Why do/don't you believe in a higher power? (Any HP)

[The New California Republic]

How is science, in its explanations of how the world came to be, not talking about the same thing as the creation stories from the Bible? The subject matter, how the world came to be, is the same. Your Tom Sawyer and Warren Commission comparison is not even remotely talking about the same thing. If it was meant to be some really fucking weird "gotcha" attempt then the attempt fails miserably.

Generally, texts written before the common era, and texts written near our location in the common era are not talking about the same thing... even if you think they appear to.

Oh come on. Stop splitting hairs. Both science and Bible creation stories deal with how the world came to be.

[Menassa]

Generally, texts written before the common era, and texts written near our location in the common era are not talking about the same thing... even if you think they appear to.

[...]Stop splitting hairs[...]

I'm afraid my friend, that truth of the matter often lies between two split hairs.

[New Legland]

[...]Stop splitting hairs[...]

I'm afraid my friend, that truth of the matter often lies between two split hairs.

If Genesis isn't failing at describing the creation of Earth, what is it describing?

[The New California Republic]

Oh come on. Stop splitting hairs. Both science and Bible creation stories deal with how the world came to be.

[...]Stop splitting hairs[...]

I'm afraid my friend, that truth of the matter often lies between two split hairs.

So you can't answer then; and instead resort to editing my quote to negate what I said? That speaks volumes. If you want to be awkward, fine, but my point stands: both science and the Biblical creation stories talk about the creation of the world, regardless of how much you strangely and inexplicably do not want it to be so.

[The New California Republic]

I'm afraid my friend, that truth of the matter often lies between two split hairs.

If Genesis isn't failing at describing the creation of Earth, what is it describing?

Fuck knows. Menassa obviously has some weird and wonderful alternative interpretation of Genesis that they alone hold, in contrast to everyone else. But to be perfectly honest I think Menassa knows fine well that Genesis is describing the creation of the Earth; it is just inconvenient to admit it.

[Menassa]

If Genesis isn't failing at describing the creation of Earth, what is it describing?

Fuck knows. Menassa obviously has some weird and wonderful alternative interpretation of Genesis that they alone hold, in contrast to everyone else. But to be perfectly honest I think Menassa knows fine well that Genesis is describing the creation of the Earth; it is just inconvenient to admit it.

I'm afraid my friend, that truth of the matter often lies between two split hairs.

If Genesis isn't failing at describing the creation of Earth, what is it describing?

I mean there's your first of many problems here, and provides direct insight into what I'm describing.

Big Bang = Creation of the Universe
Genesis = Creation of the Earth

Y'all are talking millennia past each other

[West Leas Oros 2]

Fuck knows. Menassa obviously has some weird and wonderful alternative interpretation of Genesis that they alone hold, in contrast to everyone else. But to be perfectly honest I think Menassa knows fine well that Genesis is describing the creation of the Earth; it is just inconvenient to admit it.

If Genesis isn't failing at describing the creation of Earth, what is it describing?

I mean there's your first of many problems here, and provides direct insight into what I'm describing.

Big Bang = Creation of the Universe
Genesis = Creation of the Earth

Y'all are talking millennia past each other

Either way, the Earth is actually about 4.5 billion years old.

[Neutraligon]

Fuck knows. Menassa obviously has some weird and wonderful alternative interpretation of Genesis that they alone hold, in contrast to everyone else. But to be perfectly honest I think Menassa knows fine well that Genesis is describing the creation of the Earth; it is just inconvenient to admit it.

If Genesis isn't failing at describing the creation of Earth, what is it describing?

I mean there's your first of many problems here, and provides direct insight into what I'm describing.

Big Bang = Creation of the Universe
Genesis = Creation of the Earth

Y'all are talking millennia past each other

So why does Genesis include the creation of the sun moon and stars?

[The New California Republic]

Fuck knows. Menassa obviously has some weird and wonderful alternative interpretation of Genesis that they alone hold, in contrast to everyone else. But to be perfectly honest I think Menassa knows fine well that Genesis is describing the creation of the Earth; it is just inconvenient to admit it.

If Genesis isn't failing at describing the creation of Earth, what is it describing?

I mean there's your first of many problems here, and provides direct insight into what I'm describing.

Big Bang = Creation of the Universe
Genesis = Creation of the Earth

Science covers the formation of the Earth and the species on it as well, not just the Big Bang. No matter how much you force it, you cannot make science and Genesis out to be talking about different things.

[Menassa]

I mean there's your first of many problems here, and provides direct insight into what I'm describing.

Big Bang = Creation of the Universe
Genesis = Creation of the Earth

Y'all are talking millennia past each other

Either way, the Earth is actually about 4.5 billion years old.

Okay?

[Menassa]

I mean there's your first of many problems here, and provides direct insight into what I'm describing.

Big Bang = Creation of the Universe
Genesis = Creation of the Earth

Science covers the formation of the Earth and the species on it as well, not just the Big Bang. No matter how much you force it, you cannot make science and Genesis out to be talking about different things.

Genesis also covers the creation of the universe, but you seem not to see it that way.

