Science and the Bible

[Raven]

That's not backwards... creation of the universe and all the light within it would have occurred prior to the birth of our sun

What real reason was there for creating the sun after he already created light? It needed a source to illuminate the Earth? Wasn't it already illuminating it? Plus, the way it's described in the bible is silly.

Genesis 1:4-5God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Genesis 1:16-19And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night ... to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Backwards wasn't the right word. More like unnecessary and head scratching.

[Aura7541]

What real reason was there for creating the sun after he already created light? It needed a source to illuminate the Earth? Wasn't it already illuminating it? Plus, the way it's described in the bible is silly.

Genesis 1:4-5God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Genesis 1:16-19And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night ... to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Backwards wasn't the right word. More like unnecessary and head scratching.

Just one of the countless inconsistencies in the Bible....

[Raven]

Actually, I was right to call it backwards considering what the passages are describing. The difference between day time and night time on Earth. He already made it light out for day time. Then three days later he needed to make the sun for it to be light outside during the day. If the Sun was going to be necessary for day time why didn't he do that first? Though it still begs the question of why the Sun is necessary for day time at all when he already made day time and night time three days earlier.

[7H3]

Just one of the countless inconsistencies in the Bible....

I don't see the inconsistency here unless you are purporting that the bible and science don't coalesce on this matter.

 

What real reason was there for creating the sun after he already created light? It needed a source to illuminate the Earth? Wasn't it already illuminating it? Plus, the way it's described in the bible is silly.

Genesis 1:4-5God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Genesis 1:16-19And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night ... to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Backwards wasn't the right word. More like unnecessary and head scratching.

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

All heavenly bodies created devoid of a light source, but possibly the make up (ingredients) necessary for everything to follow.  

And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day.

Light was created then the sun and moon afterwards.

Personally I don't see any divide between science and the bible in regards to creation, and am one who is open to the possibility of evolution. However, Evolution and TBT are both still theories and still leave unanswered questions. I do not think religion/faith nor science precludes the other. Meanwhile both should be a discipline for improvement of life and discovery of truth.

Actually, I was right to call it backwards considering what the passages are describing. The difference between day time and night time on Earth. He already made it light out for day time. Then three days later he needed to make the sun for it to be light outside during the day. If the Sun was going to be necessary for day time why didn't he do that first? Though it still begs the question of why the Sun is necessary for day time at all when he already made day time and night time three days earlier.

Well the third day HE created the sun and moon to manage the night and day. There is no other scriptural detail of how HE created and managed the light before that point. However, one could infer that the light acted as a life force or spark of energy of sorts that set things in motion including lighting up the sun.
----
Another interesting note the first farmer recorded in the bible was Cain who was one of the very first people on earth. I don't know the timeline well enough personally to speculate if the farm could have been from Cain or a descendant though. I also do not currently subscribe to any dating belief of the earth at all as I just don't know and don't think it effectively matters that much for science or faith.

[Raven]

The problem with the biblical passages would not necessarily be rooted in a scientific inaccuracy. I'm not even sure why you brought science into the discussion as if I did. The problem is that he made day time and night time and then three days later apparently needed the sun to maintain day time. It doesn't make any sense. You already succeeded in making day time. What was the problem that you needed a star to maintain day time? If the sun was necessary to begin with why not have made that first? You are focusing a little too much on what we know of light from a scientific perspective and not on what the passage is actually describing. It is about how god created day time and night time on Earth. If god needed the sun to maintain what he did, which he should have known, then the sun would have been there on Day 1. Not Day 4. Therefor, it was a bit backwards of god to do what he did if the sun was necessary to begin with which still begs the question of why the sun is needed if day time was there without it. You don't even need science to see the issue. Just some good old fashioned critical thinking in general.

As far as evolution is concerned, it is excepted as both fact and theory among a vast majority of the scientific community. Fact in that we know it happens. The theory part is explaining how, which is actually pretty solid in our understanding of it.

[Aura7541]

I don't see the inconsistency here unless you are purporting that the bible and science don't coalesce on this matter.

The Bible is no different from any other fictional story, with the exception that it's an anthology since there are multiple authors. The amount of inconsistencies, whether they be scientific or non-scientific, is quite a lot.

One of the most obvious inaccuracies in the Bible is its support of geocentricism, which Galileo ultimately debunked.

[Legend]

As far as evolution is concerned, it is excepted as both fact and theory among a vast majority of the scientific community. Fact in that we know it happens. The theory part is explaining how, which is actually pretty solid in our understanding of it.

"Theory" in science does not mean theory like it does in day to day life. Even if God himself came down from the skies and said our understanding of evolution was 100% correct, it'd still be called a scientific theory. There is no "fact" vs "theory" split in the theory of evolution. It's all "fact," in the layperson sense of the word.

Spoiler for Hidden:

But to overcomplicate things, I also need to stress that scientific theories and scientific laws are not necessarily 100% correct. They are simply correct from our limited reference point. For example Isaac Newton's law of gravitation was perfect and all, but now we understand special relativity and quantum mechanics. Newtonian mechanics are broke when it comes to the really small or really fast.

[the-pi-guy]

"Theory" in science does not mean theory like it does in day to day life. Even if God himself came down from the skies and said our understanding of evolution was 100% correct, it'd still be called a scientific theory. There is no "fact" vs "theory" split in the theory of evolution. It's all "fact," in the layperson sense of the word.

Spoiler for Hidden:

But to overcomplicate things, I also need to stress that scientific theories and scientific laws are not necessarily 100% correct. They are simply correct from our limited reference point. For example Isaac Newton's law of gravitation was perfect and all, but now we understand special relativity and quantum mechanics. Newtonian mechanics are broke when it comes to the really small or really fast.

From what I understand there is actually also a difference between theory and law.  
A law is basically a description of what happens.  
A theory might be more of a why something happens.  
For example a law might be
Fg= Gm1m2/r^2
Whereas the description of Gravity by Einstein's theory of relativity, is a theory.  

A theory is pretty much the best model we have for what we observe.  It might change slightly, but without some gigantic piece of evidence, it's not likely to change much.  
Like we still have the Theory of Evolution, but it's been very much developed since Darwin, and expanded, with DNA evidence and much more that just wasn't available during his time, is now part of that framework.

[Raven]

"Theory" in science does not mean theory like it does in day to day life. Even if God himself came down from the skies and said our understanding of evolution was 100% correct, it'd still be called a scientific theory. There is no "fact" vs "theory" split in the theory of evolution. It's all "fact," in the layperson sense of the word.

Spoiler for Hidden:

But to overcomplicate things, I also need to stress that scientific theories and scientific laws are not necessarily 100% correct. They are simply correct from our limited reference point. For example Isaac Newton's law of gravitation was perfect and all, but now we understand special relativity and quantum mechanics. Newtonian mechanics are broke when it comes to the really small or really fast.

I know what a scientific theory is, its difference from lay person usage, and that it will never be considered 100% accurate. No theory ever will be because science always leaves room for new discoveries in how something works. There IS a need to "split" it because of people who debate evolution as "just a theory". That's why I point out, and scientists/science students do this too, that evolution is a "fact", even if based only on knowing it happens (mutations, speciation, etc.), while being a theory. I'm not the one you need to point this shame out to.

From what I understand there is actually also a difference between theory and law.  
A law is basically a description of what happens.  
A theory might be more of a why something happens.  
For example a law might be
Fg= Gm1m2/r^2
Whereas the description of Gravity by Einstein's theory of relativity, is a theory.  

A theory is pretty much the best model we have for what we observe.  It might change slightly, but without some gigantic piece of evidence, it's not likely to change much.  
Like we still have the Theory of Evolution, but it's been very much developed since Darwin, and expanded, with DNA evidence and much more that just wasn't available during his time, is now part of that framework.

There are tons of people who think laws and theories are in some hierarchy. That one becomes another.

[Legend]

From what I understand there is actually also a difference between theory and law.  
A law is basically a description of what happens.  
A theory might be more of a why something happens.  
For example a law might be
Fg= Gm1m2/r^2
Whereas the description of Gravity by Einstein's theory of relativity, is a theory.  

A theory is pretty much the best model we have for what we observe.  It might change slightly, but without some gigantic piece of evidence, it's not likely to change much.  
Like we still have the Theory of Evolution, but it's been very much developed since Darwin, and expanded, with DNA evidence and much more that just wasn't available during his time, is now part of that framework.

Law=describes what the universe does, usually mathematical in nature
Theory=describes how/why the universe does things
Hypothesis=theory about the universe, could be supported or unsupported

All three are interconnected and have a lot to do with each other, but things never transition from one to another.

Spoiler for Hidden:

It&#39;s as if we&#39;re just repeating each other, while adding the slightest amount of new info! <img src="https://vizioneck.com/forum/Smileys/default/wink.gif" alt=";&#41;" title="Wink" class="smiley">

I know what a scientific theory is, its difference from lay person usage, and that it will never be considered 100% accurate. No theory ever will be because science always leaves room for new discoveries in how something works. There IS a need to "split" it because of people who debate evolution as "just a theory". That's why I point out, and scientists/science students do this too, that evolution is a "fact", even if based only on knowing it happens (mutations, speciation, etc.), while being a theory. I'm not the one you need to point this shame out to.

I'll take your word for it, but you certainly sound like you're mixing some things up.

[Raven]

Law=describes what the universe does, usually mathematical in nature
Theory=describes how/why the universe does things
Hypothesis=theory about the universe, could be supported or unsupported

All three are interconnected and have a lot to do with each other, but things never transition from one to another.

Spoiler for Hidden:

It's as if we're just repeating each other, while adding the slightest amount of new info!

I'll take your word for it, but you certainly sound like you're mixing some things up.

Gee thanks. fudge off now, please?

[the-pi-guy]

One of the most obvious inaccuracies in the Bible is its support of geocentricism, which Galileo ultimately debunked.

Galileo thrust a lot of arguments at Geocentricism, but it didn't really get completely debunked until much later.  
To be fair, Galileo was a Christian.  

Kepler was also a fan of heliocentrism, (actually even for religious reasons), yet he was a very serious Lutheran.  

[Legend]

Gee thanks. fudge off now, please?

Galileo thrust a lot of arguments at Geocentricism, but it didn't really get completely debunked until much later.  
To be fair, Galileo was a Christian.  

To be fair, wasn't basically everyone back then a Christian?

[Raven]

To be fair, wasn't basically everyone back then a Christian?

[the-pi-guy]

To be fair, wasn't basically everyone back then a Christian?

Everyone in Europe?  
Almost...  
The Moors in modern day Spain/Portugal were muslims.  

Laplace was an atheist, and that was only slightly after Newton's time.