Bob, if you think the universe was created in terms of the big bang, which, as I understand it (and my understanding of this is quite limited) the process of star creation is a continuous one, and the universe is expanding, then why is it necessary for you to insist that the Bible is literally true? To do that requires repeated suspensions of the laws of physics. Nobody was around to record the creation of the universe, so the truth of the matter must rely on evidence. The story that is told in the Bible requires the suspension of belief in the empirical laws so far discovered (like the speed of light and gravity).
It would seem to me that a more rational approach for a believer is to assume that the universe and all things within it are the result of a creator's action and science is simply attempting to discover the details of how the creator did it. One could also assume that the Bible represents the thinking of peoples at various stages of their intellectual and religious evolution, and not the absolute truth.
My training is in biochemistry and genetics, and so I feel uncomfortable discussing cosmology and the big bang. So let me return to a biological argument absolutely demonstrating the impossibility of a Biblical account. This is again from Genesis -- the flood story.
Clearly, the water in the flood was either salt or fresh. In the former case it would have extincted virtually all of the fresh water fishes, and in the latter case all of the salt water fishes would have been wiped out. Why? Because fishes as we know them rely on fairly sophisticated renal and gill functions to maintain their osmotic balances, and with few exceptions fish osmoregulation does not function when the concentration of salt is far away from normal levels. If you don't believe me, try putting an ordinary goldfish or a minnow from a nearby stream into salt water. You will measure its lifespan in minutes.
The problem is repeated when we consider large ocean dwelling mammals -- like whales and other cetaceans. Since the planktonic beds must have been destroyed as a result of the flood there was nothing for them to eat.
Now too, there is a minor problem in sequence. According to the Bible Noah took a male and a female of each species on the ark except those animals that were ritually clean. Unfortunately, Noah had no idea of what was ritually clean since it wasn't revealed until much later. Ritually clean animals are described in the kosher laws.
But wait, there's more! Two of every species is insufficient to support the species in nature. This had been repeatedly demonstrated and is related to the genetic load. Repeated inbreeding lead to the fixation of any number of deleterious genes through genetic drift. In addition, there is insufficient genetic variance to allow the species to adapt to a changing environment.
There's even more with a brief foray into physics. Since we believe in the conservation of mass, where did all of the water from the flood come from? And where did it go to. Remember, according to Biblical accounts the water covered the entire face of the earth which would include mountain ranges. So, we're talking about enough water to submerge Mt. Everest. Almost 30,000 feet give or take.
Bob, the point that I'm making is that the Bible is replete with absolute impossibilities-- unless you are willing to suspend the appropriate laws of nature to accommodate each one of these events.
CTC |