[The New California Republic]

Science covers the formation of the Earth and the species on it as well, not just the Big Bang. No matter how much you force it, you cannot make science and Genesis out to be talking about different things.

Genesis also covers the creation of the universe, but you seem not to see it that way.

I know that it does, I never said that it didn't, so I don't know where the hell you have got that notion from.

But that doesn't answer what I said.

[Menassa]

I mean there's your first of many problems here, and provides direct insight into what I'm describing.

Big Bang = Creation of the Universe
Genesis = Creation of the Earth

Y'all are talking millennia past each other

So why does Genesis include the creation of the sun moon and stars?

I was quoting them, Genesis covers the creation of the universe, obviously.

[The New California Republic]

So why does Genesis include the creation of the sun moon and stars?

I was quoting them, Genesis covers the creation of the universe, obviously.

So both science and Genesis talk about the formation of the universe, Earth, and the species on Earth. We got there eventually.

[Menassa]

Genesis also covers the creation of the universe, but you seem not to see it that way.

I know that it does, I never said that it didn't, so I don't know where the hell you have got that notion from.

But that doesn't answer what I said.

My guy.

Oh come on. Stop splitting hairs. Both science and Bible creation stories deal with how the world came to be.

I'm afraid my friend, that truth of the matter often lies between two split hairs.

So you can't answer then; and instead resort to editing my quote to negate what I said? That speaks volumes. If you want to be awkward, fine, but my point stands: both science and the Biblical creation stories talk about the creation of the world, regardless of how much you strangely and inexplicably do not want it to be so.

[The New California Republic]

I know that it does, I never said that it didn't, so I don't know where the hell you have got that notion from.

But that doesn't answer what I said.

My guy.

So you can't answer then; and instead resort to editing my quote to negate what I said? That speaks volumes. If you want to be awkward, fine, but my point stands: both science and the Biblical creation stories talk about the creation of the world, regardless of how much you strangely and inexplicably do not want it to be so.

But I never said that it talked about that alone. I know fine well that it talks about the creation of the universe too. Stop splitting hairs for fuck's sake.

[Salandriagado]

Fuck knows. Menassa obviously has some weird and wonderful alternative interpretation of Genesis that they alone hold, in contrast to everyone else. But to be perfectly honest I think Menassa knows fine well that Genesis is describing the creation of the Earth; it is just inconvenient to admit it.

If Genesis isn't failing at describing the creation of Earth, what is it describing?

I mean there's your first of many problems here, and provides direct insight into what I'm describing.

Big Bang = Creation of the Universe
Genesis = Creation of the Earth

Y'all are talking millennia past each other

We aren't only talking about the big bang. We're also talking about the scientific explanation of how the earth formed.

And you're literally six orders of magnitude out.

[Alvecia]

My guy.

But I never said that it talked about that alone. I know fine well that it talks about the creation of the universe too. Stop splitting hairs for fuck's sake.

Ah, but can not a camel fit through the eye of the genesis of a split hair

[The New California Republic]

But I never said that it talked about that alone. I know fine well that it talks about the creation of the universe too. Stop splitting hairs for fuck's sake.

Ah, but can not a camel fit through the eye of the genesis of a split hair

Menassa is using a microscope for the task at this point, to somehow make it so that Genesis and science are talking about different things.

[Soleanna]

Because religion is man-made period.

[The Greater Low Countries]

You're right. The word in the Complete Jewish Bible is "and", not "now". I would like to argue that because of the ancientness of the language and the fact that it's not English you might be able to say one or the other (or both), but I think we're at a stalemate.
It was nice talking with you, may God bless you on your journey through life.


The Creation story obviously has no proof for itself. It's creation. Scientifically, any explanation for the existence of the universe is impossible -- the scientific method demands repeatable and observable proof of your hypothesis. Therefore, because we cannot experience the universe, nor can we create it again, any Creation story must be considered a myth.

Erm, no. We have lots of evidence for how the universe was created.

But can you reproduce it? No. Notice how I'm not saying I can reproduce my evidence either.
Does the Bible outright contradict any ideas of the effects of the Big Bang? Does the Big Bang Theory outright contradict any effects of Biblical Creation?

As for secular archaeology (I use this word because I am pretty sure you guys really hate it when Christian archaeology is brought up), there's evidence for the existence of Israel, Judah, Jesus, and other Biblical figures. I am aware that the validity of most of the history before 800 BC is questionable.

It's not questionable, it's just outright wrong, pretty much across the board. There was absolutely not a global flood, there was never a significant Jewish population in Egypt, etc., etc., etc.

How come so many ancient civilizations have flood myths? Chance?
As for the Jewish in Egypt, I really have not researched that and will have to concede to you on that.
But do you believe that there is evidence that the Bible contains at least a little bit of historical accuracy? E.g. Tel Dan Stele, Black Obelisk?

Tell me, do you think we can learn about a crime from a crime scene? We can learn about the universe from close to the big bang the same way we learn about a crime, from the evidence it leaves behind. As for archaeology, did you know that Ronald Reagan was in the spiderman comics? Does that make spiderman real?

