What is the science behind the first day of creation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter theunworthyservant
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

theunworthyservant

Guest
For a biology project, we are asked to provide the science behind the first day of creation (Genesis 1:1-6). A hint was given and said that the law of thermodynamics is correlated to the first day of creation. How does the law of thermodynamics correlate to the first day of creation and what is the science behind Genesis 1:1-6?
 
Well, which law (there are three) do you think it is, and why? Have you looked them up?
 
Last edited:
All the laws of our universe were established in the first instance of the first day…the big bang!

The Laws seem so immutable that even God chooses not to violate them…
 
Crusaderbear said:
All the laws of our universe were established in the first instance of the first day…the big bang!
Click to expand...
You’re jumping a step, but you’ve given him a big hint. This is about science though, so I’d like to see him exercise his reasoning. Especially since this seems to be homework.
 
I was given the specific laws which were to be used:
  1. Energy can be transformed from one form to another, but can be neither created nor destroyed.
  2. No reaction is 100% efficient.
I’ve been able to correlate the first law, stating that without God’s hand, the Big Bang Theory would not work since the singularity had to come from somewhere (correct me if I’m wrong or feel free to elaborate). But the second law has me stumped. Also, any other science besides the law of thermodynamics would also be a good suggestion.
 
Well I have an idea on how the Big Bang relates to the first law of thermodynamics, but it needs elaboration.
 
theunworthyservant said:
No reaction is 100% efficient.
Click to expand...
🤨 Interesting. I’m not entirely sure what your teacher could be going at with this one. The only thing I can come up with is that the reason light isn’t everywhere is because the Big Bang wasn’t a “perfect reaction”, but that just sounds ridiculous. That law is referring to the fact that there is always energy loss. Take your car engine for example. When gas is combusted in your car, it generates a force to push down on the pistons. But not all of the energy goes towards pushing the piston. Some of it is turned into heat, another part of it is turned into sound, etc.

Like you said regarding the first law, energy cannot be created nor destroyed. We can say that God caused the Big Bang, because there has never been nothing. God has existed before the beginning of time and matter (and thus energy).
 
Last edited:
Yes, I have thought that as well. My teacher is being very short and vague when explaining this so I’ve resorted to asking here. Quite frankly, I’m not so sure he knows either. But yes the first law, I’m guessing, I’ve figured out correctly. Is there any other science behind Genesis 1:1-6 that I should be aware of?
 
theunworthyservant said:
My teacher is being very short and vague when explaining this so I’ve resorted to asking here.
Click to expand...
Perhaps your biology teacher should leave physics to the physicists. 😛

(I’m an engineer, so I include myself in that snip. 😅)
theunworthyservant said:
Is there any other science behind Genesis 1:1-6 that I should be aware of?
Click to expand...
Hmm… Like I said, I am but a mere engineer, so I’m not entirely sure. This is a biology class though, so Genesis 1:6 might be of some interest. I’m not up on the timeline for how life was created, but if I’m not mistaken, it is theorized that Earth was entirely an ocean for quite some time. Here’s an article to give you a start:

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/10/141030-starstruck-earth-water-origin-vesta-science/
 
Last edited:
That helps out lots, thank you.
And we aren’t worried too much about life because that wasn’t created until the later days.
We were only assigned to the first day so we aren’t trying to do more than we are assigned as this project is already tough in itself.
 
Right, since your teacher stopped at verse six. Still, that article should give you ideas and set you on the right track. 😃
 
And yes, you are right. 😂 I’m quite confused as to why physics is involved in a biology project. But I guess they go hand in hand at some point.
 
I heard a funny saying once that goes like this: Sociology is applied psychology is applied biology is applied chemistry is applied physics.

I add on to the end that physics is applied mathematics, but you get the point. 😛
 
Maybe you can use Quantum physics - everything needs an
observer, so you can assume that eveything began to exist while God became the first observer (the unmoved mover). However the quantum physics is very complicated… But it’s still better than the unobservable “multiverse” Gloryfied by Lawrence Krauss…
 
Last edited:
I can’t say I haven’t tried, but I’ve unfortunately hit a block and need some ideas.
 
Very interesting, I’ll attempt to use that. Thank you.
 
Like he said though, it’s not simple. Quantum physics, unlike Newtonian physics, is based on probability. In a quantum framework, it is indeed possible to have a basketball phase through a wall without breaking it.

(If you don’t believe me, know that your cellphone and pretty much all modern technology works because of that theory.)

Besides, look at the Schrödinger’s equation:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Quantum physics is so ugly, Einstein spent the rest of his life developing theories in attempts to disprove it. He only ended up proving it. 😛
 
Last edited:
Ah, I see. Such a concept might not belong in a grade 11 biology project after all. :woman_shrugging:t2:
 
Start with why we know the sun is a second generation star and work backwards

Given its biology, perhaps concentrate on the chemical elements
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top