“The Genesis Enigma”

[BPSDB]In today’s METRO the 60 second interview is with Dr Andrew Parker who claims that the Genesis story matches the history of the Universe so accurately that it could only have been written with divine intervention. When I went to Sunday School I don’t recall them mentioning which verses outlined the creation of particles and nucleii but it’s been a while so I thought I would take a closer look. I’ll be working from the King James version.

Genesis chapter 1 verse 1 reads:

“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth”

Oh dear. This verse does rather suggest that Earth is as old as the Universe. In fact the Universe is about 13.7 billion years old whereas Earth is about 4.54 billion years old. Both figures are accurate to +/- 1%.

Verses 3 – 5 read:

“And God said Let there be light: and there was light.
And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
And God called the light Day, and the Darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.”

Again this makes it clear that the first ever photons illuminated Earth, suggesting it was present at the Big Bang, which does not really match scientific understanding.

Just to hammer home the point, the writers of Genesis clearly believed that Earth is older than every other body in the Universe because God does not get round to creating the rest of the Universe until the fourth day:

“And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.”

(verse 16)

“And the evening and the morning were the fourth day”

(verse 19)

So according to Genesis Earth is older than the Sun. Not a match with the history of the Universe then. As far as cosmology is concerned, Parker’s notion bites the dust.

Never mind. Parker is a biologist, so perhaps he is referring to the evolution of life on Earth rather than the history of the early universe. Life first gets a mention in verse 11:

“And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass and herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind…”

So the first ever life was land plants. Not single cellular organisms. Not even aquatic plants. Land plants. This does not match the fossil record which is inaccurate enough to sink his idea but even better, verse 13 males it clear that this happpened before the formation of the Sun so I am afraid Parker’s notion is an EPIC FAIL.

ETA: I should say that (for a change) I am not criticising the METRO about this feature. The interviewer, Graeme Greene, pointed out more holes in the idea.

Tags: ,

44 Responses to ““The Genesis Enigma””

  1. Chris Says:

    I hope that’s not the Dr Andrew Parker who’s my brother and a professor of High Energy Physics at Cambridge!

  2. jaycueaitch Says:

    Not unless he’s leading a double life! According to the METRO this one is a biologist at Oxford University.

    Scholastic standards are clearly slipping among the dreaming spires.

    • Norma J F Harrison Says:

      Homeopathy has two values. One, it works. It works in coordination with all the other practices. Patients must decide which to incorporate. Most important , we must have free access to all possible choices.
      Two, it constrains one form of medical care from being the sole owner of medical care, which would make it THE owner of what has become a highly valued, overly controlled in the wrong areas, commodity.

      Homeopathic remedies hold parts per million of the sickening agent, making the body think it’s even more ill, raising the body’s defenses against the infection, thereby causing the body to heal itself.
      The amount in the remedy is so small as to be unable to be detected without looking for it in particular in a particular way.
      It has lately been seen by the electron or atomic microscope. It’s shown electron displacement of a material tested, showing the potentizing process has effected that slight change suspected by the homeopathic researchers.

      Homeopathy is not about the immune system.
      Inoculations within the allopathic system have shown to be of inestimable value.

      Homeopathy likely cannot do other than promote as much general bodily health as a terribly infected AIDS etc body can raise. Allopathic treatment of those exotic diseases is definitely necessary.
      Germs, being all around us and in us all the time, are hardly themselves the cause of sickness. They are connected; they become in evidence when a person is sick with that detectable disease. Some germs are more virulent than others too, so a plague germ might have more effect than a cold germ.
      But the clear evidence that sometimes we get sick from some germ and other times we don’t; that some get the illness when other neighbors don’t, show that germs alone do not cause the illness.

      Homeopathic remedies are tiny dilutions into distilled water of materials as described above, the water dropped in different potencies onto minute ‘sugar’ pill-lets. The different potencies are dispensed according to a practitioners’ attempt to asses the degree of illness the person is combating. If one potency doesn’t effect the cure, another potency can be tried after an appropriate time.


