• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Genesis Enigma

Based on that article about the book, it's nonsense:

The enigma is that the order of Creation as described in the Book of Genesis, and so powerfully depicted in the Sistine Chapel by the greatest artist of the Renaissance, has been precisely, eerily confirmed by modern evolutionary science.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...on-life-3-000-years-Darwin.html#ixzz0MlJOdRPd
Click to expand...

That's patently untrue. If the article about the book is accurate (and there's no guarantee it is, especially since it's in the Daily Mail), then the book is nonsense.
 
This part made me laugh, and then shake my head, and then a bit of hope for the world died inside :(

Hang on - so he made 'Day' three days before he made the Sun? Houston, I think we have a problem.

Yet the writers of Genesis were just as well aware as us, surely, that the sunrise causes the day. You don't need a degree in astronomy to work that one out. What on earth did they mean?

Here, The Genesis Enigma comes up with a stunningly ingenious answer. For Parker argues that day four refers to the evolution of vision.

Until the first creatures on earth evolved eyes, in a sense, the sun and moon didn't exist. There was no creature on earth to see them, nor the light they cast.
Click to expand...

Let's just go reinterpret every book there is till it fits our needs :D
 
Thanks for the link, Professor Yaffle.
As you say, interesting comments.
 
the order of Creation as described in the Book of Genesis, has been precisely, eerily confirmed by modern evolutionary science.
Click to expand...

Given that there are two different and contradictory orders of creation in Genesis (chapter 1 vs. chapter 2), it would be impossible to prove that Genesis is correct.


Steve S.
 
Editor re: Buffoonery said:
Hang on - so he made 'Day' three days before he made the Sun? Houston, I think we have a problem.

Yet the writers of Genesis were just as well aware as us, surely, that the sunrise causes the day. You don't need a degree in astronomy to work that one out. What on earth did they mean?

Here, The Genesis Enigma comes up with a stunningly ingenious answer. For Parker argues that day four refers to the evolution of vision.

Until the first creatures on earth evolved eyes, in a sense, the sun and moon didn't exist. There was no creature on earth to see them, nor the light they cast.
Click to expand...


This is precious. If a tree falls in the forest, but nobody's around to hear it except for God, apparently it does not make a sound.


Here's a better solution: "Day" refers to the side of the Earth facing the sun, and Night the other side. Hence God created the sun and the Earth in orbit, but the Sun hadn't ignited, yet.

On day 4 He flipped the switch.



Duh.
 
Professor Yaffle said:
Here's the amazon page (with some good comments):
Click to expand...

Three reviews. Not a single one written by someone who actually read the book.

The first review starts with "I flicked through this book in a shop". The second opens with "After reading Christopher Hart's review of the book in Saturday's Daily Mail, I have no desire to buy it. From his description of its contents the author Andrew Parker appears anxious..." and the third starts with "These comments are based on the Daily Mail feature on this book by Christopher Hart, 18th July 2009."

So the comments (whether correct or not- we'll never really know until someone actually reads the book) are really comments about an article written about a book. Hardly the type of informed information that passes for evidence of anything on this forum.
 
Last edited:
Hang on - so he made 'Day' three days before he made the Sun? Houston, I think we have a problem.

Yet the writers of Genesis were just as well aware as us, surely, that the sunrise causes the day. You don't need a degree in astronomy to work that one out. What on earth did they mean?

Here, The Genesis Enigma comes up with a stunningly ingenious answer. For Parker argues that day four refers to the evolution of vision.
Click to expand...

Of course, you have to wonder why the Bible writers did not simply write "God said let there be vision".
 
BobTheDonkey said:
This part made me laugh, and then shake my head, and then a bit of hope for the world died inside :(



Let's just go reinterpret every book there is till it fits our needs :D
Click to expand...

You know what's even sadder? That even with that lame trick he pulls, the order in Genesis 1 is still unbelievably stupid.

See, god had created only the plants up to that point. The first creatures come on day 5 (fish and bird) and day 6 (land creatures.) So exactly what had eyes on day 4 to see the moon and the stars? Not a freaking thing.
 
I don't think it's amazing, at all. Ancient people, from almost all ancient races, have creation stories with a similar "order" of creation. It's not that difficult to say: "Let's start with the ground we are on, and work our way up, and assume that's the order in which things were made, from forces from the outside."

Besides, if the Bible writers really wanted to reflect evolution accurately, they would have mentioned that the plants and animals both emerged from a common ancestor, through differential replication of their genes.
 
HansMustermann said:
You know what's even sadder? That even with that lame trick he pulls, the order in Genesis 1 is still unbelievably stupid.

See, god had created only the plants up to that point. The first creatures come on day 5 (fish and bird) and day 6 (land creatures.) So exactly what had eyes on day 4 to see the moon and the stars? Not a freaking thing.
Click to expand...

Your point would have merit if 'grass, herb and tree' meant plant. But ...

But wait a minute, says Parker. If you take 'grass, herb and tree' to mean photosynthesising life in general, then this is, once again, spot on.

The very life forms on earth were single-celled bacteria, but the first truly viable bacteria were the 'cyanobacteria' - those that had learned to photosynthesise.​

It makes perfect sense. The grass, herbs and trees that are brought forth by the earth (aka 'dry land') on the third day just have the sun, the moon and the stars being placed in the firmament of the skies on the forth day.


OK, not really. This forcefitting of Genesis 1 to modern science is like applying a wrecking ball to a Gothic Cathedral; and to excitedly ask afterwards, while pointing triumphantly at the rubble, "Just HOW could those medieval peasants have built these fantastic, several hundred story high skyscrapers?"
 
One thing about the order of creation - Elohim creates the various environments during the first three days, and then the inhabitants of the environments during the second three.

