Can the Bible’s Creation account be explained or debunked by Science?

So, what I am asking for is any scientific theories or calculations that could possibly suggest or disprove the following example:Humans exist in four dimensions - height, length, width, and time, as described by **Einstein’s theory of relativity**, which combines the three spatial dimensions with a fourth dimension of time. However, **string theory** posits that the universe exists in ten dimensions. These include the familiar three spatial dimensions and the dimension of time, along with six additional spatial dimensions that are ‘curled up’ so small that we do not see them.An advanced entity could theoretically exist in all ten of these dimensions, with six of these dimensions that humans are unable to perceive. This entity could manipulate all ten dimensions, but humans would only perceive what is manipulated in the four dimensions we can perceive.This advanced entity that existed in higher dimensions could theoretically interact with time in ways that are beyond our comprehension. However, this is purely hypothetical and not something that has been demonstrated or proven scientifically. It’s also important to note that while we can imagine what it might be like to perceive additional dimensions, our brains are fundamentally three-dimensional and may not be capable of fully comprehending higher-dimensional space.Now let's take day one in the Genesis account chapter one verse one. This advanced entity operating in all ten dimensions creates a highly condensed universe (referred to as heaven) that is far smaller than the size of an atomic particle. The mass of it is so great that rules of physics operate in a way beyond our four-dimension perception. Physics as we know it is reliant on time, but if a mass exceeds a certain mass, the gravity becomes so immense that time slows right down to practically nothing. For us four-dimensional organisms, we may perceive it as zero seconds. Time as we know it appears to have come to a standstill. Physics still exists, but not as we know it because for us physics only exists with the application of time.At the same time Heaven is made, this advanced entity creates the planet earth, which is held in orbit of heaven at 30,000 (of our current) light years.In verse three light comes to be when the advanced entity explodes heaven, which explodes outwards at a speed of about 10^-32 of a second, this creates cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) which is a type of light. 30,000 (of our current) light years this CMBR light hits the planet earth. The side of the earth facing away from heaven is in darkness. This shocks the planet Earth and causes in to rotate at an extremely slow rate of once every 300,000 of our equivalent years, thus creating an extremely long day.Day 2 commences at 300,000 of our years when heat from the explosion of heaven reaches the planet Earth after the first light hits it, causing some of the water on the earth to evaporate and to go up into the atmosphere.Day 3 another 300,000 of our years later, the waters, the initial heat drops down causing the water in the water on the earth, this causes some of the water on the earth to freeze and to recede so that dry land is uncovered. The planet's temperature comes to a balanced temperature of 23 degrees Celsius, reducing to 18 degrees Celsius over 300,000 years. Then the advanced entity does his first lot of gardening by planting grasses and fruit trees that could grow sustainably within themselves without any other living organisms. The outer water atmosphere removes all harmful radiation and converts it to light waves that are agreeable for plants.Day 4 the advanced entity operates on a mass that is hurtling towards Earth and has started to form outwards into the start of a solar system, using huge photon gamma atomic accelerator beams shot out of all 10 dimensions, the advanced entity forms the solar system as we know it, less one planet. After 299,000 of our years, this solar system has slowed down to a speed of 0.000246668479 light years per year and travels very closely past planet Earth, catching it into its gravity and bringing Earth into its orbit When the earth first enters the outer solar system and starts to enter into the sun's orbit it picks up a dwarf planet near Pluto into its own orbit, this causes this dwarf planet and the earth to increase in rotation to 24 hours in a day. Instead of heaven supplying light to planet Earth now the sun of that solar system provides light to planet Earth.Planet Earth is now ready for Day Five with its new 24-hour day, for the advanced entity to insert living creatures onto the planet Earth.Note: It’s theoretically possible that some aspects of the universe’s evolution (if not all of them) could have occurred within a timescale of 1,200,000 years under certain conditions or assumptions proposed by Lucas Lombriser in 2023, as he postulates in his mathematical calculations that the universe is not expanding but remains flat and static. He states, “The signs we observe that suggest expansion are instead explained by the evolution of particles over time.”Note: The latest scientific information indicates the possibility of stars forming in as little as 769,000 years, with stars possibly forming 13 times faster than previous observational models.Note: This is just a hastily hashed-up hypothetical model, that could spark one's imagination, others may propose other more plausible or implausible models based on real science.

Thread copied here from the Can the Bible’s Creation account be explained or debunked by Science? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

I can’t really call this “the Biblical creation account” because it isn’t.As I understand it the extra dimensions posited by string theory are “curled up” and I don’t see how they could be used. Especially not by shooting “huge photon gamma atomic accelerator beams” out of them. How do the beams get out of the curled up dimensions they are in? And what possible advantage is there in us8ng the extra dimensions for it?“A speed of 10^-32 of a second” is nonsense. Speed is not measured in units of time.An ice age is not going to uncover land, instead it will cover it.The idea that the Earth is a rogue planet captured by the solar system needs evidence. I rather doubt that the Earth could reach it’s current orbit.How exactly does the outer atmosphere “remove” or “convert” “harmful radiation”?While the first stars may have formed relatively quickly, there are two subsequent generations of stars, so the timeframe must allow for each of these to form.The identification of the cosmic microwave background with the “explosion” of “heaven” does not seem consistent with Lombriser’s ideas. It looks like you shoehorned Lombriser’s ideas into an existing framework without making the needed changes to the framework.And we’re on very solid ground with events on Earth. Since you have grasses and fruit trees and no other organisms around 300,000 years ago we can say that this part is definitely false. Grasses and fruit trees are relatively recent arrivals post-dating even vertebrate life on land, not to mention earlier marine life.

Your fantasy is just as good as any other. To fit this into the realm of reality, however, you will need evidence ... hard scientific evidence. Given the science errors from your message, as PaulK has pointed out, I don't think you have any scientific training or experience. I question whether you realize what actual scientific evidence requires. It is not like what the religious stuff you read on the web says of it. Your job, not ours. Good luck finding evidence for this.No, the word 'theoretical" is grossly misused. String theory doesn't even qualify as a theory.What?String theory doesn't even qualify as a theory. It may cross the line from speculative into hypothetical in some cases but it has no evidence to support its wondrous untested math models. String Theory is speculation. Except in a small covey of cultists, like Brian Greene, the scientific community can't use string theory because no one can show that it works.As PaulK has pointed out the science side of your tale requires some major re-thinking ... and study. You have a lot of work to do.

Science does not explain or debunk myth and fantasy. I agree with the responses of others so I am just going to make it nice and easy.No.

Thank you, really good questions and answers, I will answer you in order of your questions/answers:Yes, the Bible’s account of creation is indeed an account. It is a narrative found in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis in the Old Testament.In this account, it is described that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth1. The earth was formless and empty, and darkness covered the deep waters. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters1. Then God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light1. This account continues to describe how God created everything in six days.While scientists have developed mathematical models and theories that suggest the existence of these dimensions, we currently lack the technology to directly observe or measure these higher dimensions. So, while scientists can understand and work with the concepts of 5th and 6th dimensions in theoretical terms, direct empirical understanding or observation is currently beyond our reach.Well spotted, the correct hypothesis should be something more like this: In the beginning, all the matter and energy in the universe was compressed into an extremely small volume. Then, a violent explosion occurred - the Big Bang - which caused the universe to start expanding rapidly. This period of rapid expansion, known as inflation, happened in mere fractions of a second, about 10^-32 seconds. However, it’s important to clarify that the speed of light (300,000,000 meters per second) is not the “speed” of the inflation. Instead, it’s the maximum speed at which information can travel through space. During inflation, space itself expanded faster than this speed.During an ice age, the global sea level does indeed go down. This happens because water is evaporated from the oceans and stored on the continents as large ice sheets and expanded ice caps, ice fields, and mountain glaciers. At the height of an ice age, immense volumes of water are locked up in land-based ice sheets, and ocean levels can be as much as 130 meters below where they are today. During the most recent ice age (at its maximum about 20,000 years ago) the world’s sea level was about 130 m lower than today. So, if there were to be another ice age, we could expect a similar decrease in sea level. During an ice age, land that is currently just under water would be exposed.Evidence is the moon, its distance from the earth and the speed it is travelling from the earth.A question and no answer not worth answering: How exactly does the outer atmosphere “remove” or “convert” “harmful radiation”? If you did simple research, you would see why.Generations of stars and their timeframe of this model work in with Lombriser’s mathematical calculations, they are not ideas.Your last comment is drawing on the theory of evolution and does not consider the hypothetical theory shown here, of an advanced entity planting His garden.

Thank you, really good questions and answers, I will answer you in order of your questions/answers:Yes, the Bible’s account of creation is indeed an account. It is a narrative found in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis in the Old Testament.In this account, it is described that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth1. The earth was formless and empty, and darkness covered the deep waters. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters1. Then God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light1. This account continues to describe how God created everything in six days.While scientists have developed mathematical models and theories that suggest the existence of these dimensions, we currently lack the technology to directly observe or measure these higher dimensions. So, while scientists can understand and work with the concepts of 5th and 6th dimensions in theoretical terms, direct empirical understanding or observation is currently beyond our reach.Well spotted, the correct hypothesis should be something more like this: In the beginning, all the matter and energy in the universe was compressed into an extremely small volume. Then, a violent explosion occurred - the Big Bang - which caused the universe to start expanding rapidly. This period of rapid expansion, known as inflation, happened in mere fractions of a second, about 10^-32 seconds. However, it’s important to clarify that the speed of light (300,000,000 meters per second) is not the “speed” of the inflation. Instead, it’s the maximum speed at which information can travel through space. During inflation, space itself expanded faster than this speed.During an ice age, the global sea level does indeed go down. This happens because water is evaporated from the oceans and stored on the continents as large ice sheets and expanded ice caps, ice fields, and mountain glaciers. At the height of an ice age, immense volumes of water are locked up in land-based ice sheets, and ocean levels can be as much as 130 meters below where they are today. During the most recent ice age (at its maximum about 20,000 years ago) the world’s sea level was about 130 m lower than today. So, if there were to be another ice age, we could expect a similar decrease in sea level. During an ice age, land that is currently just under water would be exposed.Evidence is the moon, its distance from the earth and the speed it is travelling from the earth.A question and no answer not worth answering: How exactly does the outer atmosphere “remove” or “convert” “harmful radiation”? If you did simple research, you would see why.Generations of stars and their timeframe of this model work in with Lombriser’s mathematical calculations, they are not ideas.Your last comment is drawing on the theory of evolution and does not consider the hypothetical theory shown here, of an advanced entity planting His garden.

quote:

---

Yes, the Bible’s account of creation is indeed an account. It is a narrative found in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis in the Old Testament.
​

---

You badly misunderstand my point, YOUR account is not the Bible’s.

quote:

---

Well spotted, the correct hypothesis should be something more like this: In the beginning, all the matter and energy in the universe was compressed into an extremely small volume. Then, a violent explosion occurred - the Big Bang - which caused the universe to start expanding rapidly. This period of rapid expansion, known as inflation, happened in mere fractions of a second, about 10^-32 seconds. However, it’s important to clarify that the speed of light (300,000,000 meters per second) is not the “speed” of the inflation. Instead, it’s the maximum speed at which information can travel through space. During inflation, space itself expanded faster than this speed.

---

Surely this is in contradiction to Lombriser’s ideas which deny that the universe is expanding. You can’t appeal to both.

quote:

---

During an ice age, the global sea level does indeed go down. This happens because water is evaporated from the oceans and stored on the continents as large ice sheets and expanded ice caps, ice fields, and mountain glaciers

---

In other words the land is covered in ice. As I said.
[ABE] And I suppose that I should point out that ice is a little less dense than water, so the volume of covering will increase - that’s not really conducive to uncovering the land if the water covers it entirely.

quote:

---

Evidence is the moon, its distance from the earth and the speed it is travelling from the earth.

---

Evidence of what?

quote:

---

A question and no answer not worth answering: How exactly does the outer atmosphere “remove” or “convert” “harmful radiation”? If you did simple research, you would see why.

---

That depends on how much and what harmful radiation you are talking about. I rather suspect that the Big Bang happening that close would not be survivable.

quote:

---

Generations of stars and their timeframe of this model work in with Lombriser’s mathematical calculations, they are not ideas.

---

You are going to have to give details. I see no evidence that Lombriser’s ideas would reduce the time required by the amount you need.

quote:

---

Your last comment is drawing on the theory of evolution and does not consider the hypothetical theory shown here, of an advanced entity planting His garden.

---

False. We know from palaeontology that grasses and fruit trees have been around for far more than 300,000 years and that they were preceded by other life forms. That part of your story is clearly untrue.

I won't get pedantic on these paragraphs though the details could be cleaned up. They are somewhat close, as far as I see, to our understanding of the evidence. Evidence of what, again? To me the moon's slow waltz away is an affirmation of General Relativity and tidal mechanics. I don't see this having any role in creation week.OK, I see now you are responding to a sentence without quoting the sentence first. Please give us a references for your responses.Copy the stuff you want to respond to, paste it in your message surrounded by these [qs] [/qs] quote square brackets, then write your response. [qs]You are way too wrong![/qs]No, I'm not!Becomes ... No, I'm not!Play with the spacing. Make it look nice.One thing that might help is to understand you are in a public space. You are not just responding to PaulK. You are speaking to everyone interested in the thead. The mix of messages can get daunting. Please give reference quotes everywhere.

Only addressing the misinformation: "String theory" is a misnomer. It is not a theory but a collection of hypotheses, in some cases mutually exclusive hypotheses. Some versions of string theory have 10 dimensions, some 11, some 26, and I'm sure other variants exist. To date there is no evidence that string theory represents an accurate model of our universe. One of the criticisms of string theory is that it is so varied and multifaceted that it could be molded and massaged to describe any universe, not just this one. This and all that follows about an advanced entity are mostly nonsense statements with no real world correspondences. I'm calling out the above statement because of its particularly high nonsense density. Assuming there are no tidal influences tearing all matter to ribbons, anything living within a strong gravity well or under high acceleration would not perceive any changes in the passage of local time. Only observations of the universe outside our local frame of reference could reveal that fact. Again, there would be no perceived change in the rate of passage of time in the local frame of reference. All physical processes in the local reference frame would appear unchanged. Even physical processes outside our local reference frame would appear unchanged once adjusted for the effects of relative motion/acceleration or gravity. You provide no distance that was traversed in 10^-32 seconds, so you haven't provided a speed. If would be more accurate to term it a particular frequency of electromagnetic radiation. Gobbledygook or some grammatical error. Just to be clear, Lombriser has some novel hypotheses, but one of them is not the current universe formed in only 1.2 million years. I very much doubt that Lombriser ever said this. Rather, someone attempting to interpret Lombriser's paper probably said this. Lombriser's paper can be found here: Cosmology in Minkowski spaceI think you mean around 800 *million* years. You might have led with this. What you have written is neither plausible nor science. You rarely said anything factually true.--Percy

You don't have a "hypothetical theory", which is almost a contradiction in terms. What you have is religious mumbo-jumbo with unrelated and likely misinterpreted science references tacked on.--Percy

Are you done? Your questions answered? I realize it is not the result you wanted, but it was what was deserved.
Remember you are dealing with actual scientists and people that have been discussing these issues for decades. We have seen multiple variations on the same theme. Nothing you come up with will be very different.

How is abiogenesis/macro evolution not, "mumbo jumbo" upon inspection of the facts? Just because it isn't "religious" doesn't mean it isn't mumbo jumbo. Abiogenesis is definitely science-fiction for two reasons, modo hoc ergo falsus combined with phantasticus axioma. (Great claims demand great evidence, and believing all the features of intelligent design in life's biochemistry is incidental requires great evidence given we still can't come close to matching them despite using all of our brainpower.)Moreover look at what your story is. How is it NOT mumbo-jumbo to believe that lifeforms' designs were created by TWO natural causes? You believe abiogenesis invented biochemistry's design, and you believe biological evolution invented life's anatomy.So your story is that there are two designers for the design in life. (why is such an unparsimonious offering NOT mumbo jumbo?)I say that God designing ALL of life's design is much better than the mumbo-jumbo fictional improbability of life's design having two natural designers, each with no brains despite the IQ1000 designs in life engineers can only plagiarise once they realise their intellects will simply never come close.The cherry on the cake being that biomimetics proves also that life's design is far cleverer than our own, evidence supreme intelligence, whereas you must infer the contradiction that both your natural designers had no intelligence despite the great intelligence we find.Conclusion; you shouldn't use the term, "religious" because it is TOO BROAD a term. I would only describe you as a, "mammal" if I wanted to associate you with rats, but if I was honest I would describe you as, "human" because it is more specific.Conclusion; God creating life under any story, is not going to be as absurd as the mumbo jumbo you believe, because you still have to believe absurd things even if they are not called, "religious". You can't hide behind science and associate yourself with it.That is all you do, you play on two ambiguous terms, "science" by which you associate yourself with, and "religion" by which you associate Christians with.But if I accept 100% of operational science then why can't I be associated with science? And logically I MUST reject 99.9999% of, "religion" and all it represents.----Paul K was right, the offering was not what the bible claims. The bible in Genesis is not specific to a level of scientific-offerings.

Nothing more than a rambling argumentum ad verecundiam. (implicitly argued)There is no science-qualification that gives you the access to the specifics of the past to the degree of proof and certainty. I am confident that the science-background anyone has here will not necessarily turn out to be relevant to these discussions.What are those qualifications exactly and specifically, to whom do they belong and how does that qualification mean we should be scared into silence?Explain.Just as people that come on these boards present scenarios you have heard all before, the same can be said for creationists on creationist boards where we have heard it all before with your scientific pretensions/science-obsession.It all serves to ASSOCIATE your group with science as an authority and education/intellect, so as to scare people off by implying they are just religionist wishful thinkers.I am not scared off. Your self-aggrandising waffle doesn't deter me by so much as 1%.

Oh look, dizzy Micky has flown in to shit all over the board and wiz off out again without so much as an by-your-leave.Nice to see him crashing into his own fallacies though; always gives me a little chuckle