Genesis Correlates With Science

I do not see where this is going, so cut to the chase. How is it Obama's fault.

I appreciate what passes for thoughtful analysis from you and Maxwell....but still yearn for....let's call it more 'competent' ...input.


Care to actually actually contribute....or is the subject just too eschatological for you?

If so, hang around....we'll eventually get to Silly Putty, and favorite cartoon network.
 
there is no proof god exsists.
There's no proof the Big Bang Theory happened either.

You're correct, it is more than a hypothesis and less than a law; the big bang theory is a theory and the belief in God a hypothesis.

One can infer God created the big bang but there is no evidence. One can infer God created man or man created God; what is certain is man has the ability create both in the abstract but only the big bang can be measured.
 
I really hate to try to explain anything to a liberal. They are too ideologically enmeshed in their faith.

The universe is expanding. By observing the path of expansion they can mathematically plot backwards to the point where the expansion began but cannot see beyond that to what caused it. Hence the Big Bang being a scientific singular anamoly.

A comparison would be to film a rock tossed into a still lake causing ripples. Run the film backwards and you can see the exact spot where the ripples began. You just would not see the hand that tossed the rock. The scientific explanation would be that something fell in the lake that caused the ripples but what it was and how it happened would be a scientific anamoly.

The lake has a shore that will stop the ripple expansion. The universe is curved so the ripples will never stop. That's a neat trick to construct a curved Universe with no end. It was all just an accident like the Big Bang. How did it happen?
 
I really hate to try to explain anything to a liberal. They are too ideologically enmeshed in their faith.

The universe is expanding. By observing the path of expansion they can mathematically plot backwards to the point where the expansion began but cannot see beyond that to what caused it. Hence the Big Bang being a scientific singular anamoly.

A comparison would be to film a rock tossed into a still lake causing ripples. Run the film backwards and you can see the exact spot where the ripples began. You just would not see the hand that tossed the rock. The scientific explanation would be that something fell in the lake that caused the ripples but what it was and how it happened would be a scientific anamoly.

The lake has a shore that will stop the ripple expansion. The universe is curved so the ripples will never stop. That's a neat trick to construct a curved Universe with no end. It was all just an accident like the Big Bang. How did it happen?

I defer to Stephen Hawking -

Stephen Hawking - Home
 
...


Interesting? Modern scientific narrative and biblical narrative seem to agree here.
LIght....energy....but no sun...


But there’s more in the Genesis author’s narrative. There follows an order of events of the creation.
A pretty specific order of events.
And it’s surprisingly accurate.

are you okay?

I'm sure, in some circles, that passes for clever badinage....

But to consider the prominence...pun intended....of the sun to the ancient Israelites....and have their magnum opus speak of God producing light sans any reference to the Sun....

And to consider the....may I use 'prominence' again?...of the contemporary Big Bang idea....

Well, to those sentient individuals, this would be of interest.

Then there is you: "are you okay?"


Are you having an off day?
Thanks for dropping in.
 
...


Interesting? Modern scientific narrative and biblical narrative seem to agree here.
LIght....energy....but no sun...


But there’s more in the Genesis author’s narrative. There follows an order of events of the creation.
A pretty specific order of events.
And it’s surprisingly accurate.

are you okay?

I'm sure, in some circles, that passes for clever badinage....

But to consider the prominence...pun intended....of the sun to the ancient Israelites....and have their magnum opus speak of God producing light sans any reference to the Sun....

And to consider the....may I use 'prominence' again?...of the contemporary Big Bang idea....

Well, to those sentient individuals, this would be of interest.

Then there is you: "are you okay?"


Are you having an off day?
Thanks for dropping in.

Food for thought:

The desire of appearing clever often prevents our becoming so.

For in religion as in friendship, they who profess most are ever the least sincere.

The greatest cosmopolites are generally the neediest beggars, and they who embrace the entire universe with love, for the most part, love nothing but their narrow self.

Link: Pretension Quotes. C.N. Douglas, comp. 1917. Forty Thousand Quotations: Prose and Poetical
 
are you okay?

I'm sure, in some circles, that passes for clever badinage....

But to consider the prominence...pun intended....of the sun to the ancient Israelites....and have their magnum opus speak of God producing light sans any reference to the Sun....

And to consider the....may I use 'prominence' again?...of the contemporary Big Bang idea....

Well, to those sentient individuals, this would be of interest.

Then there is you: "are you okay?"


Are you having an off day?
Thanks for dropping in.

Food for thought:

The desire of appearing clever often prevents our becoming so.

For in religion as in friendship, they who profess most are ever the least sincere.

The greatest cosmopolites are generally the neediest beggars, and they who embrace the entire universe with love, for the most part, love nothing but their narrow self.

Link: Pretension Quotes. C.N. Douglas, comp. 1917. Forty Thousand Quotations: Prose and Poetical


Now...be serious.

How would you ever recognize "clever," not even having a passing acquaintance with same?
 
So you criticize christians the bible, and you're very pro Israel. But you only believe one part of the Bible that you claim ancient israelities wrote and seem to agree with it.

Are you a Jew worshipper?
 
I think Northern Exposure explained it better:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xcnvuc0nm8]Northern Exposure - Christmas - The Raven Pageant. - YouTube[/ame]
 
In the way Genesis was written, it is the fool who takes it literally. Mythology, symbolism, and metaphor are all used in the 'genesis' stories of all cultures. Genesis' author(s) had to be aware of this as they were literate men.

The Bible is a latecomer to this type of story

How did it happen?

Most likely NOT the invisible hand of a god. Conservatives and progressives just love those invisible hands

...


Interesting? Modern scientific narrative and biblical narrative seem to agree here.
LIght....energy....but no sun...


