If 0+0=0 and 0-0=0, 0x0=0, Why is 0/0 indeterminate?

[OldLady]

Try not to get too technical, but can anyone explain this in common English?
I went home and thought about it last night, but for the life of me, I can't understand why if it applies to division, it doesn't apply to the rest. What is different about division that doesn't allow that?

 

[Iceweasel]

This is in response to the deeply indoctrinated disciples that believe matter can come from nothing? Good luck with that, you're better off with a Moonie.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Try not to get too technical, but can anyone explain this in common English?
I went home and thought about it last night, but for the life of me, I can't understand why if it applies to division, it doesn't apply to the rest. What is different about division that doesn't allow that?

Maybe if you stayed in school and learned math instead of basket weaving, you would of understood that you cant divide something by nothing(for there is nothing you can use to divide by other than real numbers). You can add nothing to nothing and get nothing. You can multiply nothing with nothing and get nothing, you can even subtract nothing from nothing, it really isn't rocket science to understand this.

 

[cnelsen]

Try not to get too technical, but can anyone explain this in common English?
I went home and thought about it last night, but for the life of me, I can't understand why if it applies to division, it doesn't apply to the rest. What is different about division that doesn't allow that?

It helps to think of the actual language and what you are doing: e.g., 6 / 3 = 2 means you have six apples and divide them into three groups, you have two apples in each group. But if you have six apples and divide them up into no groups ... and it becomes irrational because you can't divide something into nothingness.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Try not to get too technical, but can anyone explain this in common English?
I went home and thought about it last night, but for the life of me, I can't understand why if it applies to division, it doesn't apply to the rest. What is different about division that doesn't allow that?

It helps to think of the actual language and what you are doing: e.g., 6 / 3 = 2 means you have six apples and divide them into three groups, you have two apples in each group. But if you have six apples and divide them up into no groups ... and it becomes irrational because you can't divide something into nothingness.

because you can't divide something into nothingness

That statement is not correctly stated, you can divide something into nothingness, that is 0 divided by 6. 0/6 =0 but you cant divide nothingness into something, 6 divided by 0, 6/0 = error.

 

[OldLady]

Try not to get too technical, but can anyone explain this in common English?
I went home and thought about it last night, but for the life of me, I can't understand why if it applies to division, it doesn't apply to the rest. What is different about division that doesn't allow that?

It helps to think of the actual language and what you are doing: e.g., 6 / 3 = 2 means you have six apples and divide them into three groups, you have two apples in each group. But if you have six apples and divide them up into no groups ... and it becomes irrational because you can't divide something into nothingness.

Thanks!

 

[MisterBeale]

I understand what you are getting at. I just has to be that way for equations and science to make sense.

Try not to get too technical, but can anyone explain this in common English?
I went home and thought about it last night, but for the life of me, I can't understand why if it applies to division, it doesn't apply to the rest. What is different about division that doesn't allow that?

It helps to think of the actual language and what you are doing: e.g., 6 / 3 = 2 means you have six apples and divide them into three groups, you have two apples in each group. But if you have six apples and divide them up into no groups ... and it becomes irrational because you can't divide something into nothingness.

Thanks!

I understand what you are getting at. It just has to be that way for equations and science to make sense.

Most folks will persecute you and say it makes, "logical" sense, but I think it makes just as much logical sense to say, if you have something to divide a number by nothing, that number doesn't exist, but that would be the function of multiplication, not division, but that is the function of "no" groupings. . .

No groupings, is, for me, zero. But you can't have that, when six times zero is also zero. I can divide six into nothingness, for me it isn't irrational. What are no groupings of six? Well, none. Zero. But then, how many times is six multiplied by zero? That too, is nothing. Both these equations can't be equal. This would cause a problem for advanced mathematicians and scientists.

I think when they rectify this, they will understand that all matter and energy are at a point of singularity. This is what makes faster than light travel possible, it is what enables telepathy, and how matter and energy are one. It is what is known as singularity. It is the riddle that is hidden. All points in the universe in the space time continuum are one. Space, in the third dimension, is an illusion, as is time, albeit persistent ones. We must use this as a convenient tool to make sense of our universe.

