspended in the darkness and void of space (no stars, no sun, no moon, no planets - except for Earth).
2. Light.
3. Separation of light from the darkness - and the first indication that the planet is rotating (day and night cycle produced).
4. Formation of Earth's atmosphere, separating the water into two parts:
   (a) oceanic and subterranean water
   (b) atmospheric water.
5. Dry land and oceans.
6. System to water the entire land surface using subterranean waters (involving springs or mist, or both).
7. Vegetation, seed-bearing plants, trees that bear fruit.
8. Garden of Eden?
9. Sun
10. Moon - complete with established orbit so as to mark passage of time (months, seasons, and years).
11. Stars and other planets.
12. Water creatures of all kinds.
13. Birds.
14. Land animals: (a) creatures that move close to the ground (small animals), (b) large animals, and (c) animals of use to man as livestock.
15. Man.
16. Woman.

The PROBLEM:

- How do you get light before the sun and other stars?
- How do you get an earth before the sun and other stars?
- How do you arbitrarily separation light from darkness?
- How do you get plants before you have a sun?
- How do you get fruit before you have animals?
- how do you.........

No. The evidence not only shows the order is wrong, but to do it all in 6 days a little over 6,000 years ago is impossible - unless God created the universe to look like it was very different from the myth of Genesis.

Genesis is a lovely (largely borrowed) story for a simple time for scientifically ignorant people. It served its purpose back in the day. But for people to take it literally now? Come on!

 

[AV1611VET]

Genesis is a lovely (largely borrowed) story for a simple time for scientifically ignorant people. It served its purpose back in the day. But for people to take it literally now? Come on!

TC, I said "with respect to evolution" --- your answer is with respect to Genesis 1.

 

[tcampen]

TC, I said "with respect to evolution" --- your answer is with respect to Genesis 1.

Ok, gotcha.

But before I do, what's you point?

Do you want biological evolution, or, like Genesis, creation from beginning of the universe?

 

[AV1611VET]

Ok, gotcha.

But before I do, what's you point?

Do you want biological evolution, or, like Genesis, creation from beginning of the universe?

QV PLEASE

 

[Assyrian]

LOL --- you don't even understand the OP --- do you?

Here --- let me try --- maybe that'll kick-start something in your icons:

1. sun
2. moon
3. stars
4. earth
5. ocean
6. atmosphere
7. plant life
8. ocean life
9. whales
10. land animals
11. birds
12. man

How far off am I?

Pretty far according to Genesis 2 I have highlighted the ones you have out of sequence. It should be:

1. man
2. bushes, small plants, trees
3. every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens
4. woman

 

[AV1611VET]

Pretty far according to Genesis 2 I have highlighted the ones you have out of sequence. It should be:

1. man
2. bushes, small plants, trees
3. every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens
4. woman

Wow ---

 

[tcampen]

QV PLEASE

Got it, thanks.

No, I do see many parallels between the genesis myth and scientific explanations of natural origins. But Genesis is not alone in parallels between creation myth and scientific evidence. Whether its Norse, Chelan, Babylonian, Mayan, or Chinese, you'll find interesting commonalities.

What does this prove as it relates to scientific evidence? Not much, really. People got lucky on some of it, reason prevailed in other parts, and in most ways were totally wrong. If anything, comparing creation myth stories really proves our common humanity.

 

[AV1611VET]

Got it, thanks.

TC, do me a favor please [not really] --- put these in chronological order:

• son --- grandfather --- great-grandson

Now, let's make it a tad tougher --- put these in chronological order:

• whales --- man --- birds

Now, let's get to my OP --- put these in chronological order:

• [the things mentioned in] Genesis 1

Got it now?

 

[tcampen]

TC, do me a favor please [not really] --- put these in chronological order:

• son --- grandfather --- great-grandson

Now, let's make it a tad tougher --- put these in chronological order:

• whales --- man --- birds

Now, let's get to my OP --- put these in chronological order:

• [the things mentioned in] Genesis 1

Got it now?

Gotcha,

The order should be land animals, birds, whales, man. Genesis got the order wrong with whales, birds, land animals, man. I understand that.

but what's your point?

 

[AV1611VET]

but what's your point?

Again, QV PLEASE.

I'd like to have the entire list, so I can show how vastly different the orders are in the two lists.

 

[tcampen]

Again, QV PLEASE.

I'd like to have the entire list, so I can show how vastly different the orders are in the two lists.

I concede your point that they are different in a great number of respects.

But the problem is Genesis covers the origin of the universe and everything in it in matter of a chapter. Science covers the same subject matter in infinitely greater detail in volumes of work no one person could read in their lifetime.

The general, and extremely simplistic scientific concept goes essentially as follows:

- initial expansion of the universe
- things cool down and atoms form
- stars form in galaxies, creating heavier elements within stars- planets form around previously existing stars
- our sun
- Earth forms
- water develops on earth
- first replicating molecules evolve
- single celled life in water/liquid
- multicelluar life
- plants
- invertibrates
- insects on land
- flying insects
- vertibrates in water
- land animals
- more land animals
- pterosaurs (flying) and plesiosaurs (back to water) were at the same time
- flying animals - birds
- other land animals go back to the water (whales)
- flying animals (bats)
- humans

ok, and your point again?

 

[AV1611VET]

But the problem is Genesis covers the origin of the universe and everything in it in matter of a chapter. Science covers the same subject matter in infinitely greater detail in volumes of work no one person could read in their lifetime.

Indeed --- and this is my point --- the two lists are irreconcilable, even with my Embedded Age scenario.

Science has mass/energy at a constant --- whereas Creation has mass/energy starting out at zero, then rising to its current level over a period of six days.

In addition --- and this is very important --- if someone cannot get past Genesis 1, they're in for a doosey of a ride, as it only gets harder from there.

Have you seen my four Biblical refutations of evolution?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Indeed --- and this is my point --- the two lists are irreconcilable, even with my Embedded Age scenario.

Haven't we aleready established that your embedded age scenario is worthless?

Oh, that's right, you haven't, but the rest of us...

Science has mass/energy at a constant --- whereas Creation has mass/energy starting out at zero, then rising to its current level over a period of six days.

Ah yes, the magical ex nihilo *POOF*ing of the universe. Works on one planet for six days, then creates the rest of the cosmos with barely an idle thought.

In addition --- and this is very important --- if someone cannot get past Genesis 1, they're in for a doosey of a ride, as it only gets harder from there.

Or -- they read Genesis 1 like the mythology it is, and move on. Where's the important part?

Have you seen my four Biblical refutations of evolution?

They clearly explain why a Biblical Literalist wouldn't accept evolutionary theory.

The point?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

As far as the first creation account in Genesis (Priestly source) is concerened the order is something like this:

0. Before creation, there is the unordered and void (tohu, bohu), dark waters of the deep.

Then the creation week starts, and on its first half stuff is ordered and given structure:
1. Light/Darkeness, Night/Day
2. A skydome to separate above it from those below it. Along with that comes the sky.
3. The waters under the skydome are separated from the land. Plants as a property of the ground come on the third day as well.

On the second half of the creation week the voidness (bohu) is taken care of and
4. what was created on the first day is filled with inhabitants: Sun, Moon, Stars.
5. what was created on the second day is filled with inhabitants: Birds, fish etc.
6. what was created on the third day is filled with inhabitants: Land animals and humans.

7. Lastly the Sabbath is estalished.

*********************

The presence or absense of evolution (or, to be more accurate the ToE) has absolutely no bearing on text of Genesis 1-2:4a.

Moreover, the second creation story is simply that. A second - a different - creation story.