      • jaycueaitch Says:

        This seems to have been submitted to the wrong thread but a quick response:

        Homeopathy does not contain parts per million of the agent, or even parts per billion. The repeated dilutions flush away every last molecule of the agent. It has not been seen by the electyron microscope and there is no such thing as an atomic microscope. Making stuff up does not enhance your credibility.

        Interesting that you say homeopathy is not about the immune system. Homeopaths are forever banging on about how their nostrums boost the immune system. Except Dana Ullman who now claims they “tonify” it instead.

        As for trying different potencies if the first does not work, this means you keep giving useless sugar pills until the patients get better of their own accord or die.

  3. Michael K Gray Says:

    Is this the same A. Parker who wrote the admirable “In the Blink of an Eye”?
    I refuse to believe that such a rational person could turn into a total and complete cretinous lunatical moron overnight.

    • Seymour Young Says:

      It is really amazing how intolerant those who claim to believe in science can be. You may be surprised to find that upon close examination science is not the infallible, objective, unbiased and impartial methodoloy you might imagine.

      Remember that Ptolemy’s ideas about the structure of the solar system and universe were taught for centuries. His ideas were of course all wrong. Many other erroneous theories were taught as science.

      I heard Patrick Moore on the sky at night sigh when he was presented with new ideas about the universe. He sighed because he had been presented with new “science” which clearly ran contrary to what he had believed and taught for years.

      Why on earth then should somebody be considered a lunatic if he does not accept what is taught as science but is clearly not so?

  4. Seymour Young Says:

    There are no scientific procedures that can accurately determine the Billions of years of which you speak. All the calculations which are used to determine these dates factor in unproveable assumptions. This makes them highly unreliable.

    Further, Genesis rightly shows that God created everything but when you read other texts in scripture it becomes clear that Genesis is specifically speaking of the creation of our solar system. It is not saying that the entire universe was created in one go! Other parts of the universe are much older than our solar system. There is ample evidence of a young earth and solar system!

    The fossil record you speak of was created at the flood. Ask yourself why are there no fossils being formed today? Why are no fossil fuels being formed? The flood (catastrophism) clearly explains why for instance remains of plants and animals are found hundreds sometimes thousands of feet underground. No known rates of sedimentation could cover these organisms and preserve them from decay in such a short time. Fossils and fossil fuels testify that death once took place on a colossal scale and in a relatively short time

    • jaycueaitch Says:

      Even if you take Genesis as being the creation of the solar system it still does not match the fossil record. And it is Parker who claioms that it accurately describes the evolution of the universe, not me.

      It is true that the Universe is much older than the solar system: the Universe is over 13 billion years old, the solar system about 4.5 billion years old.

      Fossils are being formed today – you must havve read about the millenia old bodies found from time to time in peat bogs. They were on their way to becoming fossils.

  5. Seymour Young Says:

    There are of course, other factors which are rarely if ever considered. All proveable dates in history reach a cliff edge at or around 2300 BC. It is as if mankind suddenly arose fully intelligent and literate!

    When historians for example speak of 10.000 years ago in China for example they are being wildly inaccurate. No dates can be firmly established for any such time period. All proveable dates in history ALWAYS fall within Usshers 6,000 year time scale without exception!

  6. jaycueaitch Says:

    Written history goes back abou 4,000 years, true. That does not prove there was nobody about before writing was invented. There are other methods of dating artifacts and fossils other than written records. Radioactive dating, for example.

  7. Seymour Young Says:

    When you understand the science you will find that all methods of radioactive dating are unreliable. Do you remember all the variable dates given by this and other methods for dating the shroud of Turin?

    Please look again at what I said Fossils were created by the flood!

    • jaycueaitch Says:

      I do understand the science – I have a physics degree. Please explain why it is unreliable.

      Just because you say fossils were created by the Flood does not make it so.

  8. Seymour Young Says:

    If written history appears suddenly around 4,000 years ago it suggests that man has not been around that long. This would of course tie in with Genesis.

