Very clever, you just made my point AGAIN. What's number one on the list? Oh golly! It's exactly what I quoted. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Look at the first entry. Analyzing a set of facts and coming up with an explanation is a theory. the facts are not called theories.
of course i get it. difference is that a FACT is never wrong and the ANALYSIS can be wrong. Which i am not saying it is or isnt in this instance, just felt it was crucial to point this out.
Which chronology of genesis creation? There's at leats two that I'm aware of. Compare Genesis 1:1 - 2:3 to Genesis 2:4-25, let us know which account is the correct one, then try again.
Oops wrong again. People can be mistaken on what is factual and what isn't. For many years. Something can be proclaimed as a fact only to have it turn out that it wasn't after all. Just thought that was worth pointing out...
So everywhere, and nowhere, all in motion, moving away from each center, in the simplest of explanations? Interesting, and again a parallel in the Bible, God being Nowhere, Yet Everywhere.
The Spirit of God passing over the pre-existing waters is the first step of the Creation (just as it does in many creation myths where water is deemed eternal). It's more clearly a retelling of the Sumerian and Babylonian creation myth. Besides, in the Biblical Creation God doesn't create the stars in heaven until after the Earth is made (on the 4th day...which also seems to be when the Sun and Moon were created, odd since day and night existed on Day 1, though apparently without the Sun being involved). He also creates birds (5th day) before reptiles (6th day) when we know the order was reversed. For that matter, He seems to have separately created species, rather than simply creating single-celled creatures and letting them evolve, which is at odds with what we know.
You forgot the end of Genesis 1:31 31. God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day. and continue from Genesis 2:1 1. Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And as Genesis: 2, follows Genesis: 1, both are correct as one compliments the other, they are not two seperat stories, but the whole story, Genesis.
He doesn't create the bird , for example until 2:19, after he created Adam. This is inconsistent with the "first" creation where birds are made on the fifth day and mankind (possibly Adam) on the 6th. Also He makes Eve only as a companion to Adam and only after the fact, whereas the two sexes appeared well before humans evolved, so would have existed from the very start of the species. In any event, why try to pigeonhole the scientific view of the universe into the creation myth? The Hindu creation myth seems far more accurate to me (they, for example, understood that the universe was billions of years old, not thousands), but would that alone make you want to worship the Hindu gods?
No, I didn't, forget anything. In Genesis 1:1-2:3 Earth Light Day Heaven Land Grasses, herbs, and fruits Stars Sun and the moon Sea life/Birds Land life Man and woman (at the same time, from the same dust) However in Genesis 2:4-25 we have: Flowering plants Man Animals& birds Woman (from a rib). So which order of creation is the correct one (without getting into any of the logical absurdities, or places where contradictions with modern science occur).
So is water essential for the Big Bang? Or don't we know? can you explain it? A explanation that is 7000+ years old, can a word be misinterpreted along the way? Again just like you, I have faith, mine a Faith in a Divine Action, vs: Your faith in a Human Scientist making a explanation for some supposed event from 14 billion years ago. I have read some articles on GR and Time, so how does GR and Time effect the Big Bang, some really neat head bashing going on about that concept. Are we talking about time as in classical mechanics?, or are we talking about Time as in Spacetime? Are we talking about time as in a Concept with dimensions? Or Non-mathematical notions of unified spacetime? Or as a Mathematical concept? The funny thing is that I accept your science, as I see it in the creation story, a parallel in the sequence of events, so what was a Day in the presence of God Time?, that is something that I don't think we can define, I don't deny your science, I just attribute it to different causes.
Where does this "7,000 years" come from? Wiki That would make it ~3,000 years. In which case you aren't accepting science as science.
Trippy you have forgotten everything, linear progression of the story..... Chapter 1, follows Chapter 2, a linear progression. 31. God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day. The world is formed and complete. Chapter 2 starts out with the statement that; 1. Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. Then goes back to discuss the happenings as in a flashback, a retrospection.
The earliest aproxamate date of the creation story. You forgot the Torah, which is much older than the Bible, we include the Torah/Old Testament in our Bible for it's prediction of the birth of Jesus. Only by your definition of science, and creation.
And you're still missing the simple, obvious truth. It presents a DIFFERENT ORDER The two versions are CONTRADICTORY Or do you often present summaries as confused jumbles?
Actually, the Pentateuche, the oldest part of the Torah, is still only 3000 years old, so no, he hasn't 'forgotten' anything (in fact he's implicitly included it).
So you're assuming it was written then? Or at a push Hmm so 539-334 (or 950) was before ~1200 BC? (Wiki again). By science's definition of science.
Actually (I just checked) and you're "supported by science" is even further off that I stated. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis 1&version=NIV So according to your interpretation that would be the formation of Earth followed by the Big Bang? Way to go... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!