Just as in, if you try to divide a whole number integer by a negative, you get negative groupings? In arithmetic, we do allow dividing by negatives. When we try to "conceptualize" this, it makes about as much sense as dividing by zero. Again, this is necessary for doing advanced math and science.

 

[OldLady]

I understand what you are getting at. I just has to be that way for equations and science to make sense.

Try not to get too technical, but can anyone explain this in common English?
I went home and thought about it last night, but for the life of me, I can't understand why if it applies to division, it doesn't apply to the rest. What is different about division that doesn't allow that?

It helps to think of the actual language and what you are doing: e.g., 6 / 3 = 2 means you have six apples and divide them into three groups, you have two apples in each group. But if you have six apples and divide them up into no groups ... and it becomes irrational because you can't divide something into nothingness.

Thanks!

I understand what you are getting at. It just has to be that way for equations and science to make sense.

Most folks will persecute you and say it makes, "logical" sense, but I think it makes just as much logical sense to say, if you have something to divide a number by nothing, that number doesn't exist, but that would be the function of multiplication, not division, but that is the function of "no" groupings. . .

No groupings, is, for me, zero. But you can't have that, when six times zero is also zero. I can divide six into nothingness, for me it isn't irrational. What are no groupings of six? Well, none. Zero. But then, how many times is six multiplied by zero? That too, is nothing. Both these equations can't be equal. This would cause a problem for advanced mathematicians and scientists.

I think when they rectify this, they will understand that all matter and energy are at a point of singularity. This is what makes faster than light travel possible, it is what enables telepathy, and how matter and energy are one. It is what is known as singularity. It is the riddle that is hidden. All points in the universe in the space time continuum are one. Space, in the third dimension, is an illusion, as is time, albeit persistent ones. We must use this as a convenient tool to make sense of our universe.

Just as in, if you try to divide a whole number integer by a negative, you get negative groupings? In arithmetic, we do allow dividing by negatives. When we try to "conceptualize" this, it makes about as much sense as dividing by zero. Again, this is necessary for doing advanced math and science.

OMG, someone who understands my question. It began out of a discussion about the universe being created from "nothing." To me, it is certainly "the riddle that is hidden."
Thank you so much for not calling me stupid this morning, Mr. Beale.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

I understand what you are getting at. I just has to be that way for equations and science to make sense.

Try not to get too technical, but can anyone explain this in common English?
I went home and thought about it last night, but for the life of me, I can't understand why if it applies to division, it doesn't apply to the rest. What is different about division that doesn't allow that?

It helps to think of the actual language and what you are doing: e.g., 6 / 3 = 2 means you have six apples and divide them into three groups, you have two apples in each group. But if you have six apples and divide them up into no groups ... and it becomes irrational because you can't divide something into nothingness.

Thanks!

I understand what you are getting at. It just has to be that way for equations and science to make sense.

Most folks will persecute you and say it makes, "logical" sense, but I think it makes just as much logical sense to say, if you have something to divide a number by nothing, that number doesn't exist, but that would be the function of multiplication, not division, but that is the function of "no" groupings. . .

No groupings, is, for me, zero. But you can't have that, when six times zero is also zero. I can divide six into nothingness, for me it isn't irrational. What are no groupings of six? Well, none. Zero. But then, how many times is six multiplied by zero? That too, is nothing. Both these equations can't be equal. This would cause a problem for advanced mathematicians and scientists.

I think when they rectify this, they will understand that all matter and energy are at a point of singularity. This is what makes faster than light travel possible, it is what enables telepathy, and how matter and energy are one. It is what is known as singularity. It is the riddle that is hidden. All points in the universe in the space time continuum are one. Space, in the third dimension, is an illusion, as is time, albeit persistent ones. We must use this as a convenient tool to make sense of our universe.

Just as in, if you try to divide a whole number integer by a negative, you get negative groupings? In arithmetic, we do allow dividing by negatives. When we try to "conceptualize" this, it makes about as much sense as dividing by zero. Again, this is necessary for doing advanced math and science.

OMG, someone who understands my question. It began out of a discussion about the universe being created from "nothing." To me, it is certainly "the riddle that is hidden."
Thank you so much for not calling me stupid this morning, Mr. Beale.