So day one, God creates the heavens and the earth first (and don't think round earth!). The darkness is there and then God creates light. On day four God creates the sun, moon, and stars to inhabit the day and the night.

Day two, God puts the firmament in between the waters above and the waters below. Day five, he creates the birds and the fish to inhabit the oceans and sky.

Day three, God brings the dry land out of the ocean and creates the plants. Day six, he creates all land animals and humankind to inhabit the dry land and the vegetation.

Another thing that's usually missed: for its time, the story of Genesis was remarkably subversive to well-established mythology. If you like, it was baby-steps scientific thought, because these things had always been described as the wars between gods and animistic principles. The first creation story in Genesis has the bare minimum of that. Elohim simply creates matter, shapes it, and brings forth life. The irony of the first creation story is that it's a breath-taking step out of superstition. The audacious spirit of this story is best honored by continuing to undermine any superstition that keeps humans from truly understanding the natural world.
 
boloboffin said:
One thing about the order of creation - Elohim creates the various environments during the first three days, and then the inhabitants of the environments during the second three.
Click to expand...

Absolutely true. There is a clear structure to this creation story. However I would disagree with this:

boloboffin said:
So day one, God creates the heavens and the earth first (and don't think round earth!).
Click to expand...

The first verse likely does not refer to an event distinct from the rest of the creation. Rather it is a summary of the creation week that serves as an introductory line. It is easy to see if you look especially at the second and the third day where the firmament and the dry land come into existence and are named heaven and earth respectively.

And for any of the days of the creation week you'll find that the narration is bracketed by "God said ... And there was evening and there was morning, the nth day." No real need to forgo this pattern and make an exception for the first day when the bracket is there. Instead, just let the first day start with "God said "Let there be light" ...."

The formless void (tohu wa bohu) that is described in the second verse just 'exist,' but is subsequently formed into an environment and later filled up with inhabitants:

boloboffin said:
The darkness is there and then God creates light. On day four God creates the sun, moon, and stars to inhabit the day and the night.

Day two, God puts the firmament in between the waters above and the waters below. Day five, he creates the birds and the fish to inhabit the oceans and sky.

Day three, God brings the dry land out of the ocean and creates the plants. Day six, he creates all land animals and humankind to inhabit the dry land and the vegetation.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Hugh Ross did something similar years ago. It really takes a lot of ad hoc reasoning (I believe Ross has an argument about a cloud covering the Earth similar to Parker's evolution of vision argument) to try and synergize Genesis 1 and 2 and the scientific record.

Christians don't even have to muck about with those sorts of mental gymnastics. Either throw all semblance of scientific credibility out the window and be a YEC or accept that Genesis 1 and 2 are a creation myth developed by the Hebrews to show that YHWH was in charge of all the things mentioned (chaos, water, birds, land animals, humans) and not the Babylonian gods.
 
Lord Emsworth said:
Absolutely true. There is a clear structure to this creation story. However I would disagree with this:



The first verse likely does not refer to an event distinct from the rest of the creation. Rather it is a summary of the creation week that serves as an introductory line. It is easy to see if you look especially at the second and the third day where the firmament and the dry land come into existence and are named heaven and earth respectively.

And for any of the days of the creation week you'll find that the narration is bracketed by "God said ... And there was evening and there was morning, the nth day." No real need to forgo this pattern and make an exception for the first day when the bracket is there. Instead, just let the first day start with "God said "Let there be light" ...."

The formless void (tohu wa bohu) that is described in the second verse just 'exist,' but is subsequently formed into an environment and later filled up with inhabitants:
Click to expand...

You're right. Been a while since Intro to Old Testament. :blush:
 
There's so much wrong with this claim, where to start.

Two conflicting versions of Genesis, noted above.

The Genesis story of Creation is all of 2 pages long. Hardly enough words to describe in eerie uncanny detail anything, let alone something resembling the complexity of the real Universe.

And then there are all the errors in Genesis. The world's other human populations are unrecognized. The germ theory is missing throughout the entire Bible (though some believers like to pretend it is there by cherry picking and speculating a taboo on pork actually mattered when cooking would have sufficed), the Moon is described as a night light even though you can see the Moon during the day and, it reflects light rather than glows.

Geese, that much crap in just 2 pages!

We see though that Parker has credentials in producing commercial products. Surprise surprise, the claim and lead up to the book looks like real efficient marketing to me.
 
Until the first creatures on earth evolved eyes, in a sense, the sun and moon didn't exist. There was no creature on earth to see them, nor the light they cast.
Click to expand...

To quote the great B.B. King, "Even a blind man can tell when he's walking in the sun".
 
Lord Emsworth said:
Your point would have merit if 'grass, herb and tree' meant plant. But ...

But wait a minute, says Parker. If you take 'grass, herb and tree' to mean photosynthesising life in general, then this is, once again, spot on.

The very life forms on earth were single-celled bacteria, but the first truly viable bacteria were the 'cyanobacteria' - those that had learned to photosynthesise.​

It makes perfect sense. The grass, herbs and trees that are brought forth by the earth (aka 'dry land') on the third day just have the sun, the moon and the stars being placed in the firmament of the skies on the forth day.


OK, not really. This forcefitting of Genesis 1 to modern science is like applying a wrecking ball to a Gothic Cathedral; and to excitedly ask afterwards, while pointing triumphantly at the rubble, "Just HOW could those medieval peasants have built these fantastic, several hundred story high skyscrapers?"
Click to expand...

Well, bingo.

The cyanobacter argument not only goes exactly against what Genesis actually says (trees with fruit and seed), but still invalidates the vision argument for day 4. Cyanobacter or any other bacteria which can use or detect light one way or another, don't have eyes, they just detect light. For those there would be no difference whatsoever between the light on day 3 and the light from the sun on day 4.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom