[on why Genesis says light existed before the sun]
The light represents day and light is made up of photons. God created photons the first day because they are basically the glue that keeps matter together. 
 
        
        12 comments 
        
            
        
            
                
                This is actually interesting. Fundies whine on about dark matter and dark energy being myths and part of the war against God. Well, I guess we just have to wait until one of them places them in Genesis.
Why? The Hebrew words for "without form, and void" in Genesis 1,1 are tohu  and bohu . These words are not attested anywhere else in Biblical Hebrew and have no known relationship to any words in other Semitic languages. The translation "without form, and void" is a guess based on the context.
So, instead of whining and bitching, some fundie could claim that tohu  and bohu  are actually dark matter and dark energy respectively, putting the Bible at the vanguard of astrophysics, from their viewpoint that is.
 
        
            
        
            
                
                Someone fell asleep during Physics class: and the word 'Photons' somehow entered his subconscious. 
...and if Photons 'are basically the glue that keeps matter together', then if a waterjet cutter can destroy a 'meme':
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3gWcczxj-s 
Then what about industrial lasers ?! 
 
        
            
        
            
        
            
                
                This really is a pointless discussion.
Does it matter that the story says there was light before the sun?  In the context of the story, it's perfectly fine.  I mean, seriously, there's an omniscient, omnipotent, magic space and time wizard creating the entire universe ex nihilo, and the complaint is that he can't make light, too?
any  of it is true, so why pick one detail to complain about?
 
        
            
                
                @Dr. Razark
Creationists like Shadow will try to justify each item, one at a time.
Then other creationists, who don't quite tollow the argument, can be happily satisfied that someone has addressed it.  And when they see the full list of problems in taking a Bronze Age fairy tale as equal to science, they will only recall, "somebody explained tgat, stupid atheist." 
 
        
            
                
                @K
But "x is not possible" is not a valid objection when magic  is a valid answer to any part of it.
How was the universe created?  Magic.
There is absolutely no part of the story that needs to be explained beyond magic happened , so why bother arguing over little details?BUT A FLYING BROOM IS JUST WAY TOO CRAZY!  HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THAT?!? "
On the other hand, where is the evidence that any  of the story is true in the first place?  Why should I be expected to accept flimsy excuses when the person presenting the excuse has nothing to back up the story?  That is the whole problem with Genesis.
 
        
            
                
                Back when I first read the bible, my biggest objection to the Genesis story was based on the then-common idea that the serpent was Satan in disguise. So... God punished all snakes for eternity for the actions of a being who was not a snake and probably had no connection to them? Gee, how omnibenevolent of you.
 
        
            
                
                I felt a great disturbance in the Force.
As if millions of physicists facepalmed, and were suddenly silenced....
Regards & all,
Thomas L. Nielsen
 
        
            
        
        
     
    
    
    
        Confused? 
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in  or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.