    Many great scientists (including Fred Hoyle) rubbished evolution and the big bang. Hoyle invented the term big bang to ridicule the theory. The bangers ran with the term as a badge of hounour.

    Other scientists are afraid they may lose their jobs and be subjected to ridicule, a favourite ploy of those who hold erroneous positions. Don’t forget scientists ridiculed men like Einstein and others whom I could name before they grudginly accepted their ideas

    • jaycueaitch Says:

      Your first paragraph does not make sense. Humans must have been around at least as long as writing.. Why do you think people cannot have existed before the invention of writing?

      Hoyle did not rubbish evolution. He believed that the single celled creatures from which lifev on Earth evolved originated in space (specifically comets) not on Earth. He did not accept the Big Bang, this is true. He thought that the Universe has always existed and always will exist. This hardly ties in with the Bible.

      Your final paragraph is a logical fallacy: you are saying in effect “Scientists disagreed with Einstein but he turned out to be right. They disagree with me therefore I will turn out to be right”. The reason why scientists came to accept Einstein’s ideas was because evidence was found which both supported his ideas and could not be explained by Newtonian mechanics.

  9. Seymour Young Says:

    It is not possible to tell how much radioactive carbon was present at any precise time in the distant past. Professor Melvin Cook of Utah University has found that the present rate of formation of carbon 14 is 18.4 atoms per gram per minute and that the rate of decay is 13.3 atoms per gram per minute. This shows that the formation exceeds the decay by 38%. If this information is used to calculate back to a point of zero radiocarbon the answer comes out that the earth is only about 10.000 years old. Pretty close to Usshers conclusion!

    It is not possible to know completely how organisms react with C14. Living shellfish with radiocarbon in their shells have been dated as 2300 years old!

    Science tells us that there are approximately 40,000 billion tons of uranium and roughly 100,000 billion tons of thorium. This rock decays to release approx 3,000 tons of radiogenic helium into the atmosphere each year. If the earth is 4.5 billion years old then there should be approx 10,000 billion tons of radiogenic helium in the atmosphere. Only 3.5 billion tons is known to be present (0.035%). If we ASSUME that no radiogenic helium was in atmosphere to begin with the earth is about 175,000 years old.

    The known rate of formation of C14 and the known rate of decay mean that 30,000 years are required before the formation and the decay are in equilibrium. Equilibrium has not yet been reached. On this basis the atmosphere is only about 10,000 years old.

    I do not ask you to accept it on my say so.Think about how trillions of trees and other plants could have come together and slowly become covered with material and sunjected to the intense heat and pressure that turned them into coal. Known rates of sedimentation (0.2mm a year on average?) would not be able to bring about the fossilisation of entire forests, dinosaurs, and other organisms. Even a tadpole wouldn’t get covered in time! As I said before we do not observe fossilisation. How can we describe the standard explanation as science then? The same argument applies to the billions of creatures that died to form oil. How can death on such a scale be explained? The flood! Please check it out.

    • jaycueaitch Says:

      Regarding Melvin Cook’s work, could you supply a link – I would be interested in reading it. Likewise for the live shellfish you claim was dated as 2300 years old.

      Re Helium produced by radiactive decay: Much of it remains trapped underground (this is where most if not all of the world’s supplies of helium come from) of that which does escape to the atmosphere, the He atom is very light so it tends to rise to the upper atmosphere and is too light for the Earth’s gravity to hang onto so is lost into space.

  10. Seymour Young Says:

    It was not so much that they disagreed with Einsteins science. They turned their minds against his findings simply because they were prejudiced against him as a person. They made the science secondary to their prejudice. People like big bangers and evolutionists act in the same spirit and gnash their teeth like furious wolves whenever their ideas are challenged. I contend that if your reasoning is sound you have nothing to fear when your ideas are placed under the closest scrutiny.

    The fact that the scientific community react so strongly against anyone who questions evolution and big bang suggests that they have something to hide. It is ridiculous to claim that if you don’t accept evolution you need to be retrained as a scientist. Sounds Pol pottish to me. People can reject evolution and big bang and still revel in the joys of science.