I guess you don't believe in the intelligent design theory that can make something from nothing?

 

[OldLady]

I understand what you are getting at. I just has to be that way for equations and science to make sense.

Try not to get too technical, but can anyone explain this in common English?
I went home and thought about it last night, but for the life of me, I can't understand why if it applies to division, it doesn't apply to the rest. What is different about division that doesn't allow that?

It helps to think of the actual language and what you are doing: e.g., 6 / 3 = 2 means you have six apples and divide them into three groups, you have two apples in each group. But if you have six apples and divide them up into no groups ... and it becomes irrational because you can't divide something into nothingness.

Thanks!

I understand what you are getting at. It just has to be that way for equations and science to make sense.

Most folks will persecute you and say it makes, "logical" sense, but I think it makes just as much logical sense to say, if you have something to divide a number by nothing, that number doesn't exist, but that would be the function of multiplication, not division, but that is the function of "no" groupings. . .

No groupings, is, for me, zero. But you can't have that, when six times zero is also zero. I can divide six into nothingness, for me it isn't irrational. What are no groupings of six? Well, none. Zero. But then, how many times is six multiplied by zero? That too, is nothing. Both these equations can't be equal. This would cause a problem for advanced mathematicians and scientists.

I think when they rectify this, they will understand that all matter and energy are at a point of singularity. This is what makes faster than light travel possible, it is what enables telepathy, and how matter and energy are one. It is what is known as singularity. It is the riddle that is hidden. All points in the universe in the space time continuum are one. Space, in the third dimension, is an illusion, as is time, albeit persistent ones. We must use this as a convenient tool to make sense of our universe.

Just as in, if you try to divide a whole number integer by a negative, you get negative groupings? In arithmetic, we do allow dividing by negatives. When we try to "conceptualize" this, it makes about as much sense as dividing by zero. Again, this is necessary for doing advanced math and science.

OMG, someone who understands my question. It began out of a discussion about the universe being created from "nothing." To me, it is certainly "the riddle that is hidden."
Thank you so much for not calling me stupid this morning, Mr. Beale.

I guess you don't believe in the intelligent design theory that can make something from nothing?

I'm too busy weaving baskets to discuss this with you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This is in response to the deeply indoctrinated disciples that believe matter can come from nothing? Good luck with that, you're better off with a Moonie.

I really liked that not-so-subtle dig.

 

[OldLady]

This is in response to the deeply indoctrinated disciples that believe matter can come from nothing? Good luck with that, you're better off with a Moonie.

I really liked that not-so-subtle dig.

Any possibility you've got something intelligent to add? Not political or religious spin?

 

[Iceweasel]

This is in response to the deeply indoctrinated disciples that believe matter can come from nothing? Good luck with that, you're better off with a Moonie.

I really liked that not-so-subtle dig.

Any possibility you've got something intelligent to add? Not political or religious spin?

What's religious about believing matter or energy cannot create itself? It's the opposite, you have to be deeply religious to believe so.

 

[MisterBeale]

I understand what you are getting at. I just has to be that way for equations and science to make sense.

Try not to get too technical, but can anyone explain this in common English?
I went home and thought about it last night, but for the life of me, I can't understand why if it applies to division, it doesn't apply to the rest. What is different about division that doesn't allow that?

It helps to think of the actual language and what you are doing: e.g., 6 / 3 = 2 means you have six apples and divide them into three groups, you have two apples in each group. But if you have six apples and divide them up into no groups ... and it becomes irrational because you can't divide something into nothingness.

Thanks!

I understand what you are getting at. It just has to be that way for equations and science to make sense.

Most folks will persecute you and say it makes, "logical" sense, but I think it makes just as much logical sense to say, if you have something to divide a number by nothing, that number doesn't exist, but that would be the function of multiplication, not division, but that is the function of "no" groupings. . .

No groupings, is, for me, zero. But you can't have that, when six times zero is also zero. I can divide six into nothingness, for me it isn't irrational. What are no groupings of six? Well, none. Zero. But then, how many times is six multiplied by zero? That too, is nothing. Both these equations can't be equal. This would cause a problem for advanced mathematicians and scientists.