A crime scene is full of evidence, and the evidence can be pointed to a cause, but, depending on who is investigating the crime scene, the evidence can be made to point to a specific cause.
Also, the Spider-Man analogy is kind of broken because I would argue there is evidence of a god extra-Biblically.

Fuck knows. Menassa obviously has some weird and wonderful alternative interpretation of Genesis that they alone hold, in contrast to everyone else. But to be perfectly honest I think Menassa knows fine well that Genesis is describing the creation of the Earth; it is just inconvenient to admit it.

Day 4 is all about Sun, Moon, & stars. Nothing about Earth there. While Genesis does place special emphasis on Earth, according to the "literal day" theory, God's creation of space and the Earth was around the same time.

[Alvecia]

It's not questionable, it's just outright wrong, pretty much across the board. There was absolutely not a global flood, there was never a significant Jewish population in Egypt, etc., etc., etc.

How come so many ancient civilizations have flood myths? Chance?

This might come as a surprise, but many early civilisations built cities next to rivers. Which flood.

[Neutraligon]

Erm, no. We have lots of evidence for how the universe was created.

But can you reproduce it? No. Notice how I'm not saying I can reproduce my evidence either.
Does the Bible outright contradict any ideas of the effects of the Big Bang? Does the Big Bang Theory outright contradict any effects of Biblical Creation?

I once again point to crime scenes and the science associated with it.

A crime scene is full of evidence, and the evidence can be pointed to a cause, but, depending on who is investigating the crime scene, the evidence can be made to point to a specific cause.
Also, the Spider-Man analogy is kind of broken because I would argue there is evidence of a god extra-Biblically.

And there is evidence left over from how the universe came about. No it is an exact copy of the argument you made also then provide that evidence.

[Salandriagado]

Erm, no. We have lots of evidence for how the universe was created.

But can you reproduce it? No. Notice how I'm not saying I can reproduce my evidence either.

Yes, we can reproduce the tests.

Does the Bible outright contradict any ideas of the effects of the Big Bang?

No, but the rest of cosmology/the history of the universe, yes.

Does the Big Bang Theory outright contradict any effects of Biblical Creation?

This is the same question as the above.

It's not questionable, it's just outright wrong, pretty much across the board. There was absolutely not a global flood, there was never a significant Jewish population in Egypt, etc., etc., etc.

How come so many ancient civilizations have flood myths? Chance?

All of them developed near rivers. Rivers flood sometimes. People exaggerate.

As for the Jewish in Egypt, I really have not researched that and will have to concede to you on that.
But do you believe that there is evidence that the Bible contains at least a little bit of historical accuracy? E.g. Tel Dan Stele, Black Obelisk?

Sure. Vastly less than say, Harry Potter, but not none. This doesn't mean anything.

[The Greater Low Countries]

But can you reproduce it? No. Notice how I'm not saying I can reproduce my evidence either.
Does the Bible outright contradict any ideas of the effects of the Big Bang? Does the Big Bang Theory outright contradict any effects of Biblical Creation?

I once again point to crime scenes and the science associated with it.

A crime scene is full of evidence, and the evidence can be pointed to a cause, but, depending on who is investigating the crime scene, the evidence can be made to point to a specific cause.
Also, the Spider-Man analogy is kind of broken because I would argue there is evidence of a god extra-Biblically.

And there is evidence left over from how the universe came about. No it is an exact copy of the argument you made also then provide that evidence.

There are so many variables that need to be in just the right range for life to form. Did you know that the Sun is in a "dark spot" in our galaxy, where the density of stars is relatively low? If our Sun was closer to the bands of closer-together stars, we'd never have existed due to solar wind and radiation. If you think about it, any argument you can make for Earth having perfect conditions for life is determined by a variable. All these probabilities stacked together result in an inconcievably low chance of our existence, yet we are here.

But can you reproduce it? No. Notice how I'm not saying I can reproduce my evidence either.

Yes, we can reproduce the tests.

Does the Bible outright contradict any ideas of the effects of the Big Bang?

No, but the rest of cosmology/the history of the universe, yes.

Does the Big Bang Theory outright contradict any effects of Biblical Creation?

This is the same question as the above.

There's a few verses which refer to God "stretching out the heavens", which might explain redshift. Or it could be a Hebrew metaphor. Or was that not what you were saying?

How come so many ancient civilizations have flood myths? Chance?

All of them developed near rivers. Rivers flood sometimes. People exaggerate.

Still, don't they seem oddly similar when you read them? It could be a red herring, but it's an awfully fascinating one.

As for the Jewish in Egypt, I really have not researched that and will have to concede to you on that.
But do you believe that there is evidence that the Bible contains at least a little bit of historical accuracy? E.g. Tel Dan Stele, Black Obelisk?

Sure. Vastly less than say, Harry Potter, but not none. This doesn't mean anything.

Well, it means that the Bible has at least a little bit of truth, even if we've only gotten to verifiable history. It's not a lot to go on, but it's something.
How much do we "really know" about the Hebrew nation? Seriously, I'm curious.