    I don’t know if you remember, but years ago they used to say that stomach ulcers were caused by stress. That is until an Australian doctor demonstrated that it was in fact caused largely by a bacteria called helicobacter Pylori. His findings were initially rejected. Why? the scientific community complained that he had no rights to be making such claims as he was not a microbiologist! Thankfully he was a very determined man and was eventually able to convince them. As a result many ulcers can now be effectively treated.

    • jaycueaitch Says:

      I do remember the controversy over bacterial causees of stmach ulcers. Doctors and microbiologists were convinced because evidence was presented that supported that idea. This is a point you seem unable to grasp. Evidence. Not authoritive statements.

  11. Seymour Young Says:

    I am saying that the verifiable evidence for the length of time that man has been around does not extend beyond about 4,000 years ago. This being the case mans presence as described by history falls within the Biblical timescale of approximately 6,000 years. Man has always been literate and intelligent.

    The Jews have carefully listed every generation from Adam to Christ. Anyone who knows anything about the Jews knows that they are extremely meticulous in matters of genealogy. What is the basis on which we dismiss their record? No scientist has shown that their records are inaccurate.

    Nearly everything that man has invented has been invented in the last 200 years. Science is at its zenith yet men who still live in pretty much the same way as their ancestors did millenia ago live as contemporaries with the most advanced civilizations in history.

    So called cavemen etc have always been contemporary with the literate intelligensia of their day. They have never lived in a separate age all on their own. That is man has not passed through any long chain of evolution.
    Everything we know about human history tells us that man has been around a relatively short time. Only thousands of years. Science has not shown otherwise

    • jaycueaitch Says:

      Humans have not always been literate. Even YECs who think the Earth is 6,013 years old accept that since writing does not appear to be much more than 4,ooo years old.

      The rest od your argument boils down to “the bible is true, it says so in the Bible”.

  12. Seymour Young Says:

    Hoyle did rubbish evolution and he was aware of the bigotry of the scientific community. This is what he said…

    “If one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure or order must be the outcome of intelligent design. No other possibility I have been able to think of..”

    He compared the random emergence of even the simplest cell to the likelihood that “a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.”

    Hoyle also compared the chance of obtaining even a single funtioning protein by chance combination of amino acids to a solar system full of blind men solving Rubiks Cube simultaneously.

    He conluded that the universe is governed by a greater intelligence and described Darwins theory of evolution as wrong and claimed that belief that the first living cell was created in the “sea of life”was just erroneous.

    He went on to say “Life as we know it, is among other things, dependent on aat least 2000 different enzymes. How could the blind forces of the primal sea manage to put together the correct chemical elements to build enzymes?” He went on to say that the chance of this happening would be only about 1 in 10 to the power of 40,000!. About the same chance as throwing 50,000 sixes in a row with dice.

    Perhaps his most important statement was “scientific challenges to evolution have “never had a fair hearing” because “the developing system of popular education (from Darwins day to the present) provided an ideal opportunity… for awkward arguments not to be discussed and for discrepant facts to be suppressed.”

    Now, until your question I had not looked at Hoyles statements in any detail but I am amazed to see how clearly his views reflect mine and especially his last statement!

    What Hoyle has said is so clearly true. Why? Human experience has shown us, all our investigation has shown us exactly what he said. We never observe enzymes being formed outside of living systems! We have never observed any spontaneous generation, indeed it is a fundamental law of biology that it does not occur. So why are we teaching evolution as science?
    Evolution is not science. It is atheistic philosophy disguised as science. Accepting evolution which together with big bang form the two most ridiculous theories in history has enormous consequences for every individual who embraces it.

    Hoyle was widely considered to be worthy of the Nobel prize in science. You guessed it. He never got it. I wonder why?