I think when they rectify this, they will understand that all matter and energy are at a point of singularity. This is what makes faster than light travel possible, it is what enables telepathy, and how matter and energy are one. It is what is known as singularity. It is the riddle that is hidden. All points in the universe in the space time continuum are one. Space, in the third dimension, is an illusion, as is time, albeit persistent ones. We must use this as a convenient tool to make sense of our universe.

Just as in, if you try to divide a whole number integer by a negative, you get negative groupings? In arithmetic, we do allow dividing by negatives. When we try to "conceptualize" this, it makes about as much sense as dividing by zero. Again, this is necessary for doing advanced math and science.

OMG, someone who understands my question. It began out of a discussion about the universe being created from "nothing." To me, it is certainly "the riddle that is hidden."
Thank you so much for not calling me stupid this morning, Mr. Beale.

I think you are one of the most fair minded posters on here. You always tend to be open to new ideas. When we understand how we come to believe what we believe, we are more willing to understand how those who believe differently than us believe as they do.

The Universe has more mysteries in it than the folks that lead us would like us to believe.

 

[OldLady]

This is in response to the deeply indoctrinated disciples that believe matter can come from nothing? Good luck with that, you're better off with a Moonie.

I really liked that not-so-subtle dig.

Any possibility you've got something intelligent to add? Not political or religious spin?

What's religious about believing matter or energy cannot create itself? It's the opposite, you have to be deeply religious to believe so.

I got interested in how that could be claimed, that something can come from nothing. I don't know what it has do with religion or politics, and I don't care. I did find a google answer early this morning, saying quantum particles pop into existence, collide and disappear again....so whatever a quantum particle is, this scientist is saying it happens. Seems the universe had quite a lucky day when all those quantum particles did whatever and became a Big Bang? Good glory. This stuff is hard, which is why I was hoping folks who understand it would be willing to try to explain it in layman's terms.
What is Nothing?

 

[OldLady]

This is in response to the deeply indoctrinated disciples that believe matter can come from nothing? Good luck with that, you're better off with a Moonie.

I really liked that not-so-subtle dig.

Any possibility you've got something intelligent to add? Not political or religious spin?

What's religious about believing matter or energy cannot create itself? It's the opposite, you have to be deeply religious to believe so.

Ice, you're an electrician, aren't you? I was banned from physics 'cause I'm a math moron. When I think of "energy," I think of lightning, or the pop and flash when you stick a paperclip in an electric outlet. I understood that was a release of energy due to friction of some things or movement of electrons or something. Electrons and clouds are things that exist. So the concept of energy being "nothing" stumps me.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This is in response to the deeply indoctrinated disciples that believe matter can come from nothing? Good luck with that, you're better off with a Moonie.

I really liked that not-so-subtle dig.

Any possibility you've got something intelligent to add? Not political or religious spin?

I'd be happy to explain my post...this: "I really liked that not-so-subtle dig."

Communism and atheism....and Liberalism....all demand the removal of religion and the belief in God from society.
So much so, that atheistic 'scientists' actually try to obviate the obvious question of the origin of the universe by claiming....

...ready....


....the universe came from NOTHING.


There is prominent scientist, Lawrence Krauss, "... an American theoretical physicist and cosmologist...known as an advocate of the public understanding of science, ...and works to reduce the impact of superstition and religious dogma in pop culture. He is also the author of several bestselling books, includingThe Physics of Star Trek and A Universe from Nothing."
Lawrence M. Krauss - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


Krauss has said "we all, literally, emerged from quantum nothingness..."
Clearly an attempt to avoid the central question of where did the universe come from. Where are the quantum rules that imply a universe that must appear out of the void? Can any come up with a few examples where something has come from nothing?




And, from reviews of Krauss' book, " A Universe From Nothing,"...

"....at the end of the book he he has given up trying to explain his hypothesis. Throughout the book he admits that Something can come from Nothing only if there is Something inherent in the Nothingness.

...Krauss claims that "in quantum gravity, universes can, and indeed always will, spontaneously appear from nothing" This is yet again another fabrication,....

Krauss mixes opinion with pseudo-science to fool his cult that the universe popped into existence from nowhere with no cause (the epitome pseudo-science, anti-science and religious belief)."



