OJBs Web Site: Blog Page

Note: You are currently viewing my old web site. There is a new version with most of this content at OJB.NZ.
The new site is being updated, uses modern techniques, has higher quality media, and has a mobile-friendly version.
This old site will stay on-line for a while, but maybe not indefinitely. Please update your bookmarks. Thanks.

Add a Comment (Go Up to OJB's Blog Page)

Ignorance

Entry 108, on 2004-12-30 at 23:16:46 (Rating 4, Comments)

I've recently been involved with yet another religious discussion with a Christian. This time the claim was that the sequence of events described in Genesis is so close to what scientists have subsequently found to be true, that the Bible was have some divine input, otherwise how would it be so accurate.

The only problem is that the person presenting this evidence must be very ignorant about science because the sequence is obviously wrong. In fact it is so wrong that its something I often use to disprove the accuracy of the Bible!

This is the sequence the person I was debating with presented: 1 creation of earth and space, 2 earth completely covered with water, 3 light created (not sun and moon, a different source not specified, probably God's light), 4 creation of dry land with some of the water held aloft, 5 earth is called Heaven (originally), 6 grass and plants created, 7 sun and stars set aflame, moon reflecting, 8 fish and birds created, 9 cattle and insects created, 10 mankind created, 11 man and woman told to be vegetarians.

I'm sure not all Christians would agree with this interpretation (do they ever agree on anything?) but let's just use it as an approximate guide and see what really does agree with scientifically established facts. Please note that when I use the word "create" below I'm not using it in the religious sense, just in the generic sense of the word.

First, Earth was not created at the same time as space. There is no doubt about it. Space (the Universe) appeared 14 billion years ago. Earth is only 4.5 billion years old. So number 1 is wrong.

The Earth was definitely not covered with water this early. There was a long period of time before the oceans appeared. Number 2 is wrong as well.

I'm not even sure what this so-called God's light is so I can't comment on number 3.

Number 4 says dry land appeared after the oceans covered the Earth. There is no reason to believe this. The Earth started dry and oceans have never completely covered the planet. That means 4 is wrong, as well.

Number 5 states Earth is called Heaven. Well there's obviously nothing I can say about that - it means nothing so it can't be proved or disproved.

In number 6 grass and plants are created. It may not seem like it but grass is quite an advanced type of plant and appeared quite late. Primitive plants and animals appeared well before grass. Also many single celled organism appeared before any plants. I'm afraid 6 is wrong as well.

The Sun and stars were set aflame after plants and grass appeared? Don't plants use sunlight to photosynthesise? I though so. Also we know that the Earth and Sun formed at the same time, and that many stars existed billions of years before the Sun and Earth. Number 7 is so wrong its funny!

Apparently fish and birds were created at the same time. Wrong again. Birds are quite recent. They evolved from a type of dinosaur. The fossil record shows this clearly. Number 8 is also wrong.

Now it appears that cattle and insects appeared at the same time and apparently insects arrived after birds. No doubt about it - number 9 is wrong. Insects have been around for billions of years. Cattle, and other mammals, are very recent.

Mankind is created in 10. Humans are a relatively recent species so I suppose we should give partial credit for this at least. Of course anyone making a wild guess would reach this conclusion because humans are supposed to be the most advanced form of life.

I'm not sure why God would want humans to be vegetarian but nothing is too bizarre at this point so I won't comment on that.

Well there you have it! Genesis is a pile of garbage. Its totally wrong and after reading that why would anyone read the rest of the Bible or take Christianity seriously at all?

Comment 1 (17) by God on 2005-02-24 at 22:11:08:

I don't think you are reading the Bible very well. That's not what it means.

Comment 2 (54) by OJB on 2005-07-23 at 12:00:25:

Obviously the person I was talking to thought that is what it means. This is why it is so hard to debate anything to do with the Bible - there's just too many possible interpretations. You just disprove one story and suddenly it changes.That's because its all a myth, and has no real meaning.

Comment 3 (146) by Anonymous on 2005-11-17 at 03:55:46:

For someone so intelligent, I'd think you should know your science better.

Except for the big bang theory - which is just a theory made up of several other theories, many contradicting, but most with no basis on provable reality (i.e., they are designed to prove the big bang theory and are therefore, according to the scientific process, null) - there is no explanation for the existence of the universe. Likewise, there is none for the existence of the earth or the sun, etc., etc. Anyone who knows *anything* about science knows that a theory is a theory and not fact - it is something someone believe may be true but has not been proved.

Similarly, the history of the development of the planet is non-existent except in religious texts. Aside from the big bang which supposedly describes the existence of just about everything in the universe (and that doesn't cover the earth individually), there is no scientific description with any kind of concrete evidence. Thus, claiming any "definites" about the history of the planet is just ignorant.

Next, the theory of how life came to exist on this planet does not in fact hold that the planet was solid. It says that the planet was largely gaseous with no real solid. Therefore, science (even though it's only a theory - but it is the best known, in this regard) disagrees with you.

Next, you go on to explain the modern evolutionary theory... wrong. Modern evolutionary theory says that several life forms came to exist at the same time (it's no longer the fish to cattle to ape to human thing). There were many species, and over the course of time, many new species and subspecies came to exist due to normal mutation. Further, it says that all species in existence at any given time are approximately the same age as any other and have evolved the same amount as any other species. Thus, humans are no more advanced than any other species.
Also, the charts for the different ages of life on the planet and the origins of the different types of organisms changes often to reflect the politics involved in the modern evolutionary theory, but neglects to take many things into account. It purports to know the existence of every organism and aserts that our modern classification system (which has been modified several times over the page 10 years) is accurate. It is not even part of the "theory of evolution" but is merely side-material. Nevertheless, the modern evolutionary theory explains how it is impossible to know the origins of any given species and that the origins are irrelevant.

Next time you base any argument on science, I suggest you know more about what you take for granted than you seem to.

Comment 4 (148) by OJB on 2005-11-17 at 09:56:35:

It seems like you are just denying the facts to support some sort of superstitious belief (Christianity?). Scientific theories only become theories when they are supported by significant amounts of evidence. The Big Bang, evolution, etc, certainly are well supported.

We know very well how the Earth and Sun formed. We see it happening out in space now with other planetary systems. Ever heard of a T Tauri star?

Your information on evolution is also very confused. I'm not even sure what you are trying to say, so I can't really comment.

I really don't know where you are getting some of your ideas from. You start of accusing me of not knowing my science, then demonstrate a total misunderstanding of it yourself! Please do some research before debating with someone who actually knows some science!

If you wish to continue this debate could you provide references to your information in future? That would help me decide whether what you are saying can be taken seriously, or not. Thanks.

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

To add a comment: enter a name and email (both optional), type the number shown above, enter a comment, then click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.