  13. jaycueaitch Says:

    Again, you are arguing from authority not evidence. In any event Hoyle was talking about the evolution of the first single cells from inanimate matter. He did not think it happened and thought they had been brought to Earth by cometry impact. (Although this just transfers their origin from Earth to the Oort Cloud). Even individual cells are very complex. I have not seen any of Hoyle’s writings where he rejects evolution from cells to modern life, including humans.

  14. Seymour Young Says:

    Thanks for your comments. I will get back to you shortly

  15. Seymour Young Says:

    I think you are missing my point. Even though they were originally presented with all the evidence. They initially rejected it because they objected to his status in the scheme of things. Prejudice clouded their judgment in spite of the science!

    They did not want to accept it because of certain preconceptions. As happened with Galileo and others they were eventually forced to accept the truth.

  16. Seymour Young Says:


  17. Seymour Young Says:


  18. Seymour Young Says:


    • jaycueaitch Says:

      Nobody disputes that carbon-14 dating is no use beyonf ~50,000 years. Dating of geologically old samples relies on a number of long period decays: the U238 – Pb206 decay chain with a half life of 4.5 billion years and the K40 – Ar40 with a half life of 1 billion years for example.

  19. Seymour Young Says:

    Thanks for your reply. I am sorry I did not realize that you wanted links to research papers. I do not have any. I mistakenly thought you just wanted information about him. As you can see he is a man of some scientific credibility.

    The point about all forms of radiometric dating is that that before any calculation can be carried out certain assumptions have to be made. Because of this they are unreliable since it is impossible to know whether the assumptions are correct or not.

    If you checked the nature.com link I gave you, you will see what I am talking about

    • phayes Says:

      “As you can see he is a man of some scientific credibility.”


      “G^{½} is dimensionally charge/mass and is 2.58×10^{-4} e.s.u. per gram. That it may actually be electrostatic charge per gram thus offers itself as an explanation of gravity.”


  20. Seymour Young Says:

    In addition-

    1. We have to ASSUME that the initial ratios can be estimated.

    2. We have to ASSUME that the sample being measured is indisturbed with nothing added or subtracted.


    3. Dating of meteorites is ASSUMED to give the age of the solar system.

    Can conclusions arrived at from calculations based on such assumptions be safely described as scientific fact? Does this seem objective or subjective to you?

  21. Seymour Young Says:

    Back to Hoyle. He did rubbish evolution! He swept away its very foundation here on earth or anywhere else in the universe when he said “Life as we know it, is among other things, dependent on aat least 2000 different enzymes. How could the blind forces of the primal sea manage to put together the correct chemical elements to build enzymes?”

    He went on to say that the chance of this happening would be only about 1 in 10 to the power of 40,000!. About the same chance as throwing 50,000 sixes in a row with dice. (incidentally this is more than the estimated number of atoms in the known universe which is only 10 to the power of 80).

    Scientists have NEVER observed inanimate molecules coming together to form life. This being the case their ideas on evolution are incorrectly described as science and should more correctly be described as a belief. If this is not rubbishing evolution what is?

  22. Seymour Young Says:

    “It may come as a shock to some, but fewer than 50 percent of the radiocarbon dates from geological and archaeological samples in northeastern North America have been adopted as ‘acceptable’ by investigators.” J Ogden III, “The Use and Abuse of Radiocarbon,” in Annals of the New York Academy of Science, Vol 288, 1977, pp. 167 – 173.

    “C – 14 dating was being discussed at a symposium on the prehistory of the Nile Valley. A Famous American colleague, Professor Brew, briefly summarized a common attitude among archaeologists towards it, as follows: “If a C – 14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. And if it is completely ‘out – of- date’, we just drop it.” T. Save-Soderbergh and Ingrid U. Olsson, “C 14 Dating and Egyptian Chronology,” Radiocarbon dating Variations and Absolute Chronology, ed. Ingrid U Olsson (1970), p. 35 [also in Pensee, 3(1): 44]

  23. Seymour Young Says:

    Hi there I hope that I am not being too lengthy. I am sending a more complete list of assumptions. It goes without saying that I welcome your views.