Of course, the ancient Greek, Parmenides, was correct: nihil fit ex nihilo... "out of nothing, nothing [be]comes."

The fake science dunces are willing to accept anything...even things that obviate all of real science.



In short, if religion is prominent, communism is destroyed, as is its spin-off, Modern Liberalism.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

This is in response to the deeply indoctrinated disciples that believe matter can come from nothing? Good luck with that, you're better off with a Moonie.

I really liked that not-so-subtle dig.

So where did the Universe come from when there was nothing in the beginning? Not a sermon, just a question?

 

[task0778]

This is in response to the deeply indoctrinated disciples that believe matter can come from nothing? Good luck with that, you're better off with a Moonie.

I really liked that not-so-subtle dig.

Any possibility you've got something intelligent to add? Not political or religious spin?

What's religious about believing matter or energy cannot create itself? It's the opposite, you have to be deeply religious to believe so.

I got interested in how that could be claimed, that something can come from nothing. I don't know what it has do with religion or politics, and I don't care. I did find a google answer early this morning, saying quantum particles pop into existence, collide and disappear again....so whatever a quantum particle is, this scientist is saying it happens. Seems the universe had quite a lucky day when all those quantum particles did whatever and became a Big Bang? Good glory. This stuff is hard, which is why I was hoping folks who understand it would be willing to try to explain it in layman's terms.
What is Nothing?

But was it luck, as in a random act without a cause? Or was it by design however that could or did happen? Don't know, but I am not going to discount anybody's opinion or ideas on the subject.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This is in response to the deeply indoctrinated disciples that believe matter can come from nothing? Good luck with that, you're better off with a Moonie.

I really liked that not-so-subtle dig.

So where did the Universe come from when there was nothing in the beginning? Not a sermon, just a question?

What is truly astounding is how closely the biblical version of events parallels what modern science believes.

Now...about the origin of the universe.....and the fact that modern science now accepts the very same order of events as Genesis.....

1. God’s first command in Genesis is “Let there be light.” Nor is this the only introduction of light in the Genesis creation account, but it is the first, it represents the beginning of the formation of our solar system. 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! 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.



2. Modern science has largely revealed the earth’s history with respect to the land and the seas. Coincidently, the first chapter of the Bible relates a formation, a creation narrative, strangely similar to scientific understanding.


a. Genesis 1: 6-10…”And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dryland appear: and it was so. And God called the dry landEarth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it wasgood.


b. “The formation of the sea as well as the land is chosen as the second stage in the creation on the Bible’s first page. Modern science reveals that land and sea certainly were in place before the next stage in the scientific account of the history of the universe.” Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” p.54. What a coincidence….or confluence.


Curious, the author of Genesis lived in a landlocked region; and Moses wandered in the desert, not along the coast. Yet…sea and land appear in this prominent position in Genesis. Must be a coincidence….



3. The opening page of Genesis asserts that plant life appeared after the seas were formed, and names specifically, grass, herbs and fruit trees. According to the author of Genesis, this is the stage where life actually begins: this is the first mention life of any kind. Plant life. Yet, the simple forms of life that are considered plant life were not discovered until a couple of millennia after Genesis was completed. So…how come Genesis mentions grass, herbs, and fruit trees at precisely this moment on the creation narrative? Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter four.


a. Genesis 1: 11-12 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed,and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.


b. “ From about 400 million years back to 600 million years, all kinds of complex multicellular life would have been confined to the waters of the earth….Our world's ecosystems depend upon photosynthesis to construct the fuel that all life runs on; in an ancient world with conditions similar to today's, you would need plants (as organisms that can make complex "fuel" molecules using simple building blocks and energy available from the environment, plants are known as one type of autotrophs, or "self-feeders") to evolve first, or there would be no bottom link to the food chain.” Biology of Animals & Plants - Origins & History of Life on Earth



4. Track the events in the creation account of Genesis and it’s amazing how closely the events conform to the current view of modern science. An explosion- the universe – oceans/land - plants- …And next, in verse 20, we find: And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.


Kind of unusual…since the author of Genesis, and, if we are to believe that the first one to speak those words, Moses, didn’t really live in a habitat that one might call ‘sea side.’