But there’s more in the Genesis author’s narrative. There follows an order of events of the creation.
A pretty specific order of events.
And it’s surprisingly accurate.

are you okay?


Go Back US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum > US Discussion > History
Reload this Page Uncanny Accuracy of the Bible!
 
I'm sure, in some circles, that passes for clever badinage....

But to consider the prominence...pun intended....of the sun to the ancient Israelites....and have their magnum opus speak of God producing light sans any reference to the Sun....

And to consider the....may I use 'prominence' again?...of the contemporary Big Bang idea....

Well, to those sentient individuals, this would be of interest.

Then there is you: "are you okay?"


Are you having an off day?
Thanks for dropping in.

Food for thought:

The desire of appearing clever often prevents our becoming so.

For in religion as in friendship, they who profess most are ever the least sincere.

The greatest cosmopolites are generally the neediest beggars, and they who embrace the entire universe with love, for the most part, love nothing but their narrow self.

Link: Pretension Quotes. C.N. Douglas, comp. 1917. Forty Thousand Quotations: Prose and Poetical


Now...be serious.

How would you ever recognize "clever," not even having a passing acquaintance with same?

Serious? Seriously?? On a thread you started??? That's too much to ask. Um, did you mean The Beaver? I'd recognzie the Beaver, and Wally too.
 
So you criticize christians the bible, and you're very pro Israel. But you only believe one part of the Bible that you claim ancient israelities wrote and seem to agree with it.

Are you a Jew worshipper?

Only if it upsets you.

You're ill, take your Israel and shove it up your butt....:cuckoo:

It's hilarious you're trying to claim Israelites discovered it. No, it's called God.
 
So you criticize christians the bible, and you're very pro Israel. But you only believe one part of the Bible that you claim ancient israelities wrote and seem to agree with it.

Are you a Jew worshipper?

Only if it upsets you.

You're ill, take your Israel and shove it up your butt....:cuckoo:

It's hilarious you're trying to claim Israelites discovered it. No, it's called God.


I take full credit for discovering what a fool you are!


Is there a reward?

How about snacks?
 
I do not see where this is going, so cut to the chase. How is it Obama's fault.

I appreciate what passes for thoughtful analysis from you and Maxwell....but still yearn for....let's call it more 'competent' ...input.


Care to actually actually contribute....or is the subject just too eschatological for you?

If so, hang around....we'll eventually get to Silly Putty, and favorite cartoon network.

You were there long ago, do not fool yourself that you have surpassed it.
 
4. Then, in the 20th century, Einstein advanced his theory of general relativity, the implication of which was that the universe was not static- it must be expanding or contracting.

a. An understanding of the red shift pretty much established an expanding universe. With this came the realization that there must have been a beginning.

5. And that was ‘The Big Bang’…some 13,700 million years ago. Quite an event…it lasted just 10 to the minus 35th seconds, beginning the universe, generating time and space, as well as all the matter and energy that the universe would ever, ever, contain!

6. The basic forces of nature emerged- first gravity, then the strong force that holds the nuclei of atoms together (no atoms existed at this time), followed by weaker, then ‘electromagnetic’ forces. By the end of the firs second, there were quarks and electrons, nutrinos, some other stuff….and, later, some of them smashed together to form protons and neutrons.





7. So, there we have the idea of the universe suddenly appearing at a beginning, and all of that from a huge amount of energy. Of course, that doesn’t begin to ask the obvious: what existed before the Big Bang, and where did all that energy come from?
I love how know-nothings think they know-it-all about science because of what they have heard from the pulpit!!! :cuckoo:

Space/time began at the Big Bang, not energy. No energy was "generated" at the Big Bang. Energy already existed at the Big Bang. Energy is what went bang at the Big Bang. The proven First Law of Thermodynamics says energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

Poof goes your whole rationalization!
Try again.
 
BTW there is NO proof god exsists.

take that to the bank

....nor of the success of socialism...but you buy that like it was on sale.

True?

Stick to the topic you created in the OP, especially when so often it is you who will slam others for deviating from the OP. Try having just a little bit of integrity, although I realize this must be a foreign concept for you. Perhaps you should look that one up.
 
As far as your OP, science falsifies the bible immediately. There was no light in the universe until 300,000 years after the Big Bang. In other words, matter and energy were formed before light. Nice try though. Another pathetic try at vindicating a fairy tale.
 
Last edited:
9. Probably anyone writing a creation account should have begun with the idea of the formation of the sun and the planets….shouldn’t they? Without the sun…how could Genesis refer to the ‘days’ of creation? So…“Let there be light” doesn’t really entail much….does it? It makes intuitive sense: light needs the sun....doesn't it?

a. Even the pagan world figured this out: most tended to worship the sun as the source of all life.
But Genesis doesn’t speak of the sun…..only of light, until verses 14-19.

10. Big Bang…explosion….energy….light. But no atoms to form the sun for some time. Light…but no sun? So says science. And so says Genesis.
Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter two.

a. For reference, Genesis 1, verses 1-4: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 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.

Interesting? Modern scientific narrative and biblical narrative seem to agree here.
LIght....energy....but no sun...

But there’s more in the Genesis author’s narrative. There follows an order of events of the creation.
A pretty specific order of events.

And it’s surprisingly accurate.
Of course you left the next verse out because it pointed out the one thing you need the Sun for, the evening and the morning!!! In fact, there were 3 days of evenings and mornings before the Sun was created.

Worse yet, you have the Earth created BEFORE the light, or in your rationalization before the Big Bang. How does that specific order of events match science???????

Genesis verse 5: And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
 

Forum List

Back
Top