    Now let us consider the underlying assumptions about radiocarbon dating that are made in order to make it a workable method, even though not a reliable one.

    1. Atmospheric carbon: For the past several million years, the air around us had the same amount of atmospheric carbon that it now has.
    2. Oceanic carbon: During that time, the very large amount of oceanic carbon has not changed in size.
    3. Cosmic rays: Cosmic rays from outer space have reached the earth in the same amounts in the past as now.
    4. Balance of rates: Both the rate of formation and rate of decay of carbon 14 have always in the past remained in balance.
    5. Decay rates: The decay rate of carbon 14 has never changed.
    6. No contamination: Nothing has ever contaminated any specimen containing carbon 14.
    7. No seepage: No seepage of water or other factor has brought additional carbon 14 to the sample since death occurred.
    8. Amount of carbon 14 at death: The fraction of carbon 14, which the living thing possessed at death, is known today.
    9. Carbon 14 half- life: The half –life of carbon 14 has been accurately determined.
    10 Atmospheric nitrogen: Nitrogen is the precursor to Carbon 14, so the amount of nitrogen in the atmosphere must have always been constant.
    11. Instrumentation and analysis: The instrumentation is precise, working properly, and analytic methods are always carefully done.
    12. Uniform results: The technique always yields the same results on the same sample or related samples that are obviously part of the same larger sample.
    13. Earth’s magnetic field: Earth’s magnetic field was the same in the past as it is today.
    We have some big “if’s” in the above 13 assumptions! In reality, there is not one instance in which we can point to a C -24 sample and declare with certainty that EVEN ONE of those assumptions applies to it.

  24. Allan Crossman Says:

    To the OP: another inaccuracy is that Genesis places the creation of birds before that of land animals; whereas in reality birds evolved from dinosaurs (this is no longer controversial).

  25. jaycueaitch Says:

    A message to Seymour Young

    I have pointed you to a website that answers your questions. The fact that you keep coming back with the same “questions” – for which I am beginning to suspect you do not actually want answers – indicates that you are not willing to engage in debate. Please refrain from posting on this thread again.

  26. Frank Says:

    I find it rather incredulous that any so called Scientific writer would signify his work with Genesis for a start. The Bible is, after all an horrific account of the vile deeds perpetrated on each other inthe name of a blood thirsty Deity, by the most viscious and dangerous animals on the planet.

  27. ali nguyen Says:

    for those ridiculing dr parker on this subject, I suggest you actually look at his arguments yourself and make your own decision. Indeed, those quite surprised that Dr Parker could even refer to genesis as a scientist must then acknowledge maybe he has something to say.

    The article presented above does not reflect dr parker’s arguments…

    above, the author makes the paradox known RE: day four in genesis…parker’s argument regarding the fourth day ‘greater light during the day…lesser light at night…created stars’ is not to say the earth existed before the sun. but to say that SIGHT was then created so animals could tell the difference

    anyway, the book’s an interesting read…just have a look, it won’t make you dumber.

  28. Frank Says:

    Dr. Parker’s whole argument presupposes the truth of the story of Genesis & the existence of God, both of which are primative man made fables of the Judeo/ Christian/ Muslim Religions. Surely in view of the madness perpetrated in the world today in the name of religion, it would be a fair statement to say that Religion is a mental disease of Humanity.

  29. monado Says:

    Excuse my while I barf! Seriously? Has Dr. Andrew Parker of Oxford seen any bunny-rabbits in clouds lately? Does he think that rays of sunlight coming from behind a cloud and lighting up the haze prove that God is hiding behind the cloud? How about Thor? Brahma? Manitou? And what about his horoscope–does that mysteriously fit him? “Why, yes, I’m more sensitive than most people realize.” Talk about confirmation bias mixed with fanfic!

  30. Frank Says:

    In view of the fact that bible scholars & Israeli archeologists have both concluded that the Pentateauch, Moses & the Exodus are simply Hebrew fables, perhaps Dr. Parker gains some amusement from seeing so many critics taking his work seriously.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: