Genesis vs. Atoms

[blueshuttle]

I saw a cool lecture on how different types of matter came to be, and I started thinking about Genesis…

So here is an argument I typed up. I’m sure someone has already typed up something like this that is written much better (I’m no professor or skilled essayist) but before I start showing this to theists, I thought I would show it all to you first. What does everyone think about it? Is there anything anyone can add to it?

"On the first day, before he created anything else, God created heaven and Earth. Genesis (1:1-2)

God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the sun or stars until the fourth day. Genesis (1:14-19). 1:3-5

By the third day, God made plants, before there was any stars to emit light and support the photosynthesis of the plants. Genesis (1:14-19). 1:11

It is a fact that all atoms in the universe more complex than hydrogen or helium were created exclusively inside dying stars. In the universe’s early age, stars were the only objects in space, and helium and hydrogen (1 and 2 on the atomic chart) were the only types of atoms in space (what stars are made of). When stars eventually started dying, their huge size would cause them to collapse upon themselves and would smash hydrogen and helium into more complex atoms (carbon, oxygen, iron, etc…) These atoms were ejected out during the stars collapse. Over time, these more complex atoms would group together in space to form planets and other objects. Generations of stars had to have existed and died to create the amounts and types of matter necessary for planets, solar systems, and life to exist.

Genesis says the Earth was created on the first day, and the stars were created on the 4th day, but the Earth could not have existed before the 4th day of Genesis. In fact no life, no water, no oxygen, no carbon, nothing other than helium and hydrogen could have existed before generations of stars had already been born, died, and ejected their more complex atoms into the void of space. Therefore, the entire book of Genesis is wrong, starting with the very first sentence. Therefore, the Bible is not infallible, the Bible is not inspired, and the Bible is quite erroneous. Therefore, the Bible does not explain or reveal the creation of anything, and is not appropriate for defining any deity or creator under any circumstances."

[liquid]

It's a nice additional way of looking at the problems with the literal genesis sequence.

Of course it's not going to close out the god-sized wiggle room, but it's always good to see people thinking things through on their own.

Notice you're new, welcome to II! Introduce yourself in the lounge if you like.

[Rymmie1981]

I'm not a creationist, but I was one. As such, here are the comments you will most likely recieve from creationists.

"So, you're saying that atoms have to evolve from hydrogen into carbon? Have you ever seen an atom evolve? Does anyone have proof that atoms evolve?"

"The light God made on the first day was what kept the plants alive on the third day. PRAISE JESUS!!!! I LOVE YOU, LORD, FOR YOUR MARVELOUS CREATION!!!"

"Where is your proof that stars came before the planets? You see, Kent Hovind shows right here...."

"The Bible says that the plants were created before the stars, so I believe it no matter what your science says. Glory to God!!"

"The power of God was enough to keep the plants alive until He created the stars. Hallelujah!!!!!"


If you can break through such "arguements" as those, you will be well off. But, don't think you can just because you have things like pictures from Hubble, mathamatical equations, spectral analysis of the contents of stars from the era of early star formation, or other such things that we like to call "evidence". God's Word is greater than the wisdom of men and wins every time in the mind of someone who truly believes with their heart as opposed to using their brains.

[Shadowy Man]

Originally posted by Rymmie1981
"So, you're saying that atoms have to evolve from hydrogen into carbon? Have you ever seen an atom evolve? Does anyone have proof that atoms evolve?"


That's when I take him down to the local fusion experiment and let him peak his head inside and take a look at atoms evolving!

I'll just have to make sure to tell him to wear his sunscreen.

[blueshuttle]

I do see how using the “glory to God hes so magickal� statement can sidestep logical arguments like these.

I am hoping that some logical-minded theists would believe that what exhaustive scientific study has concluded is correct.

The whole thing about atoms evolving, I mean, haven’t all theists seen H-bomb explosions on TV? What about the nuclear reactions that make electricity to power their homes? I know that this isn’t the same type of atomic change that happens in dying stars, but it is the same principle. we do know that atoms change their structure.

UGH but you are right… they can always use the “God did magick and science doesn’t get it� response.

And what exactly does Kent Hovind say about planets that Carl Sagan (or someone similar) couldn’t explain better?

[Hyndis]

Originally posted by blueshuttle
And what exactly does Kent Hovind say about planets that Carl Sagan (or someone similar) couldn’t explain better? [/B]

Kent Hovind has that slick way of talking where he can miraculously (praise Jebus!) ignore all of the facts, and yet sound like he just said something profound. Whereas Carl Sagan was more of the wise sage who actually wanted people to understand and not just believe one of the hundreds of completely unrelated anecdotes dished out via the shotgun method.

[blueshuttle]

has anyone here seen Kent Hovind (Dr Dino) give a lecture or anything like that?

And I mean actually seen his charismatic way of speaking and presenting his lame material?

are any videos of his presentations on the internet? So far all ive seen is the website of his and some critical talk about him on talkorigins.

[Hyndis]

I'm pretty sure he sells videos on his website, but I'm also pretty sure that several people around here have seen him in person.

I haven't, and I'm curious to see if he's just a myth, or if he's real...but from what I've heard, I'm thinking myth. Its bordering on the completely absurd, and something so absurd can't possibly be true...

Kent Hovind does a parody site...right? Right? :eek:

[Rymmie1981]

Glory to God! Thank you Father for your wonderful universe...etc.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

The reason why you will get the Glory to God bit from creationists so much is that Christians are constantly told to keep their eyes on Jeebus. Anything that makes them question their faith or the "Word of Godtm " is of the devil. The cure for this is to praise Jeebus and keep your eyes on Him. Hallelujah!!

Science doesn't have the answers for life! Only Jeebus does! Your computer doesn't have the answers for life! Only Jeebus does! Your physical, carnal mind doesn't have the answers for life! Only Jeebus does! OH! Glory to God in the Highest! Every answer to every question you will ever have is right in here. *holds up Bible* It was all put in here by God Himself over 2000 years ago. Glory! I've never seen anybody walk on the water, but the BIBLE says JEEBUS WALKED on the water. And I believe it with everything within me. Can I get a witness in here tonight? Come on, choir, we need to praise Jeebus!! *insert about 30 minutes of singing, etc.* *Repeat*

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Other than the "Jeebus", that is what I've heard more times than I care to remember. "Glory to God!" is not a valid way to side-step a logical argument if you are debating another logical person. But, if you try to debate Christian creationists, you usually have several years of that sort of brainwashing to get through. My church admitted that it brainwashing because of a verse that said something about cleansing your mind with the Word of God.

I don't want to discourage you from trying your damnedest to get through to people. My goal is to prepare you for what you will be up against when you do try to make your argument. Most deconversions take months and years, but they can be started by placing a little seed of doubt in the Christian's mind. If the person is of average intelligence, you will be able to bring something up that sticks with them and bothers them through their praise and worhsip and prayer. If they want to know the truth, they will find it. If they want to stay blind to reality, they will, also. Because, there are none so blind as those who will not see.

I wish I could remember who said that, or if it's anonymous or whatever. Oh, well.

[osric_ws]

blueshuttle-
What is really intriguing about Genesis is that there are two distinct creation stories in it. Rabbi's have been discussing this for centuries, but Christians usually don't even touch it. Most Jews seem okay, and even some Christians, accepting that Genesis is a story, a creation myth. I do agree that defining a diety from a creation story is preposterous and an annoyance.

the only thing that might be missed if we disregard all of the Hebrew Testament is the creation of the Jewish culture.

[RevReid]

Rymmie 1981 has exquisitely demonstrated the dilema we face when trying to carry out a logical argument with theists. Having been raised a Hell, Fire and Damnation Baptist, I understand the irony of Rymmie's reply.
Although I do not claim to have the "best" approach to this type of discussion, I have alway found it necessary to remove the words "I believe ..." from any argument. Without these words, theists become disarmed and unable to voice their opinions. Once deprived of opinion, i.e. unsubstantiated concepts and ideas, they are forced to argue facts, figures and studies. Once in this realm, they are easily defeated. However, getting to this point is more than half the battle.
As an aside, I also love Genesis 20, wherein God makes fowl that may fly above the Earth in the open Firmament of Heaven. Since Heaven has already been defined as the location of the sun, moon, stars and constellations, then birds can fly in interstellar space!:cool: Don't you wish that you were a bird so that you could travel freely to other planets and stars without the encumbrances of rockets, space suits and the like?:D

[Heurismus]

Creationist Fearies state that the world is 6-7,000 yers old; then how do they explain this:

http://www.seabar.com/history.htm

Click on the Ebla link embedded in the text, or;

http://www.seabar.com/ebla.htm

And it was the first on a Google search.

[Heurismus]

Most People will think, Huh that leaves 1-2,000 years from Adam and Eve which would provide a wonderful getout for creationists. The problem is shards an burials have been discovered dating back before the Adam and Eve creation myth. But read it; '10,000 years', puts Biblical chronology well out. H

[virtual-guru]

Originally posted by Heurismus
Most People will think, Huh that leaves 1-2,000 years from Adam and Eve which would provide a wonderful getout for creationists. The problem is shards an burials have been discovered dating back before the Adam and Eve creation myth. But read it; '10,000 years', puts Biblical chronology well out. H

Heurismus,

Forget about the Bible. There are thousands of other spiritual books to read from the Vedas,have you read.
Civilisation is millions yrs old! There has been a conspiracy to cover up acheological findings in the past!
The Vedas has been describing astronomy precisely since time immemorial as well as the baby in the womb.

You can start reading Bhagavad Gita by Srila Prabhupada. He wrote 80 other books.

Visit krishna.com

Chant hare krishna!
bye!

[Heurismus]

Thanks virtual guru, I read the original when I was going through my Buddhist phase (18-19). But I will admit it was Zen, and thankyou for alerting me to this writer, my virtual library just became considerably larger. Domo Aragato!!! H

[RevReid]

Oops! How could I have been so wrong?
Last I'd heard, Homo sapiens sapiens was 100,000 years old, or so. Before that there were various and sundry other species. However, all the big braned ones came into existence in the last 2 to 300,000 years. I hadn't realize that Home erectus had ever reached the point of civilization, writing and stuff like that.:cool:
Thanks for the ejumakashun.

[virtual-guru]

Originally posted by Heurismus
Most People will think, Huh that leaves 1-2,000 years from Adam and Eve which would provide a wonderful getout for creationists. The problem is shards an burials have been discovered dating back before the Adam and Eve creation myth. But read it; '10,000 years', puts Biblical chronology well out. H


Hello!

I forgot to refer you to the following site:

mcremo.com

Its about the conspiracy of the western civilisation to cover the truth about true history.

bye!

[Doctor X]

Sorry . . . to lazy to cut and paste . . . if I cannot point and click . . . oh the angst. . . .

--J.D.

[Asha'man]

Originally posted by osric_ws
the only thing that might be missed if we disregard all of the Hebrew Testament is the creation of the Jewish culture.

According to modern archeology, the vast majority of the 'history' in the Hebrew Bible simply never happened. Therefore, we aren’t really seeing how Jewish culture actually formed, but just a long series of myths.

Abraham and the patriarchs, the Exodus from Egypt, the conquest of Canaan, and the unified kingdom of Israel under David and Solomon, all probably never happened. Only once you start discussing the kings of the divided kingdoms of Israel and Judah does the HB begin to be set within real history, and that seems to be mostly names and dates. The events described within those kingships are probably heavily tainted by a political and theological agenda. The vast majority of these stories seem to have been written around the 7th century BCE in the southern kingdom of Judah. The motivation appears to be establishing a political and theological precedent for annexing the neighboring kingdom of Israel, as well as supporting the YHWH-only religious movement against the more polytheistic competition.