Would have been understandable if this space in the Bible had, instead, have focused on the numbers of land mammals, birds, or insects found in ancient Israel, wouldn’t it? But, instead, marine organisms are specifically named: ‘Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life,…’


Wouldn’t it be interesting if science find lots and lots of marine organisms extant at this point? Imagine if Genesis actually parallels the history of life on earth as expounded by science. Be a heck of a coincidence.

a. A truly important development took place some 521 million years ago, in the geological period known as the Cambrian. “The most abundant and diverse animals of Cambrian time were the trilobites. Trilobites had long antennae, compound eyes, many jointed legs, and a hard exoskeleton like many of their modern arthropod relatives, such as lobsters, crabs, and insects. The Cambrian is sometimes called the "Age of Trilobites"…” Redirect


b. No earlier fossils were found during Darwin’s lifetime: “If the theory [evolution] be true it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited ... the world swarmed with living creatures. [Yet] to the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these earliest periods. . . I can give no satisfactory answer. The case at present must remain inexplicable.” http://www.paleosoc.org/Oldest_Fossil.pdf

....life at this stage, about 500 million years ago, was entirely marine.

How could the Genesis writer have gotten this right?

That writer…he’s landlocked, knows little of diversity….what are the odds that ‘chance’ is the answer?


What are the odds?



5. The sequence of events from the creation of the universe, to the present, begin with great explosion that produces the universe, including the earth. The earth cools enough for oceans to form. The first life is plant life, able to photosynthesize, and add oxygen to the atmosphere. All sorts of simple non-plants fill the seas, most wormlike, with soft bodies. Along come the trilobites, hugely advanced, with hard bodies…and most amazingly, with true eyes! This makes them the primary predators….but, imposes enormous evolutionary pressure on the other organisms. The result is the Cambrian explosion, lots of small organisms with defensive armor and hard exoskeletons, some 521 million years ago. So says modern science.


a. “…Genesis shows remarkable accuracy when compared to the scientific story of life’s evolutionary journey. Here, the Genesis writer envisioned great creatures evolving from those tiny Cambrian forms, eventually making their way out of the sea….Genesis seems to have picked out all the events of the highest order of importance, and put them in the right order….I don’t know the odds against such a parallel- against making a successful guess at the scientific orthodoxy of three thousand year into the future from a knowledge base of nothing- but they must be extraordinarily long.” Parker, Op. Cit., p.163-164.


b. An interesting sidelight is the ‘evolution of the Bible’ itself. Christians have incorporated a great deal of science’s process. Early in the 20th century, the Scofield Reference Bible was published. This was a new version of the King James Bible with which added a note to Genesis, suggesting what is called the “gap theory.’ It allows that millions of years could have passed between God’s creation of the heavens and the earth, thereby freeing Genesis from the literal six-day process. “What it left was a series- the same series- of timeless events; and it is these that match the scientific account of life’s history.” Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” p. 160.


6. Unavoidable is the recognition that, once the restrictions due to the ‘six-day’ view are removed, the order of events established by modern science conform to the sequence in the first chapter of Genesis, written millennia earlier: light from an explosion (the Big Bang), universe/earth formed, the seas from the cooling earth, plants as the first life forms; abundant sea life (the Cambrian explosion), the (evolution) of the flora and fauna we see today. Neat, eh?

Lucky guess by the author of the creation account of Genesis?


7. If it is not evidence for the God, then the author of Genesis 1, or Moses, perhaps, must have understood that the universe formed first, then the seas appeared on earth, and that life forms were photosynthetic. Following that, he had to have realized that an eye evolved in an early animal in the geological past, which triggered the evolution of all the major groups of animals that exist today. Still further, he must have felt that all of this occurred in the seas, before animals moved onto land, and only when they did move out of the water did mammals and birds evolve.
See Parker's "The Genesis Enigma"



The Old Testament was written, although not compiled, almost three millennia ago. It is extraordinary that the writer of the creation account in Genesis, chapter one, got it right in his exposition of the series of events: his sequence turns out to be scientifically accurate in terms of contemporary knowledge.


Wow! What an incredibly lucky guess! What a considerable stroke of good fortune!


The alternative explanation is divine intervention.